Health

19 Responses to Health

1. Tom Stacy says:

   08/08/2009 at 13:15

   Wow, guys. Great web site, and great organization of content!

   Reply

2. Pingback: Tim Hudak likes the simple targets « E N V I R O G Y

3. Barry Bridgeford says:

   05/31/2010 at 09:00

   http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/windmill.html

   May 28, 2010

   “Stimulation of the OHC occurs at infrasound levels substantially below the levels that are heard. We calculate that stimulation of the OHC occurs at approximately 30-40 dB below sensation level depending on frequency. The concept that sounds that you cannot hear can have no influence on the inner ear is incorrect. Infrasounds that cannot be heard DO influence inner ear function.

   The practice of A-weighting measurements of wind turbine noise underestimates the influence of this noise on the inner ear.”

   Reply
4. David Robinson says:

   05/31/2010 at 09:57

   Look at the site referenced by Barry:

   It is well worth looking at. It gives you a good understanding of why the wind turbines can be so troublesome to people.

   Unfortunately the paper will be behind a pay-wall when it is released, but maybe somebody could buy a copy for our chief medical officer. Perhaps she will even read it.

   Perhaps our Premier might find time in his busy schedule to read it and maybe he will realize that his trusted advisers are full of…. themselves.

   Reply
5. Barry Bridgeford says:

   06/13/2010 at 11:56

   I recently added to my website observations relating to the generation of infrasound by wind turbines … “I believe that a simple, clear and distinctive descriptive label for this process will help to ‘spread the word’. So, I’m coining the term ‘Clear Air Turbulence Vortex Infrasound Effect’ and its acronym ‘CATVIE’ to describe the process by which large industrial wind turbines produce infrasound.”

   Since then I’ve come across scientific documentation of the formation of infrasound by the tornado-like vortices and the vortices of tornados …

   http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-327.pdf

   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7639/is_200803/ai_n32268180/

   With these studies, we now have a firm indication of the mechanism by which the horizontal vortex of a wind turbine actually produces infrasound and a better understanding of how wind turbines generate their physiological impacts on people.

   Reply
6. Randy says:

   06/22/2010 at 15:25

   It’s hard for the Government to have any credibility in assessing potential health issues…Heard today that all of the people who worked on the clean-up crew for the Exxon Valdez are dead now…They died prematurely before age 51 on average…likely from Oil dispersants that the U.S. Government allowed clean up crews to use…as reported by CNN…

   In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer just reads some literature and indicates that there are no health issues associated with Industrial Wind Farms….apparently she never conducted any studies of her own or spoke to anyone to determine the reality of the situation since much of the current literature is funded by Wind Energy Companies….

   Be very afraid. !@#$…We need more studies by someone who doesn’t have their head buried in their own butt….

   Reply
7. Barry Bridgeford says:

   06/24/2010 at 15:57

   Industrial wind turbine proponents, be they industrialists or politicians, have become very adept at twisting words both in an effort to mislead others and in a self-deceiving exercise to convince themselves.

   A prime example is “industrial wind turbines don’t produce infrasound in sufficient levels to impact health”. Technically, that is true. The units themselves don’t directly emit dangerous levels of infrasound.

   However, they do produce immense down-wind vortices of differing barometric air pressure (as is the prevailing cause in bat deaths), which in turn produce the “Clear Air Turbulence Vortex Infrasound Effect” (CATVIE).

   So, by avoiding the fact that industrial Wind Turbines “cause” dangerous levels of infrasound which impact human health, the proponents instead claim that the turbines don’t “produce” significant infrasound. They are then able to go before the public, with their self-spinned-cleared-consciences, and state that industrial wind turbines don’t produce infrasound .. true, but they do cause it!

   Beware the “windbaggers” and “spin-doctors”!

   Reply
8. Debbie Whitmore says:

   07/06/2010 at 19:52

   My deepest concern goes out to the people living by the Wind Turbines. I strongly urge the government to look into the health concerns of these wind turnbines and stop ignoring the health issues that they are causing for these innocent people.

   Reply

9. Pingback: Tim Hudak likes the simple targets » Jamblemag Green Economy

10. Pingback: Tim Hudak likes the simple targets | E N V I R O G Y

11. Dewey Greengrass says:

    11/11/2010 at 23:42

    Visual health effects?

    Reply
12. Klym Bolechowsky says:

    11/23/2010 at 13:13

    It is dissappointing to hear groups like this spinning false health effect information about wind energy. Would you prefer more coal-fired power plants releasing mercury and other pollutants into the air? Are you concerned about health impacts of living near a road and the air emissions and noise from traffic? Stop being resistant to change and blocking the adoption of renewable energy. If you don’t want to be part of a positive societal change at least get out of the way.

    Reply
13. WCO says:

    11/23/2010 at 14:17

    You will all be happy to know that the above poster is a well paid Environmental Engineer contracted by our Federal government:

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/contracts-contrats/index.cfm?lang=en&state=detail&id=21581&quarter=2&fiscal=2008%2C%202009

    This is a reflection of the state of mindless arrogance we’re dealing with. So wind is going to replace coal, Mr. Bolechowsky? Oh, really?? They pay you the big bucks to come up with that?

    Reply
14. David Robinson says:

    11/23/2010 at 15:55

    Klym:

    Rather than a slagging match, why don’t you have a look at these studies by Ross McKitrick. Then I would be happy to debate you.

    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/ontario-energy-policy.html

    WIND ENERGY CONFERENCE: In October 2010 I made a presentation to the Society for Wind Vigilance conference on wind energy and social justice. My presentation was called

    * The Case Against the Case Against Conventional Energy. (note: 3MB)

    THERMAL POWER PLANTS: Here in Ontario the government has adopted the regrettable idea of shutting down our thermal power plants. I have presented counter-arguments in a few places. The most comprehensive is:

    * *McKitrick, Ross R., Kenneth Green and Joel Schwartz (2005) Pain Without Gain: Shutting Down Coal-Fired Power Plants Would Hurt Ontario”. Fraser Institute, January 2005.

    A 2007 presentation, to a conference organized by the Queen’s Institute of Energy and the Environment, made the same case very briefly:

    * McKitrick, Ross R. (2007) “The Case for Keeping Ontario’s Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Invited presentation to Queen’s University Institute of Energy and Environmental Policy conference “The Future of Coal in Ontario.” Toronto, May 10 2007.

    I also did a review of the Ontario Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Power Workers’ Union in 2004.

    * McKitrick, Ross R. (2004). “Power Plants, Air Quality and Health: The Case for Re-examining Ontario’s Coal Policy” Prepared for the Power Workers Union, May 2004.

    A related paper is my 2004 paper on particulates and affluence, published in the Fraser Forum.

    * McKitrick, Ross R. (2004). “Particulates, Energy Consumption and Affluence” Fraser Forum April 2004

    Feel free to have a look at my paper “Watts with the Wind” as well as clicking on my name… and see the Ontario Wind Performance site. Please note that I use only the official numbers and have not yet been challenged as to presenting any incorrect information — except for one correction as to Tom Adams on date of service of turbines.

    Have a look at Powering Ontario. Section 3.1

    If you find errors of fact or omission in my work I will be pleased to correct it and credit you.

    Thank you.

    Reply
15. Klym Bolechowsky says:

    11/23/2010 at 16:30

    Hi WCO, David,

    I don’t think wind energy will not replace coal but will be part of a diversified portfolio of energy generation that will need to include a larger percentage of renewables. I was listening to the CBC this morning and heard a segment on wind power that mentioned there were concerns about health effects:

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2010/11/23/nov-2310—pt-3-wind-power/

    It was the first time I’d heard the issue of health effects raised in association with wind turbines so I was surprised and reacted somewhat angrily in my post, my apologies. I don’t understand what the health impacts could be (the radio segment didn’t discuss them) but I will read some of the recent literature on the subject and the documents you reference to educate myself. My concern is society’s urgent need to meet growing energy demand, reduce environmental and health impacts of generation, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

    Thanks

    Reply
16. David Robinson says:

    11/23/2010 at 16:40

    Klym:

    Understandable.

    My first reaction when I looked at the power output figures I generated was that I was wrong.

    Please look for articles on infra-sound. The speculation — backed by some empirical evidence is that infra-sound likely upsets inner ear function and upsets balance function — among other issues.

    BTW — my numbers show that Ontario has never had an (electrical at least) energy shortage. The love affair with wind turbines appears to be misplaced ardor.

    My background is somewhat similar to yours. My point on the paper I did was that high school math was sufficient to cast doubt on the positive reports of wind power contribution. (Not a partial differential equation in the works…)

    My papers an the short article here..
    http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/chapter-3-1-powering-ontario/

    Provide links to the real time data. After analyzing all the data since 2002 I conclude that IESO does a pretty good job — despite all the politics.

    Reply
17. WCO says:

    11/23/2010 at 17:36

    You brought up the coal, Klym, not I.

    So if I don’t want a 40 storey spinning electrical generator just meters from where my children sleep….therefore I MUST want to breathe nasty coal fumes. There is a serious disconnect in your logic. We’re used to being attacked by people who refuse to listen or investigate what we are saying. Meh.

    The same symptoms are being reported all over the world..UK, US, Japan, Australia, Ontario, Germany, Denmark. So if you simply cannot fathom that there might just be, perhaps something there to look at….so be it.

    I know the culture you work in and we are dismissed as nuts or whatever. It’s really sad to see the lack of compassion for these people.

    Reply
18. Barry Bridgeford says:

    06/08/2011 at 15:25

    I just saw an ad on TV which caused me to check out the Dyson Canada website’s “Fans” section .. http://www.english.dysoncanada.ca/fans/

    This fan company has recognized the unpleasant effects of “buffetting” in the case of small “fans” and has developed an alternative mechanism to propel air .. quote: “Dyson Air Multiplier™ fans work very differently from conventional fans. They use Air Multiplier™ technology to draw in air and amplify it up to 18 times, producing an uninterrupted stream of smooth air. With no blades or grille, they’re safe, easy to clean and don’t cause unpleasant buffeting.”

    If a fan company can recognize the impact of “buffetting” or “turbulence” on their small scale .. then why can’t someone try to develop a similar power generator by literally “reverse engineering” their concept? Afterall, it is the IWTs’ blades’ “buffetting” or “turbulence” which generates the infrasound which causes the main health problems.

    Reply
19. Dave Bartlett says:

    12/26/2011 at 01:51

    Does anyone know why Health Canada hasn’t recognized the health risks associated with infrasound from wind turbines? I know it’s a fairly recently recognized hazard, but there is nothing on the Health Canada web pages. See http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/contaminants/vulnerable/index-eng.php
    http://hc-sc.gc.ca/home-accueil/search-recherche/site-eng.php
    and also http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/index-eng.php

    It seems to me the Federal Government is also letting us down, instead of looking out for our best health interests.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.