Wind Mitigation Report Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Summary: The best scientific evidence indicates that anti-wind lobbyists raise health fears which increase massively the number of people living near wind turbine farms who get stress-related illnesses due to noise-related annoyance.17 major independent health studies all clear wind turbines of negative health impactsAilments are likely psychogenic in nature, not organic.Studies finding negative health impacts are flawed and performed by biased researchers.People are more annoyed by wind noise if they can see a wind turbine and aren't getting any money from its operation.People with negative atttitudes to wind and negative personalities in general report many more symptoms than people with positive attitudes and personalities.If there is a noise problem, interventions such as white-noise generators and ear plugs are extremely cheap and practical, yet negative studies suggest radical changes to policy and wind-turbine siting instead.1. Major independent health studies find no causative correlation between wind turbines and negative health impactsA major independent study [1] was commissioned and performed by Public Health Officers of Ontario. The study reviewed all available literature on wind health effects and associated disciplines including epidemiology and noise safety. The study concluded that some people living near wind turbines experienced heightened stress levels which caused related stress issues and that these issues had no physical basis.The review concludes that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.The Ontario government went further and had additional assessments and reviews [8] done recently:An expert report has concluded there is no direct health risk from wind turbine sound at Ontario's regulated setback distance.The study analyzed the latest findings on low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines. In addition, three experts in the field of noise, vibration and acoustics reviewed and validated the report.The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection just released a study by independent experts that reached identical conclusions:There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a "Wind Turbine Syndrome.And this:None of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraineAnd finally this:Whether annoyance from wind turbines leads to sleep issues or stress has not been sufficiently quantifiedThese findings exactly mirror the results of a study [2] commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). This study was performed by an independent panel of experts including Doctors, Ph.Ds and scientists who were experts in the fields associated with ailments associated with wind turbines. The study reviewed all available literature on wind turbines, noise health impacts, infrasound and reported health impacts of wind turbines. This study concluded that some people living near wind turbines found their presence stressful, and identified stress-related ailments unrelated to any physical cause.Following review, analysis, and discussion, the panel reached agreement on three key points:• There is nothing unique about the sounds and vibrations emitted by wind turbines.• The body of accumulated knowledge about sound and health is substantial.• The body of accumulated knowledge provides no evidence that the audible or subaudible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.2. 'Wind turbine syndrome' is a psychogenic illness without organic causesIn epidemiology and public health, there are concepts of psychogenic and sociogenic illnesses:Psychogenic illness: A constellation of symptoms suggestive of organic illness, but without an identifiable cause, that occurs between two or more people who share beliefs about those symptomsSociogenic illness: a medical condition that occurs to multiple individuals within a social group, but does not seem to have a common organic cause.Public health expert Dr. Simon Chapman, Ph.D. [10] and his team have done and are continuing to perform research that shows that wind turbine-related ailments are almost certainly psychogenic in nature. This excellent presentation [11] defines and presents examples of other psychogenic and sociogenic illnesses historical and current, assesses the 17 health studies world-wide [19] that found no causative correlation between wind turbines and health impacts and lists the over 200 ailments and negative impacts currently attributed to wind turbines worldwide by anti-wind campaigners and complainants.Why is 'wind turbine syndrome' most likely to be psychogenic?17 Reviews of Evidence (2002‐2012) – all negative- MANY symptoms & diseases attributed- Reports confined to webpages of opponents- Zero entries in PubMed for “wind turbine syndrome”The 200+ unique ailments blamed on wind farms would be entertaining reading -- vibrating lips at 10 km for example --, if it weren't so disturbing that so many people were willing to ascribe so many completed unrelated complaints to wind turbines. [18]3. Health studies supporting 'wind turbine syndrome' are deeply flawedAs most wind farm opponents tend to rapidly find material by authors such as Dr. Nina Pierpoint on "wind turbine syndrome" [4] , they inject statements about negative health impacts in local peoples' minds. These tend to amplify stress related to changes in their physical environment and concerns over real estate values. Note that Dr. Pierpoint's sample size was 23 direct phone interviews from people self-identified as suffering negative health impacts due to wind and assertions by those on the health impacts on an addition 15 people. From this skewed sample of 38, Dr. Pierpoint generated 60+ pages of charts and graphs on over a dozen symptoms associated with wind turbines. In other words, bogus statistics from what was at best anecdotal information from a self-selected sample. Similar studies have been performed with equally suspect methodologies that specifically queried individuals with a list of purported symptoms of "wind turbine syndrome" in egregious breaches of study design.[16]4. People are more annoyed by noise if they can see the wind turbine and aren't getting any money from itIt is very worth noting the findings [5], [6] of Drs. Frits van den Berg and Eja Pederson, Dutch wind energy impacts researchers. In one analysis, they had several hundred people answer a survey on noise annoyance due to wind, and included several other questions. They correlated the results and found that annoyance due to wind noise was very highly correlated to two factors: whether the person could see the wind turbine and whether the person was receiving any economic benefit from the wind turbine. In other words, people tended to find turbines that they could see noisier and more annoying than turbines that they couldn't see, and were annoyed if their neighbours were making money from them and they weren't. In a related study, they assessed the impacts of annoyance due to wind on people and found that it increased stress leading in some cases to loss of sleep and that in addition to the factors above, the unique characteristics of wind turbine noise made it more annoying to some people. This strongly supports the stress related hypothesis for health impacts and is worth understanding for wind turbine regulatory policy and wind turbine community engagement.5. People who dislike wind and have negative personality traits report many more symptoms than more positive peopleA UK study on people with negatively oriented personalities and their perception of wind noise and reporting of negative health impacts has been published.[17] A related study is under peer-review in ANZ.The studies build upon work already done around perception of noise and negatively oriented personality traits. The studies take into account the work done by Peders0n et al around wind farm noise annoyance and anecdotal reports of wind-related symptoms reported by Pierpont.The UK study modelled actual noise in dwellings using industry standard approaches. The study surveyed residents within three ranges of actual noise near the wind turbines. The study included questions from standard and proven questionnaires on negatively oriented personality traits.The study found:1. No correlation between actual noise and reported symptoms.2. Perception of noise was strongly related to negative attitudes to wind turbines, much more so than actual noise from wind turbines.3. A strong correlation between perception of noise and reported symptoms.4. A strong correlation between negatively oriented personality traits and reported symptoms.5. No relationship between attitude to wind turbines and actual noise; those who really could hear them more weren't disposed to dislike them more.These two graphs from the published, peer-reviewed UK study show the very strong correlation between negatively oriented personality traits and both perception of noise and reporting of symptoms. The simple way to read these is that the solid black line are people with negative traits, and the dotted line are people without those negative traits. The vertical axis is reported symptoms. The horizontal axis is perception of noise from the wind turbines (not actual noise).When the ANZ study is published, I will include its findings.6. Noise experienced by rural dwellers near wind turbines is much quieter than every urban dweller experiences all the timeIt is worth noting that the World Health Organization has published community guidelines on noise [7] intended to reduce health impacts. These guidelines call for 35 dba in bedrooms at night for best sleeping and have numerous other categories for schools etc. Anti-wind advocates point out that most wind turbine guidelines and regulations such as Ontario's Regulation 359/09 call for 40 dba in inhabited homes near wind turbines (translating into a 1500 m setback for more than one large wind turbine in the majority of cases) and use this as an argument against wind farm placement. Of course, wind turbine noise annoyance impacts a very small percentage of any populace mostly determined by psychological traits as shown above, and what is more interesting about the WHO guidelines is that no one living in a town of larger than 10,000 people has living conditions that adhere to them due to traffic noise, industrial noise, air traffic and the necessary machinery of cities. In summary, rural dwellers exposed to wind turbine noise are exposed to a much lower level of all forms of noise than city dwellers, yet the vast majority of city dwellers do not suffer significant adverse health effects or find it stressful. Those who do mitigate the impact with the use of sound proofing and white noise generators, and find other ways to subsume the stress.7. If wind turbine noise truly was causing loss of sleep, there are simple, cheap interventionsIf those concerned with wind turbine noise were truly focussed on health impacts, they would be promoting low-cost, effective noise annoyance reduction measures.For example, a white noise generator can be purchased for less than $30 USD. This provides masking noise which would eliminate any impact from nearby wind turbines. In fact, there's a free app for that. [12]Similarly, comfortable foam earplugs would also be reasonable interventions. These can be purchased in bulk for cents per ear plug. [13]There are many stress reduction and annoyance distraction techniques available with the click of a button on the internet. Most of these can be studied and practiced free of charge by anyone interested in dealing with ultimately trivial annoyances that they are over-focussing upon. [14]Finally, closing windows and installing quilted blinds would not only significantly decrease noise, but would also decrease light, improving sleep as well. [15]All of these techniques are in use today in households around the world to deal with traffic noise, sirens, airplane noise, noisy neighbours, nearby industrial works, streetcars, bird cannons and dawn tractor startups. Urban and rural dwellers depend on them to ensure a comfortable and uninterrupted sleep.By comparison, increasing setbacks of wind turbines by hundreds of meters is an extraordinary and societally expensive measure.That those concerned with health impacts only suggested interventions are greater setbacks for or complete elimination of wind turbines betrays their agenda. Their solution is vastly out of proportion to the problem.References:[1] The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, May 20, 2010, http://health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.aspx[2] http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects-Executive_Summary.pdf[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo[4] Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment, Nina Pierpont, K Selected Books, 2009, Amazon.com: Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (9780984182701): Nina Pierpont: Books[5] http://umcg.wewi.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/pubs/2009/JAS0006341/JAS0006341.pdf[6] Noise annoyance from wind turbines - a review, Eja Pedersen, Högskolan i Halmstad, Report 5308, August 2003, http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5308-6.pdf[7] http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise[8] http://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2011/12/expert-report-confirms-no-direct-health-effects-from-wind-turbines.html[9] Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of the Independent Expert Panel, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Updated April 2012, http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/impactstudy.htm[10] http://www.amazon.com/Simon-Chapman/e/B001HOPVF2[11] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/NZ-Conf1.pdf[12] http://simplynoise.com/[13] http://www.earplugstore.com/sleeping-ear-plugs.html[14] http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_relief_meditation_yoga_relaxation.htm[15] http://www.blindschalet.com/blinds.aspx?upgrade=sound[16] "Wind turbine syndrome" is more wind than syndrome[17] The influence of negative oriented personality traits on the effects of wind turbine noise, Jennifer Taylora, Carol Eastwicka, Robin Wilsonb, Claire Lawrencec, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 54, Issue 3, February 2013, Pages 338–343, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004783[18] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.pdf[19] Full list of all Wind Health Reviews maintained by Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindHealthReviews.pdf[20] Wind Turbines, Noise and Health, February 2007, Dr Amanda Harry http://M.B.Ch.B. P.G.Dip.E.N.T., http://www.flat-group.co.uk/pdf/wtnoise_health_2007_a_barry.pdf[21] Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health, Michael A Nissenbaum, Jeffery J Aramini, Christopher D Hanning, Noise and Health, 2012Additional Summaries and References:http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741%3Byear%3D2004%3Bvolume%3D6%3Bissue%3D22%3Bspage%3D5%3Bepage%3D13%3Baulast%3DIsinghttp://marg09.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/anti-industrial-wind-turbines-march-april-28-queens-park/#comment-1040http://marg09.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/anti-industrial-wind-turbines-march-april-28-queens-park/#comment-1071http://marg09.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/anti-industrial-wind-turbines-march-april-28-queens-park/#comment-1041http://marg09.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/anti-industrial-wind-turbines-march-april-28-queens-park/#comment-1042http://marg09.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/anti-industrial-wind-turbines-march-april-28-queens-park/#comment-1052http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/humans-evolved-with-infrasound-is-there-any-truth-to-health-concerns-about-it/http://masg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/NBarrett_Getting-the-Wind-Up_V2-June-2012.pdf

How worried?Today I’ve decided to delete what I’ve written before. It’s no longer needed as there is new information available that speaks more authoritatively to the nature of the risks, the various responses and projections of the virus, how it’s spread and possible outcomes for both the UK and the US.https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdfBecause there is no vaccine available, the study attempted to look at two strategies to control the spread. Mitigation and Suppression.As the study states, Mitigation attempts to slow the spread of the virus over time, eventually allowing the population to be exposed and develop a herd immunity.Suppression on the other hand describes actions taken by both individuals and governments that aim to eventually reduce and eliminate transmission of the virus.The study looks at the state of the healthcare system and its capacity, and predicts hospitalization rates, rates of ICU admissions and deaths. While the study is twenty pages and somewhat analytical in its prose, this is the first paper I’ve run across that attempts to describe the scope of the pandemic using real modeling and best known information to date.To be easier to read and digest, I’ll cut and paste in the most important information.The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic. (Spanish Flu)In the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, we assess the potential role of a number of public health measures – so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – aimed at reducing contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus.Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely.We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. (Mitigation is bad).We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures. Stopping mass gatherings is predicted to have relatively little impact (results not shown) because the contact-time at such events is relatively small compared to the time spent at home, in schools or workplaces and in other community locations such as bars and restaurants. (Suppression has a larger impact on society and the economy, and the surge capacity can still lead to short term overruns of the healthcare system)We modified an individual-based simulation model developed to support pandemic influenza planning to explore scenarios for COVID-19 in GB. The basic structure of the model remains as previously published. In brief, individuals reside in areas defined by high-resolution population density data. Contacts with other individuals in the population are made within the household, at school, in the workplace and in the wider community. (The modeling has been subject to peer review).In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months (Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% of the GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic. (The results are the do nothing strategy)In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality. (More results of the do nothing strategy).Our projections show that to be able to reduce R to close to 1 or below, a combination of case isolation, social distancing of the entire population and either household quarantine or school and university closure are required (Figure 3, Table 4). Measures are assumed to be in place for a 5-month duration. (They are saying this isn’t going away in a week or two.)The mitigation strategy is predicted to reduce peak critical care demand by two-thirds and halve the number of deaths. However, this “optimal” mitigation scenario would still result in an 8-fold higher peak demand on critical care beds over and above the available surge capacity in both GB and the US. (Mitigation will overwhelm the health care system.)The suppression strategy used by adding household quarantine to case isolation and social distancing is the next best option, although we predict that there is a risk that surge capacity may be exceeded under this policy option (Figure 3 and Table 4). Combining all four interventions (social distancing of the entire population, case isolation, household quarantine and school and university closure) is predicted to have the largest impact, short of a complete lockdown which additionally prevents people going to work. (Suppression will work in the short term.)Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity. (Suppression can lead to another wave of the virus once the NPI are relaxed.)Our results demonstrate that it will be necessary to layer multiple interventions, regardless of whether suppression or mitigation is the overarching policy goal. However, suppression will require the layering of more intensive and socially disruptive measures than mitigation. (Suppression is more invasive on the general population)Through the hospitalisation of all cases (not just those requiring hospital care), China in effect initiated a form of case isolation, reducing onward transmission from cases in the household and in other settings. At the same time, by implementing population-wide social distancing, the opportunity for onward transmission in all locations was rapidly reduced. Several studies have estimated that these interventions reduced R to below 1. (Suppression works. But China is now relaxing its response, look for a rebound in the number of cases).Overall, our results suggest that population-wide social distancing applied to the population as a whole would have the largest impact; and in combination with other interventions – notably home isolation of cases and school and university closure – has the potential to suppress transmission below the threshold of R=1 required to rapidly reduce case incidence.Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over. . . In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US.We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound. Many countries have adopted such measures already, but even those countries at an earlier stage of their epidemic (such as the UK) will need to do so imminently.In closing. This is what no body is presently talking about. “Flattening the curve” means what — either mitigation which overwhelms the health care system and leads to many more deaths — suppression which is much more invasive to the economy and everyday life of Americans, but could also lead to another wave of Corona Virus later this year. Neither option is . . . great. I’m not trying to be an alarmist. The information is now out there. Do what’s best for you and yours and be safe.Edit:It’s been a month ~ roughly 30 days. Seems like a life time ago.How worried? I’m probably more worried today than I was 30 days ago. Without me referring to studies and the like, I’ll concentrate on what I’m seeing play out on the national, state, and local level.It should go without saying that the Pandemic brought about by COVID-19 and the economic consequences are being politicized. The responses are now so intertwined that it’s impossible to address the health crisis (or the potential health crisis) and the economy one without the other. The economic consequences cannot be overstated. In the past three weeks 10% of American workers have filed for unemployment. That’s a staggering figure, but the worst is yet to come. Also it’s a self inflicted wound. People were forced to make a choice follow advice or legal measures imposed by the States and more or less recommended by the Federal Government or go to work, and risk the illness caused by the virus. The question, the real question is how to restart the “economy.” Stated more precisely. How do we put 10% of the working population back to work? How do we restart small businesses? What does the post-COVID-19 economy look like, short, middle and long term? The million (trillion) dollar question is when is it safe to start easing restrictions?It’s Monday April 13, 2020. The President (or his administration) has attempted to be seen as being “in charge” while failing to use the full power and authority of the government. In the next paragraph, I’ll address the legality of the a federal response. Here I will point out, that the federal government had one card to play. Push all the smoke out of the room for a moment. The defense procurement act, an old act from the 1950’s was actually the only card the federal government could play. The Federal government had the ability to take control of the supply chain. They could federalize PPE, ventilators, testing supplies, they could federalize the food sources, grocery stores, limit and ration essential items. The President implemented the DPA in March but then failed to use the power in any meaningful way. He said “Boo” to private business, while using the DPA as a negotiation tool. They then forced the states and local (hospitals) to go on the open market and procure what they needed. The Government then did an about face. Instead of taking control of the supply chains, the Federal Government then inserted itself into the open market, under cutting the efforts of the State and local (hospitals) efforts. A horrible decision that will cost lives in the end. To add insult to injury, they then politicized, who receives what from the government. “He was nice to me,” send him some PPE. Hell of a way to run a government.Let’s point out that the President didn’t close the economy or cause it shut down. The President never issued any “orders” to “stay at home,” or implement “social distancing.” The president didn’t order bars, restaurants, large social gathering to close. There’s a really good reason why! The Tenth Amendment boxes in the federal government and essentially forces the decisions about the health and welfare of the population to the State level. It’s up to the governors, and to a lesser extent local officials to re-open the economy. They decide when to ease social distancing measures leading to re-opening “non-essential businesses” and eventually the economy in general. With lawful state orders in place, there’s an ad hoc approach to the pandemic, which I’ll discuss later. It will be up to your state and local officials to decide what’s done, and when. Further, just because social distancing measures are “relaxed” whatever that means in the future, it will be up to individuals to decide if they will obey and when. Individuals will need to feel safe.Today, the President tweeted that he has the power to open the economy. No sir. You don’t. You can’t force the States to do anything. You can’t force people to reenter the work place. You can’t force people to feel safe. You can’t force small businesses to open. Mr. President you put yourself on the sideline early in January and February. You stood by while the number of cases, hospitalizations and death mounted. You ignored years of planning for pandemics. The institutional knowledge, the “play book” was and is known. The play book would have told you how to implement pandemic measures while protecting individual rights. You Mr. President, shit the bed. You contemplated letting the virus run a muck. You delayed until mid March before you directed that CDC guidelines be published. Meanwhile the States did what they believed was in their best interests. You Mr. Cheerleader in Chief, are irrelevant.Today the President of the United States proclaimed that he has absolute authority to re-open the economy. When challenged from a legal standpoint, (the 10th Amendment says NO.) he pivoted and said the governors would do as he said. “They have to.” That got me to thinking, when in our history did the Federal Government do something that “felt” like absolute power? Back in the 70’s and 80’s in the wake of the oil crisis, your federal government did something extraordinary. They instituted a federally mandated 55 mile an hour speed limit. The older folks reading that will remember a time when you did 55 miles an hour on the interstate. How did they do it? It’s not within the plenary powers of the federal government to require a 55 mile an hour speed limit nation wide. They required it by tying the speed limit with federal transportation funding. I believe the South Dakota challenged this and the matter went to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed that the federal government could not require a 55 mile an hour limit, but the federal government is free to give or withhold federal funds and since every state is dependent on federal funds to maintain interstate highways, the 55 mile an hour speed limit became the law for several years. When Trump says he has absolute authority when he clearly doesn’t what federal program is he intending to cut or potentially withhold unless the State or your state does what he asks? This is dangerous. You have been warned. Will FEMA not respond to states that haven’t obeyed his plan? Pay attention.Edit. The President is trying to use immigration as his hammer. He wants to force down immigration policies and tie federal funds to doing away with “sanctuary cities.” Bet you never saw that coming.Today, those of you who read this, make the decision — do you feel more comfortable today than you did, last week, last two weeks, last month? Millions of people are making that decision for themselves. States are making the decision for themselves. The lack of a coordinated response at the beginning, leads to the lack of a coordinated response on the back end. To the extent you want to insert letters to describe the post COVID economy, it will most certainly not look like a V. It might look like a U under the best circumstances, or could have looked like a U. Most likely it will look like a L, followed by months of _______ until whatever happens — happens.Over the weekend, we hear that social distancing measures will or need to be in place, for anywhere to another 30 days or until the end of the year. Experts can’t agree. They know two things. The virus isn’t under control. The economy needs to be re-opened. Neither can take place in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that everywhere is different. The so called curves from the “flattening the curve” rhetoric, are taking place all over the country. Some are similar to one another, and others are on far different trajectories. This is a result of the ad hoc “Mitigation” strategy described in the OP. But there is something different going on that needs to be explained. Mitigation allows the population to be exposed. The goal is to not overwhelm the health care system. But the people, they aren’t sitting around with “Mitigation” on their minds, waiting for their “COVID turn.” Some people are treating this as a suppression strategy. Further they want the older population and people with pre-existing conditions to act like it’s Suppression, while others are supposed to be acting as if they are Mitigation. As an individual, I don’t want COVID-19. I’ve had a really bad case of the flu. I know what that feels like. I have underlying health issues. I’m at high risk for not only getting very ill, I may also die. Even if I live I can’t afford to take a month off to recuperate. I own a small business. I can’t afford to take loans.I own and run a lawfirm. I have money. It’s a matter of how long I can last while the majority of my income is shut down. Lawyers aren’t needed or of limited use during a pandemic. Yes I’m worried. But what I have money in the cue that will eventually run out. How long will I sit here, day after day with the phones not ringing, with no one making appointments, with a court system that’s shuttered for all but the most important constitutional concerns? I’d like nothing more than to wake up one day and start where I left off. But I know that’s not going to happen.I also know that I’m blessed. I can’t be laid off. I have some income. My bills are under control for now. But unemployment insurance isn’t an option for me. Small business loans, no thanks I’ll pass for now. How long? I’ll see. I’ll keep my finger in the wind and see how it blows. If I’ve learned anything from COVID-19, it’s how quickly things can change.Let’s go back to what really worries me. No body knows how to get back to normal. The lights won’t be switched on, employment won’t immediately start up. My favorite bar will remain closed, as it has since March 20. Clients won’t immediately start back towards my door. Lawyers exist on disposable income in large part. No income. No need for lawyers. Worse still. No one has a plan. There isn’t a plan. I don’t care what the President says about his new “reopening the economy” task force, or how many business leaders he intends to listen to. They don’t know. They don’t have the levers. Further and more frightening, is they don’t have the knowledge. COVID-19 makes people feel unsafe. No stimulus bill or program will change that. In fact any stimulus bill has the opposite effect. With a safety net, or series of safety nets, people are encouraged to stay home, they are encouraged to stay safe. In an odd turn of phrase, stimulus makes it easier to feel unsafe. There are multiple levels. Federal, state, local and the population as a whole, each needs to feel “safe.” Garbage briefings with propaganda videos do nothing more than divide the nation, in a time that we need leadership to come together. We have the wrong President — he can’t inspire — he can’t lead — he attacks and defends.Another worry. We the people, I’d say the 78% of so who feel like social distancing is the right thing to do. Those people need to change from one opinion to another. They have to trust when someone says, “IT’S SAFE,” it’s actually safe to do so. To do that your governments need to win the hearts and minds of the people. When you say, we need reopen the economy, without assurances that it’s safe to go back out into the new Post COVID 19 economy, your government, be it federal, state or local will fail. We all need to be on the same page. When the President, tweets #firefauci, when his message is different from the experts, only the most loyal supporters will agree. The rest of us will wait for as long as we can until the virus is gone, or we are forced to make difficult choices.To dovetail with the safety issue for a moment. Any post COVID reopening is going to need testing. I promise, if the health department for my county said, free testing for all, I’d be in the car in line for as long as it was needed. No matter how uncomfortable to swab. The US has absolutely bungled the testing for COVID. No one is talking about how to get mass testing done in the entire population. We don’t have the infrastructure in place to do contact tracing to require people exposed but showing no symptoms to quarantine. Frankly I don’t think any one thinks its possible with the current administration in place. On the one hand the President says, testing needs to be done on the state level, while on the other hand tests are in the pipeline. Part of the federalization effort that was missing is the back end testing of samples. The government can collect millions of samples, but without a trained lab tech running those samples and getting result out quickly, it doesn’t matter. If I have to wait a week or two or a month, the result is meaningless. It tells what was going on, back when the sample was taken. It doesn’t mean I’m COVID free today. It doesn’t tell me that everyone around me is COVID free.I’m worried. Yes now more than ever. It’s not that I fear the virus, I do, but aside from my own social distancing and those around me, I have very little control. I fear that the change that’s coming is not something anyone can plan or know what’s coming. With sufficient infrastructure improvements, some court appearances can be switched to video. Some however can’t. A jury can’t sit in a room or at home and listen to the testimony. That’s 12 people, with lawyers, a judge, a court reporter, and bailiff or two. Twenty or so people in one place, each with an integral role to play.Trump’s way or way of going so to speak, his lack of empathy, his disdain for experts, his inability to grasp concepts, the unstable genius mentality, relegates him to the sidelines, while the real leaders step to the fore front. He frightens me. His impatience frightens me. His attempts to control the government, the state governments frightens me. I’m worried that we are flaying away in the darkness without anyone leading us with a plan, and with comprehensive information. We don’t know what we are doing.

The bloom is off wind energy because it is not renewable or clean, storage is inadequate and maintenance cost are high and construction of turbines is dependent on coal and other fossil fuels to make massive amounts of steel.The wind turbines are ugly and kill rare birds at abandon.The public are outraged at the rare bird kill ignored by government.Average fine for oil kill of big birds is $7000 to $20,000 while no fine for wind turbine kills. WHY?Mexico Says “Hasta La Vista” To Inefficient Green Energies. Could Be “Death Knell” For Renewables”>President Andrés Manuel López ObradorBy P Gosselin on 22. May 2020German public broadcasting Deutsche Welle (DW) here reports how Mexico has decided to end its transition the renewable energies, angering activists and investors.The move, DW reports, “is scaring off environmentalists and investors” and could be the “death knell for renewable energies.”Apparently President Andrés Manuel López Obrador had traveled to Oaxaca and saw how the local hills were blighted by wind turbines, commenting: “These windmills are spoiling the landscape” and “produce very little energy.”Wind energy is notorious for its inefficiency, unreliable supply, high costs, blight to the environment and health hazards. Moreover, the business has been taken over by crony capitalists out to make a killing on the massively subsidized projects. In fact, as Michael Moore’s latest film shows, green energies aren’t really green at all.The move by the Mexican government has angered green energy activists and investors. Another reason cited by the Mexican government is “grid instability”.The reform will have some impact on German investors, DW reports. For example: the Potsdam-based company Notus, who since 2014 has been planning five solar and wind power plants. Now their future remains uncertain.“The new directive could be the death knell for renewable energies,” DW reports. “Protest letters from the Canadian and European Union embassies refer to 44 ongoing projects worth USD 6.8 billion.” Another problem is Mexico’s power grid is not designed to handle the massively fluctuating power fed in by wind and sun.Though DW suggests that the return to fossil fuels is going to mean higher costs for Mexican consumers, most results from around the world suggest the opposite is the case. Germany, for example has committed a whopping 1 trillion dollars to green energies since 2000, yet today the country has among the world’s most expensive electricity prices for consumers. Annually tens of thousands of households see their power cut off because they can no longer afford to pay the power bills.Mexico is wise to move to a source of energy that is plentiful, affordable, stable and one that doesn’t destroy the environment on a massive scale."Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" - Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English - by Pierre L. GosselinThe original point of environmentalism was buffering nature from all human intrusions and toxins, not just fighting a specific type of pollution. Wind cheerleaders have decided that giant, mechanical weeds are green because they “must” be green. Many would probably accept dirt bikes and ATVs crawling all over hills and dunes as long as they had electric motors. Today’s “sustainability” is much more about coddling civilization than protecting nature. Some younger people may not understand what “the environment” is beyond AGW warnings they’ve heard since childhood. To become well-rounded environmentalists they should study the history of physical landscape destruction, which began with agriculture, logging & mining but has entered a major new phase with wind power. Nature has a bleak future unless this industry is restrained. It’s a tragic case of blight for naught when you see how ineffectual wind turbines really are. An all-electric economy may never be possible without earthbound nuclear fusion in portable configurations. Armies of ugly wind towers are doing nothing for nature itself.Because of intermittency wind energy needs back up and this makes the electric grid the most expensive when wind power is added. Investors are backing away from renewable stocks.Some alternative energy stocks have taken a beating. In late February, SolarEdge Technologies (SEDG) was at $143. Recently it fetched $78. Similarly, Vestas Wind Systems (VWS.Denmark), the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, was at 734 Danish kroner ($110). Today it’s at 522 kroner…The short-term outlook isn’t very positive. According to BloombergNEF, an energy research service, new solar generating capacity could fall this year. Wind installations are also at risk. The researchers also said that policymakers “distracted” by coronavirus could slow efforts on renewable and battery policies. Electric vehicle sales will slow but fare better than internal combustion engines.Alternative Energy Stocks Have Taken a Beating. Why They Are Still Buys for the Longterm.Denmark and Germany have the most wind energy added and this makes the cost of electricity the most expensive.Thoughtful answer to a similar Quora question are worth repeating“Is wind power economically viable?”“John Doner, PH.D Mathematics, University of Michigan (1972)Answered December 16None of those supporting wind power ever get around to addressing land use, or the technical problems with wind power without fossil fuel power backup.Wind power has generally produced 2.5 watts of power pew square meter of land. Due to physics, it cannot ever exceed twice that level. So let’s be generous and give it 5 watts per square meter.Now lets assume a world of no fossil fuel, so all energy we consume comes from wind. The per capita consumption of energy (includes each person’s share of transportation, manufacturing, etc.) comes to 10.34 kW continuous. At 5 watts per square meter, that comes to 10,340/5 = 2,068 square meters of land.Our population is estimated to be 334,000,000 people, so we need 334,000,000x2,068 = 690,564,063,937 square meters of land. In square miles, that’s 266,628 square miles. That’s approximately the size of Texas! And bear in mind that I started out assuming wind power to be twice as effective as it really is.What about arable land for crops, or wildlife preserves? Scarfing up that much land across the country would necessarily drive real estate and food costs much higher than they are today.Now, where will we find that much land with good winds, and what about the effects on wildlife, either in offshore or land facilities? Not well studied, if at all.Next, batteries. Every electrical system has backup. We could have weather patterns where usually windy areas lack winds for a week or more. To be really secure, one would want a month of backup. If we used 10 kWh backup lithium batteries, how many would we need.Per capita, we’d need approximately 30x24 = 720 batteries, or334,000,000x720 = 240,480,000,000 10kWh batteries!. The price of these batteries is in the neighborhood of $7,500 per battery, so our national investment would be $1,803,600,000,000,000 at today’s prices. Let’s be generous, and suppose those prices could drop to 25% of today’s cost. We would still need $450,900,000,000,000, or $1,350,000 per citizen. Clearly impossible, even with the generous assumptions being made here.And now for a technical problem that would further add a large expense to this endeavor. The electricity you receive from the power company is an alternating current (AC) at 60 cycles per second (Hz). When wind or solar place power on the grid, they must convert it from direct current (DC) to AC, and lay it on the grid so that it is matched up exactly with the AC frequency already there. It is similar to requiring that two clocks be synchronized.As it is, the fossil fuel facility provides the synchronization signal, i.e., all wind or solar facilities must get “in step” with the fossil controlled grid.Take away the fossil grid. Now who provides the synchronization? Neither wind nor solar can produce power continuously, so if you were to pick some one facility to be the master clock, what happens if it goes offline (something that is very rare for fossil plants)? At the very least, if there is a solution to this quandary, it would add significant operating cost to the power production.So in summary, solar and wind power cannot and will not ever supply more than a small share of our energy needs, and at high cost, To see how cost goes up, look at the following graph.That’s all you need to know about wind and solar: where the rubber meets the road, it doesn’t look very good. Ultimately, we will power our civilization with nuclear, which is virtually inexhaustible, or we won’t have the luxury of civilization.”205 viewsView · Answer requested by Brian WillottYou and Brian Willott upvoted thisKILLING THE EARTH TO ‘SAVE’ IT : Rainforest Trees Cut Down To Make Way For Industrial Wind TurbinesOld-growth trees cut down for windfarm transmission corridor (Pic Source : The Australian)Posted: June 15, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry |Old-growth trees cut down for windfarm transmission corridor - CLIMATISM.pngOld-growth trees cut down for wind farm transmission corridor (Pic Source : The Australian)“IF this had have been a transmission line connecting a coal power station,these far left brainwashed climate change believing nutters,would have been there in their thousands.”– John Clarkson***H/t @JohnClarksonGSM @MRobertsQLDIN the good old days of ‘Greenism’, genuine environmentalists rallied against the wanton destruction of pristine flora and fauna.IN the twisted age of Global Warming Climate Change hysteria, real environmentalists are failing us in the face of a global religion that has allowed the development of supposed ‘planet-saving’ ‘renewables‘ that wilfully destroy forests, animals and pristine environments.IN the latest example of ‘Green’ eco-hypocrisy, 200 year-old rainforest trees have been cleared to make way for wind ‘farm’ transmission lines in Tasmania’s Tarkine.THE obvious question is a simple one: Where are the @Greens or @Greenpeace or @GretaThunberg when pristine landscapes and old-growth rainforests are being destroyed to satisfy the whims and superstitions of Global Warming Climate Change catastrophists and EU elites?MATTHEW DENHOLM exposes the latest eco-hypocrisy that seems to haunt consistently the globalist climate change do-gooders…Old-growth trees cut down for wind farm transmission corridorMATTHEW DENHOLMTASMANIA CORRESPONDENT@MatthewRDenholmRainforest trees 200 years old have been cleared to make way for a wind farm transmission line in Tasmania’s Tarkine, prompting claims of green “hypocrisy”.Myrtle and sassafras trees were among those felled along a 10.5km corridor widened for transmission lines associated with the $280 million, 112 megawatt wind farm at Granville Harbour, in Tasmania’s remote northwest.Special species timber advocate Andrew Denman, who discovered the felled trees, said it raised concerns about environmental impacts, wastage of high-value timber and wind power’s “green” credentials.He estimated that some of the felled trees, highly valued in specialty timber production, were 200 years old, given they typically grow at 0.3cm a year and were 60cm in diameter.With more wind farms planned for Tasmania, including another in the northwest requiring a 170km transmission line, he believed any further clearing, if it must occur, should be co-ordinated to ensure timber was not wasted. “With much of the special timbers in short supply … there could have been a more co-ordinated effort in utilising it to make sure that timber was going to a sawmiller in a timely manner so it could be processed and not wasted,” said Mr Denman, a boatbuilder.While not critical of the wind farm proponent, whom he did not doubt had complied with regulatory requirements, he understood clearing for electricity infrastructure was exempt from the Forest Practices Code, which seeks to mitigate impacts on keys species.He believed it was hypocritical of the Greens to oppose “sustainable” harvesting of rainforest timbers while backing the Granville Harbour wind farm and, by implication, associated logging of such trees. “An old-growth tree is an old-growth tree,” Mr Denman said. “Why is it acceptable to cut it down for a transmission line but not acceptable to cut it down sustainably and regenerate that area and put it to good use?”A Greens spokeswoman said while the party was a “strong supporter of renewable energy”, it “consistently opposed logging or clearing within reserves”.The wind farm’s website says the transmission line, providing power to the grid at the Reece Dam, was being handled by state-owned TasNetworks.A spokeswoman for project developer Granville Harbour Operations said it required all works to comply with approvals. “These impose clear procedures and requirements on us and our contractors to mitigate and manage environmental impacts, including impacts to native vegetation,” she said.TasNetworks said its widening of an existing transmission corridor was “considered optimal”. “It reduced the extent of clearing required to connect the wind farm to the electricity distribution network,” a spokesman said.Search Results for “wind turbines” – ClimatismHow viable is wind power?Winds Of Change? 10 New Papers Document The Evident Harm Wind Turbines Afflict On HumanityBy Kenneth Richard on 19. November 2018In the scientific literature, wind energy’s effects on human populations has increasingly garnered an ignominious reputation in recent years. For example, wind energy is claimed to (1) lead to “genocide” and “green grabbing”, (2) harm human health and well-being, and (3) lower home property values.Image Source: Tonin, 2017Wind energy “green-grabbing” leading to “genocide”, division, and “violent conflict”“The ‘solution’ is now the ‘problem:’ wind energy, colonisation and the ‘genocide-ecocide nexus’ … The green economy emerges in the shadow of conventional fossil fuel production, presenting itself as a ‘solution’ and pathway to slow the effects of ecological, climate and economic crisis. Said differently, renewable energy in particular, and the green economy in general, emerge as the ‘lesser evil’ of industrial development. Discussing the principle of ‘lesser evil’, Eyal Weizman writes, ‘less brutal measures are also those that may be more easily naturalised, accepted and tolerated – and hence more frequently used, with the result that a greater evil may be reached cumulatively’. The green economy is the lesser industrial evil, utilising a technique of war to morally buffer and continue the proliferation of industrial waste in the name of climate change mitigation, which according to this research results in greater cumulative social and environmental alterations and, even, the systemic and increasing destruction of alternative value systems and ways of life valuing their relationships with their ecosystems. … State-sanctioned land grabbing by corporations in the name of sustainable development is accumulation by dispossession by environmental ethic – green grabbing [Fairhead et al., 2012] – which walks a fine line with genocide. ‘The Rana’, exclaims: ‘We hold responsible all of the political parties of Mexico, the government in its different levels for the attempt to annihilate us, the attempt to grab our land and to wipe us off the map.’” (Dunlap, 2018b)“Sustainable development and climate change mitigation policies, Dunlap and Fairhead argue, have instigated and renewed old conflicts over land and natural resources, deploying military techniques of counterinsurgency to achieve land control. Wind energy development, a popular tool of climate change mitigation policies, has consequently generated conflict in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Istmo) region in Oaxaca, Mexico. Research is based on participant observation and 20 recorded interviews investigating the Fuerza y Energía Bíi Hioxo Wind Farm on the outskirts of Juchitán de Zaragoza. This paper details the repressive techniques employed by state, private and informal authorities against popular opposition to the construction of the Bíi Hioxo wind park on communal land. Providing background on Juchitán, social property and counterinsurgency in Southern Mexico, this paper analyzes the development of the Bíi Hioxo wind park. It further explores the emergence of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ counterinsurgency techniques used to pacify resistance against the wind park, enabling its completion next to the Lagoon Superior in October 2014. Discussing the ‘greening of counterinsurgency’, this contribution concludes that the Bíi Hioxo wind park has spawned social divisions and violent conflict, and intervened in the sensitive cultural fabric of Istmeño life.” (Dunlap, 2018a)Wind turbine noise annoyance “statistically associated” with a host of health problems• Sleep disorders twofold higher frequencies near wind turbines“We investigated whether long-term exposure to low-frequency noise generated by wind power facilities is a risk factor for sleep disorders. We performed an epidemiological study of the living environment and health effects of such noise by surveying 9,000 residents (≥20 years of age) living in areas with operational wind power facilities. … Moreover, the reported prevalence of sleep disorders was significantly higher (by approximately twofold) among residents living at a distance of ≤1,500 m from the nearest wind turbine than among residents living at a distance of ≥2,000 m, suggesting a dose-response relationship. The attitudes of residents towards wind power facilities strongly affected their responses regarding sleep disorder prevalence. It is highly likely that audible noise generated by wind power facilities is a risk factor for sleep disorders. Obtaining a satisfactory consensus from local residents before installing wind power facilities is important as for more amenable their attitudes towards such facilities.” (Ishitake, 2018)• Blinking lights, shadow flicker, and visual annoyance…migraines, dizziness, sleep disturbances…“An aggregate annoyance construct has been developed to account for annoyance that ranges from not at all annoyed to extremely annoyed, toward multiple wind turbine features. … Household complaints about wind turbine noise had the highest average aggregate annoyance (8.02), compared to an average of 1.39 among those who did not complain. … It should also be underscored that in response to concerns raised during the external peer review of this paper, the association between the non-noise annoyance variables and self-reported and measured health outcomes was evaluated. With the exception of vibration annoyance, which could not be evaluated due to the small sample size, blinking lights, shadow flicker, and visual annoyance were found to be statistically associated with several measures of health, including, but not limited to, migraines, dizziness, tinnitus, chronic pain, sleep disturbance, perceived stress, quality of life measures, lodging a WTN-related complaint, and measured diastolic blood pressure.” (Michaud et al., 2018)• Residential proximity to wind turbines correlated with annoyance and health-related quality of life“The findings indicate that residential proximity to wind turbines is correlated with annoyance and health-related quality of life measures. These associations differ in some respects from associations with noise measurements. Results can be used to support discussions between communities and wind-turbine developers regarding potential health effects of wind turbines.” (Barry et al., 2018)• Health, well-being, stress associated with wind turbine annoyance“The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception and annoyance of noise from wind turbines in populated areas of Poland. … It was estimated that at the distance of 1000 m the wind turbine noise might be perceived as highly annoying outdoors by 43% and 2% of people with negative and positive attitude towards wind turbines, respectively. There was no significant association between noise level (or distance) and various health and well-being aspects. However, all variables measuring health and well-being aspects, including stress symptoms, were positively associated with annoyance related to wind turbine noise.” (Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska et al., 2018)• Stress, anxiety, vertigo, dizziness, nausea, blurred vision, fatigue…“In 2015, the Australian Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines concluded there was credible evidence from a number of people who reside in proximity to wind turbines who have complained of a range of adverse health impacts. These include tinnitus, raised blood pressure, heart palpitations, tachycardia, stress, anxiety, vertigo, dizziness, nausea, blurred vision, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, headaches, ear pressure, exacerbated migraine disorders, motion sensitivity, inner ear damage and sleep deprivation. A historical review shows that whilst initially the audible sounds of wind turbines disturbed people in their sleep, more complex prognoses such as Vibroacoustic Disease and Wind Turbine Syndrome were proposed to explain the reported health symptoms. These diseases were hypothesised to be linked to the emission of infrasound from wind turbines, particularly tonal infrasound at the blade pass frequency of the turbine blades and associated harmonics.”“Salt [2014] disagrees with the proposition that “what you can’t hear can’t affect you”. In his proposal, it is the outer hair cells (OHC) in the cochlear that are stimulated by infrasound as opposed to the inner hair cells (IHC) which are responsible for audible hearing. Figure 12 is a cross section through the cochlear in the inner ear and the location of the Organ of Corti containing the OHC and the IHC. Figure 13 is a more detailed view of the Organ of Corti. According to Salt, the ear responds to infrasound through the OHC and whilst the sensation is not “heard”, there is nevertheless a stimulation of the cochlea. The question is whether the stimulation by infrasound remains confined to the ear and has no other influence on the person or whether there are on-flowing effects which would explain the symptoms allegedly attributable to wind turbine infrasound.”“Pierpont coined the term “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to explain the symptoms of persons exposed to infrasound from wind turbines including “a feeling of internal pulsation, quivering or jitteriness, and it is accompanied by nervousness, anxiety, fear, a compulsion to flee or check the environment for safety, nausea, chest tightness, and tachycardia”. According to Van den Berg [56], these symptoms are well known when persons are put under stress and thus might not be specific to the impact of wind turbines. People with a generalised anxiety disorder also have symptoms which include trembling, restlessness or a feeling of being “edgy”, excessive worry and tension, an unrealistic view of problems, nausea and muscle tension and these conditions might become worse during periods of stress.” (Tonin, 2017)• Infrasound, vibrations disturb the comfort of nearby residents“Infrasound, low frequency noise and soil vibrations produced by large wind turbines might disturb the comfort of nearby structures and residents. In addition repowering close to urban areas produces some fears to the nearby residents that the level of disturbance may increase. Due to wind loading, the foundation of a wind turbine interacts with the soil and creates micro-seismic surface waves that propagate for long distances and they are able to influence adversely sensitive measurements conducted by laboratories located far from the excitation point.” (Gortsas et al., 2017)• Significant negative external effects on residential well-being“We show that the construction of wind turbines close to households exerts significant negative external effects on residential well-being … In fact, beyond unpleasant noise emissions (Bakker et al., 2012; McCunney et al., 2014) and impacts on wildlife (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012; Schuster et al., 2015), most importantly, wind turbines have been found to have negative impacts on landscape aesthetics (Devine-Wright, 2005; Jobert et al., 2007; Wolsink, 2007). … We show that the construction of a wind turbine within a radius of 4,000 metres has a significant negative and sizeable effect on life satisfaction. For larger radii, no negative externalities can be detected. “ (Krekel and Zerrahn, 2017)Wind turbine presence reduces property values for distances of up to 3 km“We present the results of a large-scale analysis on how on-shore and off-shore wind turbines affect the property prices of nearby single family residential and vacation homes in Denmark. We find that on-shore wind turbines negatively affect the price of surrounding properties to a distance of three kilometers. The negative impact increases with the number of wind turbines at a declining marginal rate but declines with distance. In the case of off-shore wind turbine farms, we do not find a significant effect of having an off-shore wind farm in view from a property itself or from the nearest beach, likely because the closest off-shore turbine is 9 km from the closest traded home. … The results suggest that ceteris paribus, wind turbine farms should be built quite far away from residential areas with turbines gathered in larger wind farms rather than installed as single turbines.” (Jensen et al., 2018)15 responses to “Winds Of Change? 10 New Papers Document The Evident Harm Wind Turbines Afflict On Humanity”Bitter&twistedBitter&twisted 19. November 2018 at 6:02 PM | PermalinkAs I have repeated said it is time to ban and destroy these unreliable, subsidised, expensive, wildlife killing, people sickening, ugly, ecocrucifixes.And charge those who promoted and profited from them, at the publics’ expense, with fraud.