There was a recent flurry of letters back and forth on the issue of health effects of wind turbines in the Kingston Whig, centering on Amherst Island. It started way back in January, when Carmen Krough gave a presentation on the results of her health studies to the Island residents. The Whig duly reported on the presentation in an article titled “Wrecking Our Heaven”.
In March one Paul Mosetti, who appears to have some connection to the Ontario public health system (a Google of his name gives surprisingly sparse results) wrote a letter to the Whig editor that expressed his “feeling of being let down” with the “Wrecking” article. He then goes on to recount his research into the medical literature and how the conclusions from the previous article are not supported by the medical community.
This in turn led to a another letter by one John Adams, who is a lawyer and resident of Amherst Island. Adams points out the inconsistencies of Mosotti’s previous statements, relates the weaknesses of Masotti’s 4-year-old research and brings us up to date on the latest findings.
I know nothing about Masotti, his history or his agenda. I do know that he has never studied any victims nor stayed in their homes. In his article, he attaches great importance to van den Berg’s 2008 study:
However, an additional and interesting finding was that the people who lived in the highest noise category, 45 decibels, were less annoyed than those in the lower noise locations. Additional research revealed that people in this category were receiving financial benefits from the operation of the wind turbines.
He clearly intends to spread the notion that those who complain are those who don’t benefit, and thus the complaints are nothing more than sour grapes. Apparently Masotti didn’t read the entire study, nor any of Van den Berg’s subsequent papers. It turns out that (some, many, all?) the participants had a switch that they could use to turn off the turbines when they got too loud. This fact is of huge importance, negating all the industry’s references to this finding.
Just once I’d like to see the wind energy industry and its supporters do some real science for a change, and go out into the field and find out what is really going on there. I am not holding my breath.
Below are the references to the three articles – the Whig is terrible at keeping past articles publicly accessible, so I’ve linked to backup copies. If you want to try to find the originals you can go to their e-edition site and search away.
Krough, summary of her evidence. Probably a good representation of what she presented on Amherst Island.
van den Berg (2008) study, cited by Masotti. The control of the turbines mentioned by me is on page 56.
My critique of Rand, mentioned by Adams