Wind energy’s colossal lies about bird & bat mortality (Wildlife Biologist)

Editor’s note:  Lately, there has been a flurry of media articles expressing indignation over wind energy’s creative and colossal lies.  (What else does one call them?)  We have published several of the articles and editorials in these pages; there are many more we have not bothered to post.  You can find them on National Wind Watch.

Here’s another one, by wildlife biologist Jim Wiegand, decrying the phony  “bird & bat mortality reports” by wind companies—wind companies working in collusion with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, at the moment a captured agency of Big Wind.


—Jim Wiegand, Wildlife Biologist

No matter how anyone feels about wind turbines, no one should condone the corruption, the silent fraud, and bogus studies supporting this industry.

I cannot stress this enough.  From what I have see from looking at wind industry bird & bat mortality studies, this industry and our wildlife agencies are so corrupt they might as well all be selling used cars with their odometers turned back at least 90%—because this is how bad it really is.

Across the nation official bird and bat-kill estimates have been derived from studies rigged to hide mortality. The real numbers are at least 10 times the amount being reported and sometimes far more. Altamont Pass has reported less than a hundred dead bats in 30 years of service, although thousands have been killed there. This industry is “set up” to hide mortality and the latest “incidental take” or “kill permits” for a few endangered bats could end up being 5000. A single permit for an eagle could easily end up with dozens being killed.

One wind turbine in Delaware was reported to be killing about 82 birds and bats per year. This may sound like a lot, but after looking over the study I believe they covered up over 95% of the mortality. With their tiny searches on the gravel area around the turbine, all the data collected using flawed search intervals, flawed searcher efficiency trials, and flawed scavenger removal rates—rendering the mortality figures completely meaningless. Even two gulls that were seen killed by this turbine were not counted because they fell outside the “designated” little search area.

The distance carcasses travel is one of the primary ways the industry uses to rig their mortality studies. Industry studies are designed to look in an area that goes out no more than 50 meters and AWAY from the direction of carcasses throw. The blades on most of the larger turbines are 50 meters or longer.

One study that slipped through the cracks on midsized turbines showed approximately 45 percent of fatalities being found at 50 meters or more. On the newer 2-3 MW turbines, it is likely to be 80% or more.

Goodhue County, Minnesota, put up a several-year battle and defeated this industry. The community was unified in the effort to save their eagles and other species from these turbines. I believe the project developers knew a court battle was inevitable and, since it meant the industry’s hidden mortality would be publicly disclosed, they left town.

When you think about it, no matter what experts or representatives from conservation groups the developers called in for testimony—what could they really say? They would all look like idiots trying to defend the industry’s bogus mortality data.

Then think of all the new information that would be revealed from subpoenas compelling this industry and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to produce documents.  (I keep an entire list handy, awaiting that glorious day.)

Big Wind knows their data will not hold up. This is why every community should be dragging these people into court.

A generation ago these were the people we incarcerated or ran out of our neighborhoods. Now these same people are fleecing us of our tax dollars while putting us on the path of massive industrial blight and extinction of species.

This man-made disaster, this gothic horror story, will be the wind turbine legacy we hand our children.

Jim Wiegand

Jim Wiegand

Over 2,000 protest wind turbines (Ireland)



“These wind farms they ain’t pretty, and they sure ain’t bloody green” (Australian ballad)


“An Ill Wind Blows No Good”

Murray Hartin (6/18/13)

The good old Aussie Farmer is without peer and that’s the truth
Some might choose to argue but the pudding holds the proof
Governments give them nothing except a bit post-flood or drought
Squeaky wheels get the attention while the farmer toughs it out

More dangerous than the weather, they battle government decisions
That truly challenge logic, well, except to politicians
The live cattle export ban, what were they thinking there?
Allowing imports willy-nilly, it’s like they just don’t care
Desalination plants, billions down the drain
Just because some boffin said it wouldn’t rain again

They could’ve spent that cash on dams or to farm wet-season water
Give a little hope to the farmers’ sons and daughters
But they don’t know how to budget and they don’t know how to plan
There’s no vision for the future, politics is just a scam
Where you lie to get in power then keep on lying when you do
Hang in for a decade and get a lifelong pension too
Look they aint all rotten apples but jeez the stench is hard to cop
And you don’t need a crystal ball to know it starts right at the top
So when they start preaching “green” you know they’re really talking cash

Forget the carbon footprint, what they’re leaving is a rash
That will mutate to a cancer if they keep bowing down to greed
When it’s plain to everyone that common sense is what we need
If Coal Seam Gas is safe let’s see some guarantees
Otherwise get your poison spikes out of our water table please
Think Exxon Valdez or the Gulf of Mexico
It’s just too big a risk so the poison spikes must go
Bass Strait has still got plenty, there’s lots of gas to go around
We can’t risk the CSG if the process isn’t sound

Which brings us to the wind farms, Green Power so they say
But it’s just another con job at the back end of the day
A ruse to recoup millions corporations have outlaid
For a dodgy power source that just doesn’t make the grade

You still need a back-up system when the wind gets sick of blowing
Then it’s either gas or coal to keep the system going
So the so-called carbon credits don’t add up to much
But they sell them for a fortune so someone’s getting touched
And sure as hell it’s you and me, our wallets fund the scheme
While the wind turbine brigade they sit back and live the dream

Well, there was no blind eye being turned by Alby Schultz, now here’s a bloke
Who wasn’t being fooled by the mirrors and the smoke
He’s stood with them toe to toe, called them at their game
And when they finally tell the truth they will hang their heads in shame

Government-funded fraud while they masquerade as Green
They can’t survive without the subsidies, this goes way beyond obscene
Ten billion dollars plus is what they’ve promised these pretenders
That’s just in the next five years, you know there’s more on the agenda
All for a thing that doesn’t work, one of the dumbest plans on earth
The power that it generates costs way more than it’s worth

But they’re not just burning dollars, the environment suffers too
There are a heap of bloody things that they’re just not telling you
Those 60m blades, they can’t be broken down
So they’re encased in concrete coffins and buried underground
And you can’t ignore the fact they’re ugly, a blight on every farm
And they lie right to our face and say they don’t do any harm
Well tell that to the birds who get slaughtered every day
Or the bats whose lungs explode from the sound and pressure waves

With the birds all dead or gone, the insects have a ball
Where are the impact studies, were there any done at all?
Or were they done by those whose funding comes from government allocations
So they bodgy the results and join in the celebrations
The scientists keep their funding, the pollies get their dirty bucks
And we’re left to hold the baby, well I’m sorry but that sucks

And you can’t ignore Wind Turbine Syndrome, it’s making people sick
Headaches, nausea, tinnitus, these folk aren’t playing tricks
They don’t like seeing doctors, it’s hard to get them in the car
So if farmers say they’re crook well you know they bloody are
And it’s causing splits in families and neighbours having blues
You’ve got the ones who take the cash and you can’t blame them if they do.

A huge boost to pay the mortgage but it’s a decision based on fraud
And sadly they’ll find out the risk far outweighs the reward
See they’re swapping health for wealth and it’s a dangerous game to play
Can’t afford to leave but then they can’t afford to stay
If they do get crook and then get stuffed by farm devaluation
Will the Wind Turbine Brigade offer any compensation
Well we know the answer’s “no”, there’s no way that they care
So we need the people we elected to stand up and do what’s fair

Enough of all the bullshit, stop treating us like fools
We watch you prostitute yourselves to let people break the rules
Well the line has now been drawn, this is it, no ifs or buts
Put all the spin away, it’s time to show some guts
Throw your hands up in the air and admit that you’ve been wrong
All the crap we’ve had to wear has gone on way too long
So lets stop all the subterfuge, wind turbines are a farce
Giant bloody fire-traps, huge pains in the ass
Killing birds and killing bats, making people ill,
Humungous ugly money pits and we’re left to pay the bill

We’ve laid the facts out on the table, if we’re wrong then show us how
And when you own up to the truth, then the time to act is now
Reclaim your integrity, stand up and join the fight
Look into your hearts and just do what’s bloody right
Nothing’s set in stone, you know it’s not too late
Front the turbine people and just say “it’s over, mate”
The dollars just aren’t worth it, that’s the way it’s always been
Because these wind farms they ain’t pretty and they sure ain’t bloody green


Three hard-hitting websites!


Editor’s note:  Three websites worth visiting often.  “No More Lies,” “Stop These Things!”  (Australia), and “Ontario Wind Resistance” (Canada).

What distinguishes the three from the rest of the pack—and there’s a lot of ’em!—is their calling a “spade a spade.”  Most anti-turbine websites are polite.  These three definitely are not.  If you’re polite to these bums (wind developers, their academic & acoustician shills, and government enablers), you’re not paying attention!

The only appropriate name for a thug is—a “thug.”  That’s why the word was invented.

No more lies

Stop these things2



Outrage over wind turbines! (Mass.)



Outrage over wind turbines! (UK)



“Wind turbines are a human health hazard: The smoking gun” (UK)


—James Delingpole, The Telegraph (UK), 7/25/13

How much more dirt needs to come out before the wind industry gets the thorough investigation it has long deserved?

The reason I ask is that it has now become clear that the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.

A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the “annoyance” caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is “real not imaginary.” It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.

This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines). Until recently, RenewableUK – the British wind industry’s trade body – claimed on its website: “In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind farms.”

In a section called Top Myths About Wind Energy’ section it claimed that accusations that wind farms emit ‘infrasound and cause associated health problems’ are ‘unscientific’.

Other pro-wind campaigners, such as Australian public health professor Simon Chapman, have gone still further by insisting that the symptoms reported by Wind Turbine Syndrome victims around the world are imaginary and often politically motivated.

But the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a different story. A team led by physicist ND Kelley from the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado tested under controlled conditions the impact of low-frequency noise generated by turbine blades.

It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house).

In subsequent lab tests involving seven volunteers, it found that “people do indeed react to a low-frequency noise environment”. As a result of its findings, the report recommended that in future wind turbines should be subject to a maximum noise threshold to prevent nearby residents experiencing “low-frequency annoyance situations.”

However these recommendations – widely publicised at the Windpower 87 Conference & Exposition in San Francisco – fell on (wilfully, it seems more than plausible) deaf ears.

Rather than respond to the issues raised, the industry devised a code of practice apparently contrived to ignore those very acoustic levels of most concern. ETSU-R-97 – the UK industry standard, which became the model for wind developers around the world – places modest limits on sound within the normal human hearing range, but specifically excludes the lower frequency “infrasonic” noise known to cause problems.

Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.

John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, commented: “The report may represent current wind industry practice but it is very poor guidance and fails in its duty of care.”

The industry’s response is that turbine design has grown so much more sophisticated since the late Eighties that the problems identified in the 1987 report – which built on work from another report two years before – no longer apply.

“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue,” a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.

However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create “community annoyance.”

Kelley, who served as the principal scientist (atmospheric physics) at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s National Wind Technology Centre from 1980 to 2011, told Lloyd:

“Many of the complaints I have heard described are very similar to those from residents who were exposed to the prototype wind turbine we studied.”

He said the original research was performed to understand the “totally unexpected community complaints from a 2MW downwind prototype wind turbine.”

He said: “While follow-on turbine designs moved the rotors upwind of the tower, the US Department of Energy funded an extensive multi-year research effort in order to develop a full understanding of what created this situation.”

“Their goal was to make such knowledge available to the turbine engineers so they could minimise the possibility of future designs repeating the experience. We found the majority of the physics responsible for creating the annoyance associated with this downwind prototype are applicable to large upwind machines.”

The wind industry has resisted demands from campaigners to investigate this problem further. For example, in Australia, Lloyd reports, the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has argued in a submission to the NSW government that low frequency noise not be measured.

But as Kelley said to Lloyd, if low frequency noise from turbines does not influence annoyance within homes, “then why should [the industry] be concerned?”

Those readers with an appetite for even more technical detail may be interested in the views of acoustics expert Dr Malcolm Swinbanks:

The important aspect to understand is that the old-fashioned downwind rotor-turbines did indeed generate a wider spectrum of infranoise and low-frequency noise, extending from 1Hz to 50Hz or 60Hz. Modern upwind rotor turbines are definitely very much quieter in the 32 and 64 Hz octave bands, but under some circumstances they can be similarly noisy over the frequency range 1Hz – 10Hz.

The wind industry denies this aspect, namely that they do not generate impulsive infrasound – I was present at a public meeting, with 400 farmers enthusiastically wanting wind-turbines on their land, when a wind-industry representative argued that I was incorrect to quote NASA research because the NASA research related only to downwind turbines. In fact NASA led the world in developing upwind rotor turbines, with the first, MOD-2 in 1981. They were fully aware of the differences between downwind and upwind configurations as long ago as 1981. Although upwind turbines are indeed quieter in respect of audible sound, NASA was well aware that inflow turbulence or wind-shear could give rise to enhanced infrasound from upwind turbines.

In the context of that particular public meeting, the chairman refused to let me respond at that time to correct the wind-industry presentation, and argued that I could only send a letter to the Planning Committee, which I duly did under strong protest. So I have encountered the wind-industry position directly at first hand.

The problem is that while the acoustics community fully acknowledge that the audible component of low-frequency sound (>20Hz) can cause adverse human reaction, they consistently deny that infrasound (<20Hz) can cause similar effects unless it is “above” the threshold of hearing. Yet there is at least one reported laboratory experiment (Chen et al, 2004) which showed that infrasound 10dB below the hearing threshold caused adverse psychological and physiological effects after 1 hour exposure. This particular test signal was a tone 110dB at 2.14Hz, where the threshold is around 120dB. So infrasonic sound pressure levels “below” the threshold of hearing have indeed been shown to cause adverse effects.

The response of the Australian Senate Inquiry to this information was that wind-turbines don’t generate 110dB. But just as sound pressure levels are always weighted in the audible frequency range, using the dBA scale – one does not quote absolute sound pressure levels, but dBA levels, so the infrasound range is correctly measured using the weighted dBG scale. This is an ISO internationally approved scale, and 110dB at 2.14Hz represents 82 dBG on the dBG scale. Modern wind turbine peak infrasonic impulsive levels have been measured as high as 76-80dBG, which is only marginally below the 82dBG level that was found to cause adverse effects in the Chen laboratory tests.

It is notable that when some acousticians wish to argue that wind turbine infrasound is not a problem, they quote known problematic infrasonic sound levels using the unweighted decibel dB scale, which makes these levels seem well “out-of-reach” of wind turbine infrasound levels. Yet these same acousticians would not dream of using absolute sound pressure levels to evaluate conventional audible sound, but will always quote correctly weighted dBA levels.

Thus, for example, the Chen infrasonic tests were at 110dB at 2.14Hz. This is 82dBG. In contrast, a “child-on-a swing” is also quoted by some acousticians as “not-a-problem”, when it is experiencing 110dB. This 110dB is at around 0.5Hz, so the corresponding dBG level is only 50dBG. Although the absolute sound pressure levels are identical, the perceived infrasound levels in these two cases are very different and cannot be equated to each other.

So I am unimpressed by the casual practice of quoting absolute sound pressure levels for describing infrasound, in order to exaggerate differences, when it is well recognized that the response of the ear is not uniform, and weighted sound pressure levels should be used for describing the likely hearing response.

This feature is responsible for much of the confusion that arises – interchange of unweighted and weighted levels can lead to very different conclusions – a situation which does not help to clarify the overall impact of infrasound.

It is noteworthy that some recent research indicates that at the very lowest frequencies (around ~1Hz) infrasound may be perceived by a different, separate mechanism than the ear’s conventional auditory mechanisms, so that at these frequencies, the G-weighting may no longer be accurate. But this is only a very recent deduction. Wind turbines undoubtedly generate their strongest signals at around 1Hz, so this is a new area of investigation which may also reveal additional adverse effects.

Malcolm Swinbanks, PhD

Malcolm Swinbanks, PhD

And here is the expert opinion of another US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:

The “Kelly paper” is just one of many studies and reports published in the period from 1980 to 1990 by acousticians and other researchers working under grants from the US Dept. of Energy (DOE), NASA, and other agencies and foundations. All of these papers are still available on web sites open to the public. I have attached one of the later papers (“Wind Turbine Acoustics, Hubbard and Shepherd”) that summarize many of those studies.

The acoustical conferences, at least those here in the US, all had presentations on wind turbine noise and it was one of the “hot” topics in the field. Earlier papers such as the 1982 Hubbard paper on Noise Induced House Vibrations was reporting some of the early research showing wind turbines were heard at lower auditory thresholds and that the infrasound was affecting people inside homes in much the same was jet noise at airports was affecting communities along flight paths.

As a general rule, all of this research noted the need for caution if large upwind wind turbines of the type being installed today were to be located near homes and communities. As you can see in the Kelly paper there was concern over health impacts by the research community.

Concurrent with this type of work the US DOD and NASA were investigating human response to infrasonic sound and vibration to help select candidates for jet pilots and space missions. This led to studies of nauseogenicity like the “1987 report on Motion Sickness Symptoms and Postural Changes……”

Suffice it to say that between the issues of dynamically modulated infra and low frequency sound causing adverse health effects called “Sick Building Syndrome,” similar effects observed from wind turbines leading to the Kelley paper, military interest in motion sickness and other similar issues for large ships with slowly rotating engines to jet aircraft noise few acousticians in that period would have discounted the premise that for some people these types of sounds posed serious issues.

Rick James

Rick James, Acoustician (USA)

Can anyone imagine a potential scandal of this magnitude in the fossil fuel industry going uninvestigated by the green lobby – and hitting the front pages of all the newspapers?

I can’t.

The Science of Wind Turbine Syndrome: Part 2

Editor’s note:  Eric Bibler wrote the following as an “open letter” to Heather Goldstone, Science Editor of a Cape Cod (Mass.) radio station that happens to be an affiliate of National Public Radio (NPR).  He takes her to task for, evidently, routinely dismissing Wind Turbine Syndrome as so much moonshine.  (If you haven’t read  Curt Devlin’s “The Science of Wind Turbine Syndrome:  Part 1,” you should.  Bibler bases his remarks on Devlin’s article.)

It’s our understanding that Goldstone holds a PhD degree (believe it or not!) from MIT.  In marine biology (we think).  Ostensibly, this qualifies her as a scientist, though not a clinician.  There is another point to be made about Goldstone.  Her husband, on the faculty at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, is a member of the Falmouth Board of Health—a board that for the longest time dismissed WTS as—once again—moonshine.

Looks like a Goldstone family habit.


To:  Heather Goldstone, Science Editor, WCAI National Public Radio
From:  Eric Bibler, Rhode Island
Date:  July 25, 2013

Re. “The Science of Wind Turbine Syndrome”: The real gold standard of science is not “peer review”; it’s something called “reproducibility

Dear Ms. Goldstone,

I am writing to provide you with a copy of a recent essay by Mr. Curt Devlin regarding a dangerous fallacy that has been repeatedly promoted by you, and others, regarding the true nature of the scientific method.

The essay, which refers to you by name, explains in plain English why the obsession with “peer reviewed” studies is nothing more than a ploy used by the wind energy industry — and its sympathizers — to create an artificial and illegitimate standard of “evidence of harm” from wind turbines whose practical effect — and obvious intent — is to dismiss the torrent of evidence from all over the world that demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these adverse impacts are occurring on a global scale.

I, too, have long been troubled by your dismissive public remarks concerning the research of Dr. Nina Pierpont’s book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

Specifically, I have been amazed that someone with your training should continue to insist this work is (a) “not peer reviewed,” and (b) that the gold standard of science is peer review.

In the first instance, it seems that you have not even bothered to read Dr. Pierpont’s book. If you had, you would have discovered, to your shock and amazement, that the work was actually read in advance of publication by a distinguished group of medical doctors, including clinicians, epidemiologists and other medical researchers, all of whom found merit in the work. And if you had bothered to dig a little deeper, you would find that many other distinguished scientists who read the book after its publication (and considered the quality of the research) had commented favorably on its contribution to knowledge.

Such minimal research would not seem like too much to ask of someone who regularly reports on science for the National Public Radio.


In the second instance, it is a source of constant dismay that you fail to understand the simple point that Mr. Devlin makes in his essay — namely, that peer review isn’t really worth a damn, other than acting as a screen to publication in various journals.

As you know, scientists offer competing hypotheses all the time to explain events around us, including medical phenomena that make their presence known through the assertion of symptoms without immediately revealing all of the intricate details of the mechanisms that produce the symptoms. In other words, the effects are always appreciated, first; only later — typically after a considerable amount of hard work and ingenuity are brought to bear — are the causes of those effects completely comprehended.

As the Science Editor at NPR, surely you must be able to appreciate that his is how we came to achieve a detailed understanding of every disease or medical illness on earth, including malaria, polio, mercury poisoning and mesothelioma (from exposure to asbestos).

The gold standard of science is “TRUTH” — not the “truthiness” of “peer review,” which is subject to all of the distorting and falsifying influences enumerated by Mr. Devlin — all of which are familiar and well-understood by every practicing scientist.

As Mr. Devlin cogently explains, the way we verify the “truth” of any scientific hypothesis is through “reproducibility” — not through “peer review.”


As Mr. Devlin explains, “peer review” is just an opinion; “reproducibility is where the rubber meets the road.

If scientists of all persuasions are able to reproduce the findings of a study, that adds credibility to the accuracy of the hypothesis; conversely, if other scientists — such as the paid shills of the wind energy industry and sympathetic science editors — are unable to contradict the findings of the original study, this also confers credibility on the conclusions of the study.

fake nose

I regret to inform you, Ms. Goldstone, that “peer review” is only the “Goldstone Standard” — and not the “gold standard” — of science. Nothing more, nothing less. And that the “Goldstone Standard” of science is a rather pathetic and misguided one, at that.

Please also consider — in this context of our mutual quest for the truth about the adverse health impacts from industrial wind turbines — that you and your like-minded cohorts in the wind industry have regularly sneered at first person testimonials from the victims of these installations, haughtily dismissing them as “anecdotal” and “unscientific” — and therefore largely irrelevant, according to you.

You habitually and sanctimoniously dismiss all of this information, notwithstanding the fact that these testimonials and the pattern of adverse health impacts that are reported are eerily similar — virtually identical — regardless of where they come from.

All of the complainants share the following circumstances, regardless of what country or continent they inhabit:

» They live in relatively close proximity to newly installed wind turbines.

» They were doing fine before the wind turbines arrived.

» They are profoundly disturbed — sometimes physically ill — while the wind turbines are operating.

» Their symptoms disappear — or greatly alleviated — when the turbines stop operating or when they remove themselves to a safe distance.


Even though there are literally THOUSANDS of these reports from residents located on six continents describing the same pattern of symptoms — and the same cause and effect — this is not “scientific” enough for you.

You want them to tell their symptoms to a scientist who will diligently record all this information as “data.”  God knows where you think that money for this exercise will come from, with no profit potential for anyone.  And if the victims hired their own researcher, you would doubtless declare the results to be “biased” — and dismiss them as “invalid.”

Then you want some OTHER group of scientist to review the “data” — the description of the symptoms that have been described by the victims and diligently recorded by the researcher — and to bless it as worthy of publication.

Only then will the “data” be considered to satisfy the “Goldstone Standard” of excellence — and be credible to anyone, in your view.

Do you not understand the absurdity of dismissing thousands and thousands of first-person accounts in this way, based on the idea that it is “not credible” unless it is “peer reviewed” by the editors of some medical journal?

Let me try to explain this to you a different way.

I am not a trained scientist — at least no beyond a typical high school education in the subject. But I am a practicing Emergency Medical Technician (EMT).

As you can appreciate, EMT’s are pretty low on the food chain in the rarefied realm of “science” that you inhabit. We respond to medical emergencies, we assess the condition of patients and provide emergency medical care to stabilize and improve their condition, and we drive them to the hospital in an ambulance for further treatment, if necessary. We’re not PhD’s and we’re not brain surgeons, but we’re trained to provide basic medical assistance that sometimes proves to be vitally important.

Guess what we do when we first encounter a patient in distress: We ask them to tell us their symptoms. Why did they call 911?  What’s wrong?  What’s different?  What are they feeling?

And do you know why we do this, Ms. Goldstone?

Because the patient is the only source of this information!

I can observe the scene of an accident. I can tell if there has been a significant “mechanism of injury” if a car has hit a tree at high speed.  I can tell if someone obviously has a broken arm. But I can’t tell if his abdomen hurts, if he is dizzy, or if he has chest pain or tingling in his legs.

fall down

Do we summon a doctor with a clipboard to interview the patient and tabulate the results in a fancy spreadsheet — and wait for him to compile similar data from 50 other car crashes — before addressing the immediate problem?

Do we dismiss the information we receive from the patient until some other team of scientists has had a chance to subject the first scientist’s findings to a “peer review” — the “Goldstone Standard” — to confirm our suspicion that the patient might be in serious jeopardy if we do nothing?

Do we tell the patient that we’d like to believe him — that we certainly sympathize with his predicament — and that we think it’s highly possible he might be telling the truth — but, unfortunately, we can’t really do anything until the scientists all get together and publish their findings?

Or do we tell him — as in the Town of Falmouth, where your husband is a member of the Board of Health — that we’d like to take him to the hospital — God knows he’s in bad shape — but the Board of Selectmen has decided to limit ambulance trips to one a day — as part of their “balancing of interests” and to save the taxpayers’ money — and, unfortunately, we already made a trip to the hospital earlier in the day — so he’ll just have to suck it up?

No. We don’t do any of these things.


» Because there is only one expert on “symptoms” — and that is the patient. We cannot see or hear his symptoms. He feels them and he reports them to us.

» Because have no reason to doubt the patient — especially when we know that similar patients in similar circumstances are likely to report the same symptoms. Why should I be shocked if a victim in a car crash reports neck pain? Or if a diabetic is dizzy and disoriented? I know from experience that one thing leads to another — without a “peer review.”

» Because the patient’s “first person testimonial” seems credible — particularly if the patient has no reason to lie. Am I to suspect that victims of car crashes are part of some vast global conspiracy because they report similar symptoms after the same “mechanism of injury” in the absence of a “peer review”?  Really?  Why do they do it?  How did they manage to communicate with each other and make sure they got their stories straight — time after time after time, a thousand times, in a thousand places?


The reason we don’t apply the “Goldstone Standard” and insist upon a “peer review” of this information is simple:  If we did, we would have a lot of dead and dying patients.  People would be in agony, walking around with broken arms.  Or in a diabetic coma.  Or suffering anaphylactic shock from an acute allergic reaction.  Or experiencing the initial stages or the warning signs of an imminent heart attack — while we all awaited the “peer review” of our initial assessment.

It’s the same with “wind turbine syndrome” — a simple term which you, and others, love to ridicule and dismiss.  This is a straightforward reference to “a concurrence of symptoms” that tend to occur in people who live too close to wind turbines.  No brainer.

How do we know this?  Because the victims report this same “concurrence of symptoms” — or some variation thereof — over and over and over again in the presence of wind turbines.

How did Dr. Pierpont discover this?  She contacted a wind turbine site and asked the residents to describe their symptoms. Then she recorded the results of these “first person testimonials” — as they were described to a scientist.  She then organized and compiled them in a manner that passed “peer review” with flying colors (fulfilling the rigorous terms of the “Goldstone Standard”).  Then she published them to alert the world that she thought there was a burgeoning problem that merited our attention — and further study.

As Curt Devlin notes, Dr. Pierpont also called attention to the limitations of her study — primarily the modest sample size — and invited others to “reproduce” her studies to validate the truth of her findings.

In fact, other researchers have validated her findings, and no researcher has invalidated her conclusions.

We can go further.  There is a growing consensus — even at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (which never laid eyes on a wind turbine project it couldn’t love, including proposals to install 500-foot wind turbines less than 600 feet from residences in Eastham and Bourne); and even at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental “Protection”, headed by Ken Kimmell, author of the ill-fated Wind Energy Siting Reform Act to ram wind turbines down the throats of recalcitrant communities and who engineered the infamous MA DEP sham science study — that wind turbines cause serious adverse health impacts.


Why?  Largely because it is increasingly difficult — if not impossible — to ignore the voices of thousands of people who have suffered the direct consequences of these installations — the patients whose symptoms even you will one day grudgingly acknowledge — no doubt with a wistful sigh, saying:  “If only we had had the peer-reviewed studies then that we have today, we could have avoided this whole problem.”

Although the main reason is that sooner or later, with or without a “peer review” and with or without any reference to the “Goldstone Standard,” the truth always asserts itself.

I hope you don’t mind that I am circulating this letter to some of your peers in the press who, like you, regularly report on wind energy in Massachusetts.  I will also be posting it on the same website where Curt Devlin published his critique of the fundamental bankruptcy of your religious devotion to the concept of “peer review” — even as you ignore the immense weight of evidence right in front of you on this important subject.

I hope that you will take the opportunity to respond, so that we can all gain a better understanding of your point of view, and that you will post your response on the same website for the benefit of all.


Eric Bibler

Note:  None of the opinions expressed above have been “peer reviewed.”


Eric Bibler

Eric Bibler


The Science of Wind Turbine Syndrome: Part 1

The real gold standard of science is not “peer review”; it’s something called “reproducibility.”


—Curt Devlin (Fairhaven, MA), 7/1/13

Science has become a rareified business these days. It is conducted far outside the bounds of the average person’s experience. As a result, it’s easy to mislead people about how science actually works and what counts as good science or bad science. Most people know that evolution is considered to be good science and creationism is considered to be bad science, but they still would be largely at a loss to explain why.

When told that the “gold standard” of science is peer review, most people tend to accept this as gospel. If science has become so sophisticated that only experts in the field can understand it, then surely it makes sense to have any scientific conclusions evaluated by other experts in that field. Right?

Unfortunately, the idea that peer review is the gold standard of science is absolutely false.

To the extent that peer review is based on authority or expert opinion, it is completely contrary to the true spirit of science. Peer review is not a bad practice, but its true purpose is to improve the work and decide if it is worthy of being published. You could say that peer review is the gold standard of publication—nothing more and nothing less.

At its heart, the real core of science is a handful of simple ideas called the scientific method. It involves careful observation, precise measurement, and accurate reporting of both the conditions under which measurements were made, and the measured results themselves. The whole point of the scientific method is to eliminate human authority, opinion, or bias of any kind from consideration.


The real gold standard of science is something called reproducibility. Simply put, this means that if you do the same experiment under the same conditions and same measurement precision, you get the same results.

You could say the mantra of science is “see for yourself.”

If we apply the standard of reproducibility to the findings reported by Dr. Nina Pierpont in her book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (WTS), her conclusions hold up remarkably well because her work is based on very careful observation and measurement. Her reporting of experimental conditions and measurements is extremely detailed and meticulous—even to the point of publishing all the raw data in her book. (No one who is interested in selling a book puts raw data in it.) Presumably, Pierpont did this to ensure that serious defects would be obvious. This type of transparency and disclosure is a signature of scientific integrity.

Predictability is also a very important element of good science. The findings of a study should support specific predictions about outcomes under certain conditions. As a resident of Fairhaven, Massachusetts, where two 1.5 MW industrial wind turbines were sited in a dense neighborhood two years ago, WTS has proven to be an excellent predictor of the adverse health effects that have occurred since then. I have absolutely no doubt that the results of Pierpont’s study could be reproduced in Fairhaven tomorrow.

Pierpont’s critics within the wind industry could easily fund an independent study to determine whether her experiments can be reproduced, but they never have and never will. Perhaps they already know too well that these attempts will only result in confirming her findings. Pierpont’s findings are simple enough. When people live near wind turbines, they experience nausea, dizziness, sleeplessness and stress-induced illnesses. When they get away from them, they begin to feel much better and may recover completely.

Just the other day, I heard a science editor on public radio, Heather Goldstone, leveling criticism that WTS is not peer reviewed and parroting the claim that peer review is the gold standard of science. Anyone who has read WTS (as I have) knows that Goldstone is factually incorrect. Pierpont sought review, advice, and criticism from her peers throughout her research and publication. This group included highly regarded clinicians, acoustic experts, researchers in neurology and public health, among others. The referee reports (aka peer reviews) are all included in the book, for those who trouble themselves to actually read it.


Heather Goldstone

Goldstone also claimed that Pierpont’s study was flawed because she studied subjects only in one small location. This is also factually incorrect, proving only that our “science” editor, Goldstone, had never bothered to actually read WTS herself. (Maybe she got this information about the book from “good authority,” perhaps a friend in the wind industry?)

As Pierpont explains in the book, she went to great lengths to identify subjects from other geographies and countries to avoid this limitation in her case study. That is why she had to restrict the participants to those who spoke English, to ensure that she could clearly understand their reports.

By contrast, the process of peer review does not stand up so well under close scrutiny. Several studies have shown that the peer review process can be fraught with petty professional jealousy, personal grudges, and other conflicts of interest created by ambition, academic competition, and so forth. Some studies have shown that this problem is even worse in blind and double-blind peer reviews, because reviewers can hide behind anonymity and offer reviews that they would not stake their professional reputation on.

So much for peer review as the ultimate standard of scholarly publication.

Advocates of wind energy would have you believe that anything that is not peer-reviewed should be discredited and disregarded. Let’s see how this idea holds up.

In 1904, if you had argued that apples fall from the tree to the ground because the immense mass of the Earth causes space to warp, you would have been treated to some strange looks. If you had claimed that time slows down as things speed up, or that matter and energy were really two forms of the same thing, you probably would have been diagnosed with dementia praecox (that’s what Alzheimer’s was called in those days). Truly, such ideas simply defy common sense. (Note:  Good science often does.)

You would have been subjected to raucous laughter if you had mentioned that you learned all this from a third-rate clerk at a Swiss patent office in Bern.


And yet, as improbable as all this sounds, this is more or less what Albert Einstein did tell us in an article he published in a German periodical called Annals of Physics in 1905. It established one of the very pillars of modern physics for the next century.

Amazingly, Einstein’s work was not peer-reviewed at all. It was read by Max Planck, the pre-eminent physicist of the day, who gave it a wink and a nod. Then it was published. Since then, Einstein’s theories have been experimented with, scrutinized, and tested as much as any in history. Science must accept or reject it based on evidence alone, not a “peer reviewer’s” authority or opinion.

Einstein’s ideas—most, at least—have been confirmed over and over again.

Based on the “gold standard” of peer review, however, we are presumably expected to discard the theory of relativity until it has been properly peer reviewed.


James Watson

In 1953, two Harvard biologists, James Watson and Francis Crick, published a paper in the journal Nature claiming that the chemical structure of DNA, the code for all life on Earth (and probably the universe), is a double helix—like a spiral staircase, which in fact gave them the idea.


Again, they did so without a single peer review. It would seem that we must disregard the foundations of modern biology and genetics, too. The “gold standard” of peer review demands it, correct?

When given fairly and honestly, peer review can be a powerful ally of science. Often, peer review can provide an invaluable exchange of ideas between researchers. Sometimes it can be the beginning of fruitful collaboration between scientists, each of whom is holding a different piece of the same puzzle. But the idea that peer review is the final arbiter of science is absurd. If there is such a standard, it is, and must be, reproducibility. Replicability.


Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was not “peer-reviewed” before publication.  But it was “replicated”—and it revolutionized biology.

Let’s face it.  The chant of peer review coming from religious devotees of wind is becoming nothing more than lip service by those who have been turned into intellectual zombies by the incessant propaganda of a wind industry that places profits above health, politics before science, and opinion over genuine knowledge.

In the case of WTS, this chant has been used as a weapon of mass delusion, a device to dismiss a superb piece of science and a pioneering contribution to our knowledge about the impact of wind turbines on human health and wellbeing. This has been done because legitimate criticism and ground-level research only serve to strengthen the conclusions arrived at in this book.

If you are interested in some of the most cogent and legitimate criticisms of WTS that I have read, consider these:

» The study was done by interview and limited to available medical records.

» Participant memory limitations or distortions.

» Possible minimization or exaggeration effects.

» The study was limited to English-speaking subjects.

» Small case series sample.

» Limited duration of follow-up.

The details of these specific criticisms and limitations of the Pierpont report can be found on pages 124-125 of WTS. Pierpont herself wrote them to alert her peers and fellow clinicians, and to identify the limitations of her own work; undoubtedly realizing that the study should be done on a much larger scale to address them. This was a task she did not have sufficient resources to do herself.

Calling attention to the defects or limitations of your own study does not invalidate it. On the contrary, it is one of the hallmarks of good science and an invitation to further study by other scientists who may be in a position to eliminate those limitations and either confirm or reject its conclusions on the basis of the evidence alone.

At the end of the day, you must ask yourself why a study of such profound social importance has not been repeated on a large scale. Could it be that those with the most to lose are afraid of what they will find?


“Wind Turbine Syndrome” is good science. The devotees of wind turbines, who would challenge the results reported in its pages, must do so on the basis of more good science—or not at all. Either they must exercise the Principle of Reproducibility or accept Ludwig Wittgenstein’s famous caution, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”


Curt Devlin

Editor’s note:  Notice “Google’s” home page image, today.  Celebrating Rosalind Franklin on her 93rd birthday.


Wind energy protestors man-handled by cops! (Ontario)


Editor’s note:  Ontario’s new premier, Kathleen Wynne (pronounced “win”), is a loser (pronounced “loser”) when it comes to respecting civil liberties and freedom of speech.  Ontario Liberals are continuing with their neo-fascist agenda of slamming wind turbines down the throat of unwilling communities and, along the way, slamming wind protestors—literally.

Where’s the outrage, Ontario?  Why just a handful of people expressing the outrage?  Where are the academics—the professors and teachers?  The medical doctors?  Lawyers?  Other professionals?  The poets?  The writers?  The clergy?  Um, off writing weighty tomes on subjects like “freedom of speech”?  Civil liberties?

My disdain for these professionals, a good many of whom I have known personally over the past decades, is large.  And growing larger.




The end of (bullshit) wind energy is in sight! Hurrah!


This image was not part of the original article

“The greens can’t defy gravity. They’re finished”

—Tim Montgomerie, “The Times” (7/22/13)

Seven years ago, pulled along by huskies, David Cameron visited a Norwegian glacier. Vote blue, he implored, and go green. One year later Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister of Australia after identifying climate change as the “greatest moral challenge of our time”. Climate change campaigners interpreted his victory as one of seismic importance and governments across Europe rushed to pour money into the renewable energy sector. Then in 2008 along came Barack Obama. The wicked George W. Bush was replaced with a president who promised to stop global warming. Hurrah!

And, for a period, Mr Obama seemed determined to deliver. Here, after all, was the president, some would have us believe, who could walk on water. One year into his blessed reign he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without having secured peace in any part of the world. He was top of the pops in global opinion surveys. Just about every world leader wanted to be photographed alongside him.

Super-Obama’s great opportunity to save the planet came in 2009 at the Copenhagen climate change summit. He was at the height of his political powers. His Democratic party controlled all of Washington: the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. And yet Copenhagen ended in the same way as almost every other climate change summit of recent times: in failure. Having failed to persuade members of his own party to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Obama also failed to persuade the governments of New Delhi, Beijing and Brasília.

The writing may have been on the wall in 2009, but the green movement has soldiered on. Theirs, they believed, was a moral mission of such importance that nothing would or should get in their way. Whatever the economic, social or political price they were determined to succeed. The doubts of sceptics like me could always be ignored, but when the politicians who once championed green politics are in retreat it is perhaps time for even ecological diehards to get real.

And in the past ten days one of the greenest of green politicians has to all intents, constructions and purposes given up. Last week Australia’s green movement suffered a defeat at least as big as those of the country’s cricket and rugby teams. Mr Rudd announced that he would ditch the carbon tax that had threatened to consign his Labor Party to one of the worst defeats in its history.

All over the world green politicians are presiding over similar climbdowns. From Washington to London, shale gas rather than any renewable technology is seen as the future. Even nations such as Germany and Spain, which led the march to green energy, are slashing unaffordable subsidies to the renewables industry. Lord Lawson of Blaby has claimed that the average share price of companies in the renewable sector has fallen by 80 per cent over five years. “One renewable company after another is going bankrupt,” he declared.

The heavy cost of green energy policies might have been justifiable if they had delivered results, but they haven’t. Since the Kyoto treaty on climate change, global emissions have continued to rise. Since 1990 they have increased by about 50 per cent. China’s increase in emissions has been 25 times greater than the reduction by the EU’s core nations. In so far as Europe has actually met its environmental obligations it has only done so by exporting industrial capacity (and jobs). Once the environmental impact of imported goods has been added to its carbon footprint Europe has clearly failed to keep its environmental promises.

One commentator, Bjørn Lomborg, spelt out the futility of Europe’s unilateral environmentalism. Germany’s efforts to combat climate change might, he calculated, just possibly delay a rise in global temperatures by 37 hours, but that delay will have cost German taxpayers and consumers more than $100 billion in the form of renewable subsidies and higher electricity costs. That’s about $3 billion an hour.

Green enthusiasts are kidding themselves if they blame the global economic slump for the failure of climate change policies. Their policies were always an attempt to defy economic gravity. No half-decent politician in any part of the developing world was ever going to delay economic progress by embracing expensive energy sources. Any policies that prevent a clinic in India from being able to refrigerate medicines or a student in China from being able to read at night were always destined to fail.

I am not one of those people who deny that the climate might be changing. I don’t feel qualified to question the majority of scientists who insist that warming is both real and man-made. My objection to global warming policies is more practical. They aren’t succeeding in cutting emissions and they aren’t going to succeed until so-called clean energy is similar in cost to conventional energy. Until then — and we should be investing in green technologies in the meantime — the demands of millions of wealthy green campaigners will continue to be overwhelmed by the demand from billions of poor people for economic growth and the social justice that it affords them.

Two decades of green policies haven’t just failed to stop global warming. Old age pensioners in Britain and in other developed countries have been forced to bear electricity bills inflated by renewable subsidies. Blue-collar workers have lost their jobs as energy-intensive manufacturing companies have relocated overseas. Beautiful landscapes have been ruined by bird-chopping wind turbines.

There have also been huge opportunity costs. What could world leaders have achieved if they hadn’t spent the past 25 years investing so much money and summitry on global warming? In a brilliant book — How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place — Mr Lomborg has documented how politicians could have been tackling more pressing problems facing the world’s poorest people. Action on HIV/Aids, for example, the provision of micro nutrients to hungry children, the control of malaria, guarantees of clean water and the liberalisation of trade would all have been better uses of politicians’ time and taxpayers’ money.

Many of Britain’s politicians — notably the Chancellor, George Osborne — know all of this. But outside of last week’s welcome but overdue encouragement of fracking, Britain’s statute book is still creaking under the weight of yesteryear’s laws and their commitments to invest in expensive green energies. Until those laws are repealed British businesses and consumers will be paying a very high price for no earthly benefit.



Nigel Toye 1 hour ago

“The cash wasted on failed global warming policies would be better spent on tackling the problems faced by the poor” Couldn’t agree more. If we are doomed as a species, like all dominant species in the past, then so be it. It is vain to try to stop the inevitable and, let’s be honest, we aren’t that worth saving of all the species on the planet.

Chris D

This is hilarious. We’ve been berating the evil Chinese for their lack of green policies for years. They have been ignoring us and ploughing on with expansion, quite rightly. And now we need a bit of economic growth we are doing a complete about turn. Cracks me up.

Mr Gerald McDermott

The problem is not the futility of green policies,but the sheer power of the industrial forces we have unleashed. It was not so bad when only Manchester and a few other places existed,and we could glory in our achievements and mock those who did not like getting their hands dirty, but the price paid in death and destruction of the environment convinced even the most die hard we were better off without it.

Some years ago I met a former Hungarian communist diplomat who knew more about our industrial history than most Brits. She said. We Were The First We made all the mistakes.And others Learned From Our Mistakes. Alas that last part was not true and the mistakes are being repeated on an ever vaster and more damaging scale.


About time anyone with an ounce of common sense has been saying this for years, it was a reckless misuse of resources when we needed common sense not wishful thinking, are well some people made a fortune out of one of the biggest cons in human history.

Robert Baker

Cracks are already starting within the green movement. The greens in Germany are supporting the building of new coal fired power stations required because they insisted nuclear be shut down. Even though they have spent enough to generate around 25% of their energy needs from renewables, they still need backup always available power from these new stations in case the wind does’t blow.


Danish health expert calls the wind industry “totalitarian & ruthless”

Darth Vader

Editor’s note
:  Click here to listen to an eye-opening interview with Danish health expert, Peter Hjorth, discussing “wind power as industrial imperialism.”  He focuses many of his comments on Danish wind energy giant, Vestas, and its current propaganda campaign in Australia.

Mr. Hjorth recently published a book wherein he writes, “Everything about wind power coming from Denmark—I’m sorry to say—is a  danger to the whole world.”  Invoking Shakespeare’s Hamlet, he ominously adds, “There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark!”

Click here for the source of the interview.


Expert dismisses Mass. “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study” as junk science (Dr. Raymond Hartman)

Junk science

“Critique of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Planning (DEP) ‘Wind Turbine Health Impact Study, Report of Independent Expert Panel,’ January 2012”

Raymond S. Hartman, PhD (6/5/13)

Editor’s note:  Dr. Raymond Hartman thoroughly trashes the Mass. DEP’s “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study” that claimed there are no real health effects from industrial wind turbines.  (If you’re not familiar with the Mass. DEP report, read “State of Mass. pronounces Wind Turbine Syndrome [expletive deleted].”)

Dr. Hartman is a magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University (in economics), and holds the PhD in economics from MIT (Mass. Institute of Technology).  He is currently Director and President of Greylock McKinnon Associates (GMA), a consulting and litigation support firm located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  For forty years he has been a professor at a variety of universities (including the Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley and Boston University) in mathematical economics, focusing on microeconomics, econometric and statistical modeling and the study of industrial organization.

Over the last 35 years, I have submitted oral and written testimony before United States federal and state courts of law and regulatory commissions. I have submitted testimony to international arbitration panels, international governments and the World Bank.

My testimony as an expert witness has addressed anticompetitive behavior, fraudulent pricing schemes, merger efficiencies, breach of contract, employment discrimination, patent infringement, class certification, adverse health impacts of particular technologies and products, and the estimation of damages in a variety of markets and industries including, but not limited to, the pharmaceutical industry, the health care services industry, the electric power industry, the banking industry, the copper industry, the defense industry, the cable TV industry, the tobacco industry, the electrical and mechanical carbon products industry, the medical devices industry, the automobile industry, and the construction industry.

My testimony has been upheld by federal appellate courts.

My two primary areas of specialty are the economics of energy markets and the economics of the markets for health-care services, health-care devices and pharmaceuticals.

Over the last twenty years, I have analyzed and/or submitted testimony in approximately 100 matters of litigation in a variety of health-care, pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The cases most frequently involved antitrust allegations of market foreclosure and economic injury.

My testimony in these matters addressed market definition, product competition, antitrust violations, class certification, unlawful promotion (under RICO) and/or consumer protection laws, and/or damage estimation. My CV provides a more complete presentation of my testimony.

Finally, he writes:

In rendering my opinions, I have relied upon the materials reasonably relied on by experts in my field in forming opinions and drawing inferences on subjects such as these.

Click here to read why he judges the State of Mass. “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study” to be garbage.  In his succinct wording:

I have reviewed and responded to reports like this in excess of 100 times over my career, as an expert witness and as a peer-reviewing academic research referee.

The Health Impact Report fails to rise to the level of reliable scientific research. In matters of litigation, research or testimony that does not reflect, or indeed violates, standard scientific practices is excluded from the record as Junk Science. As noted above, I have submitted many pieces of testimony over the last 35 years. My testimony has never been excluded as Junk Science.

I find that the Health Impact Study is Junk Science. As Table 1 summarizes, there are major flaws with the Health Impact Study.

Click here to read his entire report.

Table 1:

Hartman table2

Screenshot of cover page:


Click here to read the final conclusions.


Does this sound like it’s coming from NIMBY’s? (Not in My Back Yard)



Editor’s note:  Are these people NIMBY’s (Not in My Back Yard)?  Click here.

Or is the epithet “NIMBY” a cruel & cynical diversion from what’s really happening in rural communities around the world?

DufferinFamily-full-wind turbines


Wind Turbine Syndrome was being documented in science journals in the late 70s, early 80s (U.S. Dept. of Energy)


Editor’s note:  Read this article—or skim it, with attention to the highlighted passages—to discover why the corrupt bastards with PhD’s and MD’s, who argue for the hilarious “nocebo effect” as the cause of Wind Turbine Syndrome, ought to be horsewhipped.

For it turns out that researchers were reporting and analyzing WTS decades ago, in the late 1970s and early 1980s—because the poor saps living within 3 km of wind turbines were complaining of the same symptoms away back then!

Horsewhipped or tarred and feathered?  And definitely stripped of their professional credentials!


Why wind developers are sharks (Mass.)


Mr. Michael J. Rzewuski, Chairman
Zoning Board of Review
Charlestown, Rhode Island

July 9, 2013

Dear Chairman Rzewuski and Members of the Zoning Board of Review,

As residents of Massachusetts know, it seems that every day brings some new report of the profound tragedy that has been imposed on communities that have recently condoned the installation of industrial wind turbines, including (but not limited to) Falmouth, Fairhaven, Kingston and Scituate.

Some notable recent bulletins from Fairhaven and Falmouth (where the Board of Health and the Board of Selectmen, respectively, have ordered curtailment of the wind turbine operations) are reprinted below.

This news should provide a loud wake-up call to the Town of Charlestown, RI — or any other town that contemplates the possibility of treading down the same path — for all of the following reasons:

» In every one of these towns — Falmouth, Fairhaven, Kingston and Scituate — the developers insisted that fears about the disruptive adverse impacts of the wind turbines upon the health and well-being of the residents, their quality of life and their property values were overblown. In every single instance, the wind turbine proponents were tragically wrong; in every single instance, there have been widespread complaints regarding each one of these adverse impacts.

» In every one of these towns, the developers promised that the wind turbine noise would have little or no impact — that it would be “audible” but that it would be “no louder than a refrigerator” — and that the noise would comply with applicable noise standards. In fact, the wind turbine noise has been found to exceed the applicable noise limits in every single one of these towns — proving, yet again, that the developers virtually always underestimate the predicted noise levels of the projects by 10 dBA, or more.

»The wind turbines proposed for installation in Charlestown, RI (Vestas V90) are bigger; louder and closer — much closer — to homes than the wind turbines in Falmouth, Fairhaven, Kingston and Scituate where numerous residents have registered anguished health complaints.

Every wind turbine developer insists — without a shred of evidence or justification — that his wind turbines are different from other wind turbines that have caused problems all over the world. Every developer — including Whalerock — insists that his wind turbines are more modern; quieter; and less problematic than the “older” wind turbine models that are wreaking havoc all over New England and beyond. But this is categorically untrue.

The Vestas V90 wind turbine proposed for Charlestown is actually louder than its predecessor, the Vestas model V82, which has been installed in Falmouth. And the fact of the matter is that there is no way to “mitigate” or “resolve” the most obnoxious and problematic elements of wind turbine noise, including:

a) its unnatural, repetitive, man-made quality (particularly in a rural area like Charlestown);

b) its persistence — night and day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year;

c) the rhythmic rise and fall in the volume of noise at one second intervals — the “whooshing” sound described as “amplitude modulation”;

d) the asynchronous sound pattern of two wind turbines operating in close proximity to each other — but not necessarily together — because of their separation, wind turbulence, or other factors;

e) the very high power output of low frequency and sub-audible noise (infrasound), which does not readily attenuate over distances and which may cause the organs of the human ear, body cavities and even structures to respond and to vibrate in unnatural and unhealthy ways.

All of these elements which are currently being imposed on the residents of these towns — in a vast, unauthorized scientific experiment on unwitting human populations — should cause the Charlestown Zoning Board of Review to insist upon very robust proof that the Whalerock wind turbine project will not subject the residents of Charlestown to the same terrible fate.

In this regard, it should be noted that the developer of the proposed wind turbine project — the “Applicant” — is nothing more than a shell corporation — “Whalerock Renewable Energy, LLC” — whose primary purpose is to insulate the owners from any personal or financial liability beyond cost of the machines.

If the Applicant is wrong; if his noise estimates are faulty; if the adverse impacts to the health and well-being, the quality of life and the property values of Charlestown residents are dramatic; the consequences of these profound errors in judgement will be borne not by “Whalerock, LLC” — the paper corporation — but by the residents and the community of Charlestown.

Keeping this point in mind, it should be noted that neither the Applicant nor any of his hired consultants have ever unequivocally declared — much less proven — that the proposed project will be “safe.” Not once.

And needless to say, the Applicant has never offered any guarantees of any kind that he will accept the responsibility if his estimation of the potential adverse consequences proves to be tragically mistaken.

On the contrary, when pressed on this point, Mr. Menge, who oversaw the noise study for HMMH, demurred, saying that he was not a health expert. Furthermore, when repeatedly pressed about the potential adverse impacts of the wind turbine noise upon residents, Mr. Menge would only say that the wind turbine noise “would be audible at some residences.”

In fact, as Mr. Menge knows from his prior experience — including Falmouth, where he was hired by the Town of Falmouth to help diagnose the dire problems that occurred there and where Mr. Menge actually filed his report one month prior to the delivery of his report to Charlestown — the impact upon some residences is likely to quite severe.

But Mr. Menge did not share this knowledge with the Charlestown Zoning Board of Review — because Mr. Menge knows who hired him and who signs his checks. Instead, Mr. Menge would only say that the wind turbine noise will be “audible at some residences” — as if there is no distinction between classical music which is “audible” and fireworks or bulldozers — or wind turbines — which are also “audible.”

Similarly, when Dr. Singer — the audiologist [not a medical doctor–ed.] who posed as the Applicant’s wind turbine “health expert”; who had never heard of Dr. Nina Pierpont [a medical doctor–ed.] and who lionized Dr. Simon Chapman [not a medical doctor–Chapman has a PhD in sociology–ed.] of Australia (who has been denounced from the floor of the Australian parliament by an M.P.; and who appeared recently as a featured speaker at a Vestas public relations event) — appeared before the Charlestown ZBR and was repeatedly asked if there were likely to be any significant adverse health impacts to Charlestown residents, Dr. Singer would only say: “nothing is perfect; nothing is 100% fool proof.”

Dr. Singer then proposed that if we insisted on not harming people, we could never fly in airplanes or drive cars — failing to note that people who fly on airplanes or drive cars undertake these risks of their own free will and not involuntarily — as with residents who have the misfortune to live too close to someone who decides to erect a huge, pulsating machine directly over their heads where it will operate relentlessly, around the clock.

It is clear from the testimony that has already been presented; from numerous studies of wind turbine noise, adverse health impacts and significant, often devastating, property value impacts; from the cautions of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the very high risk to wildlife, including migrating birds and endangered species of bats; and from the real-time, first hand experience of communities all over New England — and the world — where wind turbines have been indiscriminately installed; that the Whalerock Project is extremely risky and that, from all available evidence, it must be considered to be fundamentally UNSAFE and UNSOUND.

If any member of the Zoning Board of Review is tempted to vote in favor of granting a special permit for the construction of this project, that member must be prepared to defend his, or her, decision by citing a compelling body of evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the project will not significantly harm anyone in the Charlestown community and that it will not significantly compromise the legitimate interests of any legitimate stakeholder in the region.

And any such member of the Zoning Board of Review who grants such approval — only to find that the adverse impacts from the wind turbines were grossly underestimated — must be prepared to defend his errant decision to his friends and neighbors in the Charelstown community.

I once again respectfully urge the members of the Zoning Board of Review, not to do this to your community. Please do not consent to create another Falmouth, Fairhaven, Kingston or Scituate.

I respectfully urge you to DENY this application for a special permit by a unanimous vote of the members of the Board.


Bibler sig

Eric Bibler
Hopkinton, RI


Editor’s note:  Mr. Bibler has long been exposing the nasty underbelly of wind energy and its thuggish practitioners who call themselves “wind developers.”  He’s a resident of Rhode Island, with strong family ties to Cape Cod, Mass.


U.S. government has known about Wind Turbine Syndrome since 1987 (U.S. Dept. of Energy)


Editor’s note:  October 1987.  The Windpower ’87 Conference & Exposition in San Francisco.  A paper read by a physicist named N.D. Kelley from the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado.  A research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093.

Dr. Kelley titled his paper “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions.”  “Emissions” means “noise & vibration.”  And the “low frequency” includes infrasound.  And the sterile phrase, “community annoyance,” is code for Wind Turbine Syndrome–except, Dr. Pierpont had not coined the name in 1987.

Here’s Kelley’s paper.  Rob Rand sent the paper to Rick James (Rand and James are America’s premier experts in measuring and assessing wind turbine noise/vibration), and James then sent it to Dr. Sarah Laurie in Australia.  Dr. Laurie forwarded the paper to us.

Now, it’s yours.  Notice the parts highlighted in yellow.  Notice that the U.S. Dept. of Energy knew about Wind Turbine Syndrome as long ago as this conference.  It was so aware of WTS that it funded a study on it—the study that is the subject of Kelley’s paper.  Notice how Kelley’s paper focuses on infrasound & low frequency noise & vibration inside homes, that is, ILFN caused by wind turbines inside nearby homes.

Yeah, the government and industry knew all about this shit in the 1980s.  It’s now 2013, and the government and industry are still pretending they don’t know about this shit.

Are you angry, yet?