Doctor’s bombshell report to government confirms Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia)

Mar 4, 2011

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail

Editor’s introduction:  It’s been over a year since Nina Pierpont published, “Wind Turbine Syndrome:  A report on a natural experiment” (K-Selected Books, 2009).  In those 16 months, the book has riveted people’s attention around the world—as this website amply illustrates.  It’s been translated into 6 foreign languages, with Danish and Czech translations currently underway.  Making it 8.  It’s sold thousands of copies.  And it has been featured in countless newspapers (including the Wall St Journal, France’s Le monde, and The Huffington Post), magazines, TV newscasts, radio programs, and so on.  And, increasingly, it’s appearing in clinical articles.

In short, it has become the benchmark analysis of what is now uniformly called Wind Turbine Syndrome (a term Pierpont coined).

Last fall, Nina was the keynote speaker at the First International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects and Industrial Wind Turbines (Ontario, Canada).  Here, the Society for Wind Vigilance, an international association of scientists and clinicians, with loud huzzahs presented her with its “Excellence in Research & Leadership” award.

There is another side to this story.  If you can imagine this story as the equivalent of the biblical David & Goliath fable, then everything said, above, is “David’s” side.  The “little guy” armed only with slingshot and, as it happened, one heck of a well-aimed stone.

Then there’s Goliath, the blustering bellowing larger-than-life multi-billion-dollar overblown corporate object of that well-aimed stone.  The Global Wind Industry.  “Clean, Green, Renewable” Big Wind.

Big Wind has tried its damnest to bury Pierpont and her book.  The American Wind Energy Association, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, the British Wind Energy Association, endless hirelings and shills and self-styled environmental blogs and Global Warmist Jeremiahs & Jihadists—have ridiculed, scorned, assailed, crucified, pilloried, twisted, tarred & feathered, pummeled, huffed & puffed, and otherwise endeavored to discredit both book and author.  (A spectacle at once appalling and hilarious.  The Great Wind Energy Opera, as it’s known in our household.)

The stone hit home.

In her first chapter, Nina explains the scholarly process known as “peer review.”  (Big Wind’s bombast regarding “peer review” has been the most entertaining aspect of this whole comedy.  These guys wouldn’t know a “peer review” from a beer can.) Pierpont notes that the report, in fact, was peer reviewed.  What’s more, the reviewers (called “referees,” in academia) prompted her to change, elaborate on, further examine and flesh out issues she had not originally intended and was frankly unaware of.  It was because of a rigorous peer review process that the report took at least another 6 months to complete.

Be that as it may, Nina ended her discussion with a caution:

That said, the litmus test of scientific validity is not peer review, which, after all, is not infallible, as the history of science amply demonstrates. Peer review is an important first step in judging scientific or scholarly merit. Still, the ultimate test is whether other scientists can follow the author’s research protocol and get the same results, or if different lines of research point to the same conclusions.

That, of course, remains to be seen with this report.

—Nina Pierpont, “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (2009), p. 16.

That no longer remains to be seen.  Dr. Sarah Laurie’s submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry on Rural Wind Farms confirms Pierpont’s data in spades!  Many times over!  Peer review is merely a predictor or value; independent research which turns up the identical data is confirmatory.  Let there be no more whining by Big Wind that Wind Turbine Syndrome is a NIMBY myth, an anecdote, a nocebo.

Now, let the lawsuits begin in earnest.

Meanwhile, here is Dr. Laurie’s magisterial report.  Short, succinct, not a wasted word throughout, on point, passionate, professional, brilliant—and appalling.  The story she tells of WTS victims throughout rural Australia is nothing short of horrendous.  Read and weep.  

Read this and hope the Australia Federal Senate has the courage to end this nightmare.  Stupid, foolish, egregious, criminal nightmare.  It’s time to ring down the curtain on The Great Wind Energy Opera insofar as it insists on taking place in people’s backyards.

A final word.  Pierpont ended her report with a 2 km punchline.  “Industrial turbines,” she concluded from her data, “need to be setback a minimum of 2 km from people’s homes.”

Dr. Laurie disagrees.  Her data leads her to call for 10 km.

Sarah Laurie, MD, Medical Director
The Waubra Foundation
  1. Comment by Michael Fisher on 03/05/2011 at 7:35 am

    I can only stand by, unable to add any more supportable scientific data to the resistance movement against wind farms. It is a tragically corrupt state of affairs that rivals the scale of disaster, loss and misery brought about by two world wars and many others added together.

    A massive amount of meritorious work has been done on the windfarm battlefield by gifted and well motivated experts. Unfortunately we, the general public, are mostly untrained, unqualified and/or without the special resources needed to quantify and therefore prove the existence of the medical effects of “wind turbine syndrome,” with rigorously researched and analysed data.

    Notwithstanding all the proven and unproven claims against windfarms, their economic lack of efficacy and negative medical effects, there seems to be only one way in which to overcome the windfarm Goliaths and their bureaucratic acolytes in government. That “way” lies in concerted, globally coordinated and focussed actions, laser-like in their precision.

    In taking a global view it becomes tragically apparent that there is a notable lack of coordination among those who wish to defeat the many Wind Farm Goliaths. Potentially, that is the fatal flaw that runs through the many resistance movements. Just as no successful general allowed his army to trot off in every direction at once, there is a critical need to ‘rally the troops,’ identify the essential strategic actions and then to act upon them with strong, centralised leadership and coordination, all under one master plan.

    The specialist weapons to be used must be extremely sharp scientific facts, not hearsay or rumours, no matter how understandable or emotive they may be.

    Admirable as it is, the work of Nina Pierpont, Dr. Laurie and colleagues, lacks the power that can only be gained by being part of an agreed global strategy. The same may be said for the work of Dr. John Etherington’s book, ‘The Windfarm Scam,’ and the heroic efforts of many others.

    No matter how good or rigorously researched and proven their conclusions may be, their individual energies are as effective as trying to shoot feathers through armour plate.

    We need the power that can only be gained by directing concerted energy on the weak points in Goliath’s armour. That energy cannot be delivered by one person or even by the individual groups in medicine, economics, engineering, environmentalism(s) and many others.

    If we continue to act as small, independent groups and without global coordination, the Global Goliaths will win by employing the age-old rule of divide and conquer. That is what they have done so successfully up until now and that is how they will continue to win, unless we reorganise and refocus as one group with one objective.

    With all the intelligence we possess, so far we have acted with all the effectiveness of a directionless mob. We can do much, much better than that.

    MBF

  2. Comment by Jack Sullivan on 03/05/2011 at 5:38 pm

    Wind developer credibility is, in a word, TERRIBLE. Of 13 promises made by them in lobbying for Northern New York wind projects, none were fulfilled. The best being about 60%.

    As one local sage put it, they told the truth ONCE!

  3. Comment by Peggy (Ontario, Canada) on 08/15/2011 at 9:03 pm

    Turbines are being planned in our area. I was thinking of getting some medical baseline data done before they are put in. Then, if /when I run into health problems, there may be some evidence. I am not naive enough to be convinced that this will make any difference but, regardless, I am wondering what medical tests would you suggest getting done before the turbines become operable? Thanks so much for your guidance and my heart goes out to all those who are suffering right now.

    Editor’s reply: Blood pressure, balance, eyes, tinnitus, emotional state, migraines.

The comments are closed.