"Men with a special gift for nonsense" (H.L. Mencken)

Dec 13, 2009


Charlie Porter & friends
Shameless Missouri liar, Charlie Porter.  (See “This doesn’t make me mad. This doesn’t piss me off. This infuriates me!”)

“Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines will not directly affect the body because the levels are too low and the body is full of low frequency masking sources [Editor to author:  What’s this drivel supposed to mean?]. . . . The level of infrasound produced by wind turbines is below the audible threshold and has not been shown to negatively affect human health [Editor to author:  Really?  You mean all this work by Pierpont is so much moonshine?  You mean . . . her clinical expertise has been debunked by a non-clinician who hires himself to wind developers?  Wow, she’s some dope!]. . . . Low frequency sound produced by wind turbines may sometimes be within the audible range, but is not problematic from a human health perspective unless it is loud enough to stress the listener, which it normally is not [Editor to reader:  This wisdom comes to you, ladies & gentlemen, from a physicist, not a physician—the physicist who’s paid as a “consultant” by Big Wind]. . . . The so-called ‘wind turbine syndrome’ cannot be distinguished from the stress effects from a persistent and unwanted sound”—Geoff Leventhall, PhD (physics, not medicine), fall 2009 to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” (Upton Sinclair, 1935).

“Nature, not content with denying him the faculty of thinking, has endowed him with the faculty of writing” (A.E. Housman). 

Ripley, Ontario (Canada)
Ripley, Ontario (Canada) liars

“There appears to be no evidence that human health is compromised by the infrasound, low frequency or broad spectrum noise produced by the current generation of wind turbines. Characteristic noises from wind turbines, such as the swishing sound, may be exaggerated due to unique meteorological conditions or aerodynamic features of the turbine design; however, annoyance due to this effect is rare and, in many cases, can be minimized through modifications in turbine design and operation.  AECOM concludes that:  (1) The proposed outdoor noise criterion of 50 dBA for receptors near wind turbine developments is acceptable from a human health perspective.  (2) None of the studies completed to date meet epidemiological standards, nor do they demonstrate adverse effects on human health due to sound at levels produced by modern turbines [Editor:  Keep in mind that none of the authors of this “report” commissioned by WE Energies is a physician.  Besides, there’s always Al Capone’s famous advice, “Follow the money!”]” (AECOM to WE Energies, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 9/3/09).

Makara residents, NZ
Makara, NZ, liars

Ridgewind project director, Ben Moore, said: “It’s unfortunate that, up and down the country, vocal individuals decide to object when it comes to wind farms. They argue that they have nothing against renewable energy—but just not where they live. A lot of the reasons people came up with, such as health and noise, were spurious”   (Leicester Mercury 8/29/09).

See “Hell on Earth” (Australia)

Timothy Allen, professor of botany and environmental studies at UW-Madison and an expert on renewable energy, said any health effects are likely self-induced and psychological.  “I think it’s people who don’t want their skyline messed up,” Allen said  (Wisconsin State Journal 8/29/09).

“It seems incredible that men capable of such [risible blather] should hold important chairs in American colleges of any pretensions, but it remains a fact. Some of the worst of them are really very doggy, and now and then favor the general public with specimens of their learning” (H.L. Mencken).

See “Hell on Earth” (Australia)

Christopher Moore [Nature Energies] added that he has reviewed studies that indicate that the majority of people are not bothered by noise generated by wind farms.  “In my opinion, and in the opinion of thousands of people who live near wind farms, the sound is not objectionable,” he said.  Moore noted that he does not believe there are any adverse health effects created by wind farms.  “I’ve worked around these for years, and I’ve not seen, nor have any of the landowners I’ve worked with reported, any ill health effects from turbines,” he said  (AzJournal.com 9/4/09).

Jane & Julian Davis, Lincolnshire, UK

“The New Denmark [New Brunswick, Canada] citizens group REACT—or Residential Efforts Against Constructing Turbines—has handed a petition to Victoria-Tobique MLA Larry Kennedy and asked him to table it in the New Brunswick legislature.  The petition signed by area residents asks the legislature to pass a regulation that the windmills not be allowed within two kilometres of residences, schools, businesses, or health-care facilities.  Sam Porter, the local REACT chair, said members of his group handed the petition to Dr. Kennedy last week.  ‘We did discuss a bit about wind turbines and he doesn’t feel there are any medical implications, but we could debate this for hours,’ Porter said.  ‘I’ve read the literature [responded Dr. Kennedy] and I’m not convinced that the evidence is strong that they’re harmful to people,’ he said. ‘Certainly from an emotional point of view [Editor:  See Davis family, above], I’m sure that if people don’t like aesthetically to look at them they’re going to be upset at them being there and that could lead to all kinds of issues.’  [Editor’s note:  Medicine in New Brunswick, Canada, is alive and well in the hands of family physician Dr. Larry Kennedy.]” (Telegraph-Journal 10/3/09)


“There’s lots of things you can hear,” [Michael Vickerman, RENEW’s executive director] says. “This is the time of the year when you can hear crickets, all day and all night. Has there been an allegation stemming from that sound, that, you know, [we] can’t live near crickets?”  Vickerman is . . . dismissive of human health problems attributed to wind turbines.  “The opposition websites are brimming with these allegations, ” he says. “But no causal relationship has been established. We don’t think any health impacts have been established that are directly attributable to wind generation.” He adds, “It’s up to those who allege there are health impacts to document them. The burden of proof is on them” (thedailypage.com 9/10/09).

“Uttering stuff that a boy of eight would laugh at! He repeated it, ranted for it, bellowed it.  He came into life a hero, a Galahad, in bright and shining armor. Now he was a pathetic fool” (H.L. Mencken).

“‘Based on all available scientific and medical information, it’s CanWEA’s [Canadian Wind Energy Association] position that infrasound from wind turbines have no direct harmful affect whatsoever on human health,’ [CanWEA spokesman] Forrest said” (Owen Sound Sun Times 10/8/09).

  1. Comment by Dieter Ber on 10/13/2009 at 9:57 am

    Renewable energy is physicaly not possible. The question wich is not ask is: how much energy do we need to produce a system for the production of energy in relation to the output of energy during the lifetime of such kinds of systems? The same question has to be ask for energy saving systems. The best way to find out it, is to make a feasibility study or economical study instead of money in energyequvivalent (energetical balance). In Germany we have a big subvention programm (the bill is called: EEG Energieeinspeisegesetz) wich is pressing all electrical energy consumer via the price for electricity. Meanwhile a 4 Person-household is paying approx. 480 €/Year only for “renewable energy”. This is the most stupid law wich ever has created in Germany. Government and Parlementarian seem to belive that Perpetuummobile is possible. Good night Germany

The comments are closed.