The Solution To “Wind Turbine Study” Pollution Is Dilution‏

CirclesAs one reads the various comments about the Health Canada Wind Turbine Study, there’s so much that’s wrong/mangled/bungled that one gets bug-eyed with all the conflicting statements in the study summary. Is anyone doing quality control here?  Denise Wolfe wrote an excellent critique detailing the numerous errors and inconsistencies; but, one thing in particular caught my eye: the extension of the survey area to a 10 km radius beyond a wind turbine.  Why was that done? Dr. Alec Salt once neatly sumed up what this little trick is about. Read on:


Why pro-wind studies often use a 10 km radius

by Alec Salt, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine

Last week I was reading of an Australian study, by a Professor Gary Wittert, which had shown sleeping pill usage for those living near wind turbines was no greater than the general population . The study compared those living within 10 km of turbines with those living more than 10 km away. There have been similar studies with property values using a 5 mile or 10 km radius that showed property values are not affected by wind turbines.  Had you ever thought why they pick a 10 km radius?

Consider this graphic. It shows 1 km bands with the calculated area for each band shown in blue.  Let’s keep it easy and assume that households are evenly distributed and there is one household for every 10 square kilometers.

So, within 2 km (the two innermost bands) of the turbine, the area is 3.1 + 9.4 km2 (=12.5 km2) which would represent 1.2 households.

Now let’s consider the two outermost (9 km and 10 km) bands. The area of these bands is 53.4 + 59.7 km2 (= 113.1 km2) which represents 113 households. So the outermost bands have about TEN TIMES the number of households of those living within 2 km, making sure that the contribution of the inner bands is diluted, swamped, covered up or however else you would describe it.

Or consider if you live within 2 km of a turbine. The outer bands of those living from 2 – 10 km from the turbine adds up to 301.6 km2, which would represent 30.1 households – which is 24 TIMES the number of households within 2 km.

No wonder your voice is being “drowned out”. The bigger the circle, the more “dilution” occurs.

Add this to the list of things where “size matters”, and next time you see a study like this, consider the radius and area that was chosen. The choice of the circle size plays a major role in the result obtained and speaks volumes about the motivation of the author.

Dr. Alec Salt


 

Add the Health Canada Study team to the list of villains that includes the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and the Environmental Tribunal (ERT).

Each turbine is like a discrete little blob of toxic industrial technology – like a dump.   The “mitigation strategy” is to disperse them over a broader area, but not too far, that would be too expensive.  When the close-in  residents are affected and an investigation is called for; well, just broaden the study area and the complaints will be diluted by the larger pool, as Dr. Salt has shown.

It’s a simple tactic, and a rigorous study design should have prevented such trickery.  So, the obvious question is: who put this in? Was this person(s) stupid? Malicious?

Why does this industry need so much help?

Harvey Wrightman

5 thoughts on “The Solution To “Wind Turbine Study” Pollution Is Dilution‏

  1. http://www.wellingtonadvertiser.com/comments/index.cfm?articleID=23862

    ‘[excerpt] The Canadian Wind Energy Association welcomed the new research.

    “Based on the summary, the Health Canada study is an important new addition to scientific research on wind turbines and human health. We look forward to reviewing the results of the Health Canada study in more detail and will continue to monitor the scientific literature in this area,” CanWEA president Robert Hornung said in a press release.

    “The balance of scientific evidence to date continues to show that properly-sited wind turbines are not harmful to human health and that wind energy remains one of the safest and environmentally friendly forms of electricity generation.”’

    CANWEA admits wind turbines have been improperly-sited.
    Which turbines are these?
    Where has the industry (and governments) publicly reported these improperly-sited IWT?

  2. Thanks Harvey. This is very helpful.

    To those who haven’t,
    Read Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm

  3. I agree completely…..where are these improperly sited turbines? What does an improperly sited turbine look like? The way these things CONTINUE to be sited are definitely improper! A turbine should never be sited so close as there is ANY possibility of hearing or feeling vibrations at a non-participating property.

  4. The joy of statistics… 🙁

    I just received a copy of the reports and have done a quick scan.

    This is not the only problem — the largest one being that the conclusions published don’t seem to match the studies I received. Ah well…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *