It's getting so I can't go for a walk without being splattered with bat bits... vast mounds of batty carnage undoubtedly fair dripping with herpes virus and suicidal ideation.

Regular readers will recall I have some concerns with windfarms - but nothing to do with health... more economics and our variable climate.

But I do have some concerns with the health of our rural communities ... aside from the obvious fact that we have far too many Serbians out here.

Some folks have real trouble coping with change... especially when it is "imposed" on them by forces they don't understand. They react viscerally - quite literally - to the prospect of an "industrialised" rural landscape.

It also has to do with the rather nebulous benefits of windfarms - the stuff just goes somewhere else - heating the lattes of the inner-city ... a future powered by a warm inner glow. And this feeling of stress and loss of control manifests itself ina range of physical symptoms. They start speaking Serbian and stock-piling blood.

There are some approaches which will mitigate this sense of alienation - not least is putting folks on an earner for looking at the things - free-ish local power for co-op members, cheap power for the town. Not just a group of contented vested interests and folks looking on angry.

If it was my business I'd still be looking at pontoons and sticking them offshore where there's a bit of decent wind and far fewer bloody Balkans ... 40% dearer but much much more productive and flexible. Even the 40% is a dodgy number. Lot cheaper if we did a lot of them.

And 93.7% of wheezing bats agree with me. Pop!

Hey there Mr O

I think you are onto something - no not sticky bats, but cooperative wind farms benefiting the locals. I imagine wind farm syndrome would make like Dracula and disappear.

Yes Diana, "community owned" wind farms might solve another problem: when locals find bird and bat carcasses (particularly endangered) under wind turbines, they could shove them into the mouths of their neighbour's noisy pets before the authorities investigate...

Another potential example of "placebo effect" in wind energy investors...

Peter Ormonde wins the thread - hilarious!

I am picturing all those battered Akubras spattered in bat bits. Beware the virus!

Peter, the electricity goes initially to local areas, the excess is exported further away. At least that's what I've been told by a technician who works on the substation at the Toora windfarm. The leasing income directly benefits the hosts, then the local communities and councils. The inner-city folks benefit from rural produce that has in part been produced by clean energy.

But I agree that more community owned wind farms should be developed. The Germans and Danish figured that out years ago.

Yes Karl, we have a problem - a major one of education in this land and yes they are one and the same.

Quick story; when recently debating Wind Farms with a Farmer:

I said; "there are thirty million Bangladeshi's living on a Delta one metre above sea level, if the sea rises they will be impacted and our current 'perceived' refugee problem will be insignificant".

The Farmer said; "we don't want Wind Farms and if you mean the Bangladeshi's are going to drown, NO that is not going to happen".

I didn't say any more - for good reason.

No Sean, we shouldn't listen to them. By your logic we should also listen to anti-vaccination nuts, homeopaths, people who believe crystals heal the body, astrologers and other pseudo-scientific nonsense,

They have been listened to, and they are wrong. Instead of listening to cranks, we should listen to people who have studied the actual evidence and found there is no real problem, other than in the minds of the cranks.

Sean Lamb - they have been listened to - just like Wakefield was listened to in relation to MMR vaccine - and the evidence was against them, in both cases.

So, at what point do we move on.

Your "we just don't know everything about the human body yet" has been used to justify all sorts of scams. Science shows, for example, that MMR vaccination is not related to autism, but the anti-vaxers just don't accept the evidence.

When you say "we" don't know everything..." - who do you mean by "we". Do you mean the average commenter on TC, the average neuroscientist, or all of humanity collectively?

There are lots of basic physiological mechanisms that are no longer open to review because they have been directly observed and measured. That's not "everything", but, the whole of known anatomy and physiology is not about to be turned over - refined, maybe.

Having said that, I agree that the perceived victims don't deserve derision - and nor will it help convert them. They deserve understanding. The industry opponents do, however, deserve derision and opposition.

Sean Lamb: "We don't know everything ...". Now that set me thinking (always dangerous). I guess the basic questions are:
- what do you mean by "know"?
- how do we "know" anything"?
- do we truly "know" anything?

Perhaps the legal system can help. There are different degrees of proof, depending on the issue. In civil matters, "balance of probabilities" will suffice. In criminal, it's "beyond reasonable doubt". Would one of those satisfy you as "knowing"?

And no, the psychosomatically ill should be treated, not ridiculed.

Sean Lamb - the last person I would consult on matters of science would be a self-proclaimed "science denier".

You only go to doctors to tell them what tablets you want prescribed? I wouldn't want to rely on your diagnostic skills. Do you have children?

"....Was a concern about mobile phones really just hysteria?...."

Yes.

Hey George, I live in North Canberra too but I've never seen a vampire...must be a CSIRO conspiracy that produced invisible vampires that are operated by the evil Red Cross to supplement their dwindling supplies in the blood bank...maybe your magic hearing can detect them - coul dyou perhaps develop a clever electronic device with some clevely coiled copper wires that would detect vampires as i'm convinced that the Red Cross and CSIRO have secretly conspired to profiteer from my blood and I will soon die of anemia and, because I believe this and we don't know everything about the human body yet then i demand to be taken seriously and have the CSIRO and Red Cross shut down or moved offshore...

Felix,

You want the CSIRO to move to Serbia? I demand the CSIRO funding be stopped due to lack of patriotism...

Well George, if you are going to link to studies to support your position, I strongly suggest you read and understand the studies beforehand. Those two are - well - very deficient.

Firstly, they are based entirely on questionnaires given to residents. That would raise alarm bells in any competent researcher - they even do that themselves, but then they ignore the limitation they identify themselves:

"......We assessed causality using a well-accepted framework. [29] Although the measured parameters (ESS, PSQI, and SF36) assess the current status, the evidence of the respondents is that the reported changes have followed the commencement of IWT operation. This is supported by the reported preferences of the residents; the great majority of those living within 1.4 km expressed their desire to move away as a result of the start of turbine operations. However, a study of the same population before and after turbine operation will be necessary to confirm our supposition....."

In otherwords, they have not done the 'before' work, yet they draw a conclusion which relies on this before work in order to be accurate. If you want to yell "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" at everyone, how about you produce some.

Mike, your point is taken, but do you understand that NO ONE has done work around wind farms that suggests that these things aren't causing harm? Until such a point in time there is NO REASON TO BLATANTLY DISMISS THE CONCLUSION OF THESE PAPERS!

Also why do you think governments and wind industry groups keeping flapping around with "international reviews"? Could there be an official coverup and denial of real problem?

Dear George
Considering that Denmark has 1,000's of wind turbines, and has about 100 million people living in close proximity, by your calculations about 10 million people are suffering from hearing ILFN, yeah right.

If 10 million people were suffering from hearing ILFN in Europe, we would be hearing about it.

People are against wind turbines but not for hearing ILFN.

George, are you seriously trying to tell us, that you could tell without hearing it, if a quarry 100k's away blew up a heap of rock ?.
Or if the wind dropped and the turbine 100 k's away stopped or started you could say "oh the winds dropped in Woop Woop" or "there a big blow ion Woop Woop ",.
C'mon! you surely dreaming.

Alan, again I refer you to query that 10% figure with the "reputable" and wind industry favourite accousticians, Leventhall - he made the claim - not myself.

If you think that 10% of Denmark aren't hearing ILFN, then wait till someone has the time to redo my small surveys of northern Canberra residents on greater scale (who live about 30km away) and get the results published - it will be interesting reading won't it, especially when more and more wind turbines go up in the region.

Alan, I can see your logic in line with those who burnt people who alleged the world was round.

Have you ever asked or investigated the question: how far can minor earthquakes be heard? How far can volcanic eruptions be felt? How did the natives on the Indian coast know the tsunami was coming, when they had no communications with the outside world?

Keyword: too much time in offices imaging what is true and what isn't, and too little time investigating phenomena.

You havn't answered my question, can you tell if a quarry is using explosives without hearing them?

Alan, sorry but I'm not a "quarry-bomb" expert. I did however hear the explosion coming from the oil storage area in Mitchell last year - about 60-70km away.

I also recall the stories of many people being woken up by the Wee Jasper earthquake 80km away. Does that answer your question?

Actually George, there are plenty of reasons "TO BLATANTLY DISMISS THE CONCLUSION OF THESE PAPERS".

Firstly, the authors of the US study are all lobbyists for an anti wind farm organisation. But even if we disregard such an inherent bias, and focus solely on the papers themselves, they are so deficient that there is no other alternative but to disregard them.

As I have pointed out, the methodology in the papers is clearly deficient. Basing findings in such a case purely on self reported information is so weak that no credible researcher would take it seriously.

If you wanted to prove a case for illnesses caused by wind farms, you would need to show that specific illnesses had either appeared or been exacerbated by the installation of the turbines - with a causal mechanism. And you would also have to remove any confounding factors which may have resulted from personal biases such as effects on property values or disputes with the turbine operators. None of this has been done in these studies.

As I said, if you want to make a case for this syndrome, you will have to do far better than these 'studies'.

Alan John -- Denmark has about 5.5 million people and 5,300 wind turbines. Not a hundred million people. Hardly anybody in the country lives more than twenty kilometeres from a wind turbine, the place is quite blanketed with them.

http://www.thewindpower.net/country_maps_en_6_denmark.php

Mike, you have to be serious? Nissenbaum and Shepherd - two groups of academics, two different countries finding similar results!

Nissenbaum furthermore finds a neat correlation of problems with distance.

And by the way is Simon Chapman a pro-wind activist or an objective academic? Is CAHA a pro-wind lobby group or not?

Please George, if you are going to comment and criticise my post, at least read and understand it first, and do not build your own strawman.

I said – very clearly – that the authors of the US study were all lobbyists for an anti wind farm organisation; and they are. Check out the home page for the organisation here:
http://www.windvigilance.com/home/advisory-group

I then said – quite clearly – that in any case the papers should be evaluated on their merits. And they both fall down in that regard. Their methodologies are flawed, they do not take into account important confounding factors in their results, which are not supported by their own analysis. They even admit this themselves, as per:

“Visual impact and attitude are known to affect the psychological response to environmental noise. At both sites, turbines are prominent features of the landscape and were visible to a majority of respondents; at Mars Hill, IWTs are sited along a 200 m high ridge, and Vinalhaven is a flat island. The visual impact on those living closest to turbines was arguably greater than on those living some distance away. ……… Pedersen estimates that, with respect to annoyance, 41% of the observed effects of IWT noise could be attributed to attitude and visual impact.”

Despite this, they still draw the conclusion that there are health impacts, when even their own data shows a weak to non-existent correlation, even without the confounding factors of visual impact and attitude accounted for.

The best you can say about these studies is that they make a weak case for further research. But on no account could you suggest they prove a link between wind farms and health impacts.

Mike, may I ask you: If one becomes motivated into the "anti-wind" camp because they are seeing the harm these things do to people, what does that make of their activism?

In contrast if Chapman and CAHA, DEA, go nose diving in shallow waters for the sake of the wind industry, what does that say about their true intent towards global warming and public health? With "nose-diving" I mean that they had the audacity to present before a Senate Committee, not because they understood noise issues, so much as they understood the need for a hurried outlay of wind turbines.

George, how many times do I have to say this until you get it?

Despite the fact that the authors of the US paper are all members of an anti-wind farm lobby group, their paper should still be evaluated on it's merits. And in that regard it should be discarded. It is flawed. The methodology is poor, and the conclusions are not supported by the evidence. They even identify a number of confounding factors themselves, then they blatantly ignore them in their conclusions.

I have to wonder why you have seized on this flawed paper to support your position, when you have ignored the many other well written and properly constructed studies. You talk about scientific evidence, but you should understand that it is NOT science to cherry pick the one paper that supports you while ignoring all the rest. How about you apply your 'scepticism' to these studies and then have a good hard think about your position.

Because right now, you sound just like a climate change denier or anti-vaccism nut who thinks that their one piece of 'evidence' trumps the mountain of evidence opposing them.

Andy you might wipe the smile off your face once reading some of the research on bat deaths and wind turbines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=wind%20turbines%20bats

I'm wondering if george thinks there could be a link between the fledgling wind turbine industry in Serbia and this recent outbreak of vampirism.

Steve, and I wonder whether there is something called "pro-wind turbine syndrome". I involves a short circuit in the processes of human thinking and intelligence, and severe insomnia and nausea, when one dares to criticise the "graces" of the wind turbine "gods".

George, nothing in your link about exploding bat lungs... please point it out?

Andy I Hope this makes it easier for you: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html .

Yes, bat lungs alright, and air pressure changes which Sue Ierarci last time considered "tiny".

Now George - you are telling fibs again. I previously said that the pressure changes would dissipate AT A DISTANCE to the turbine.

Your reference about bat pneumothorax (lung collagse) says (quoting from the article) "The movement of wind-turbine blades creates a vortex of lower air pressure around the blade tips"

AROUND THE BLADE TIPS, George. (Does that UPPER CASE thing work for you?)

Sue, it looks like you enjoy upper case also - so acceptable behaviour I assume. You say pressure changes would dissipate "at a distance". What distance?

Also do you realise that when a jumbo takes off it takes several minutes for turbulence to settle before the next aircraft takes off? Have you felt the thrust of air pressure when jumbo's take off at Sydney airport at Brighton?

Wind turbines are getting well over the span of a jumbo jet. What makes them safer?

Clearly questions for you to think about and others to investigate and research...

George - you seem to have missed my not-so-subtle irony about UPPER CASE.

But comparing the wind thrust of jet aircraft to wind turbines? You're not serious, are you?

If infrasound travels around the world and isn't any greater in the vicinity of wind turbines than anywhere else, then why are you still banging on about turbines, George?

If it is true that up to 10% of the population are affected by "infrasound", then they must be much more concentrated in the cities, where there is much more noise (and therefore infranoise) and many more people.

Maybe the answer is for those affected by infranoise to take tree change....less noise, less people.

Well my dear Sue, you better ask the "reputable" Leventhall, who identified that 10% of the population are hearing ILFN, and Colby to explain their part in such claims.

I am simply stating that my sensitive can hear the ILFN from wind turbines up to 100km in the WORST CASE SCENARIO.

Therefore who is the "wacko": the man who reports what he hears, or the those who think Leventhal and Colby (favourites of the pro-wind camp) are "reputable"?

George Papadopoulos opens his reply to Sue Ieraci with "Well my dear Sue". This has triggered my "You are a patronizing fool" syndrome where I cannot take a single word of your man-splanation seriously.

I feel no more patronised by the "my dear Sue" than by the rest of hte reply, which ignores my question, but uses more UPPER CASE shouting.

He goes on to repeat the offense by deliberately misunderstanding my other comment about the science being settled. The author has listened to the medical evidence - hence the discussion of Wind Turbine "Syndrome" as a non-medical phenomenon.

Perhaps Mr Papadopoulos could redeem himself by answering my question, which I copy here:

"If infrasound travels around the world and isn't any greater in the vicinity of wind turbines than anywhere else, then why are you still banging on about turbines, George?"

And a tip on style - if you are unsure about the cultural context, try simpler language, less grandiose greetings and less UPPER CASE.

If George's views on infrasound bombardment are correct, then the whole of humanity must be affected all the time - from world-wide bombardment from earthquakes, explosions, buses, kids practising trumpet - to name but a few - all travelling hundreds of miles.

No point asking Leventhall to back you up, George - he doesn't say what you think he says.

Here is a direct quote from Leventhall's 2006 paper in Canadian Acoustics Vol. 34 No.2 (2006):

"We are enveloped in naturally occurring infrasound, which is in the range from about 0.01 Hz to 2Hz and is at inaudible levels. The lower limit of one cycle in a hundred seconds separates nfrasound, as a propagating wave, from all but the fastest fl uctuations in barometric pressure. There are many natural sources of infrasound, including meteors, volcanic eruptions, ocean waves, wind and any
effect which leads to slow oscillations of the air. Man made
sources include explosions, large combustion processes, slow
speed fans and machinery. Much natural infrasound is lower
in frequency than 1 Hz and below the hearing threshold. (Bedard and George 2000). Our evolution has been in the presence of natural infrasound. "

Let's repeat that last sentence for emphasis:
"Our evolution has been in the presence of natural infrasound".

Great article Ryan. Whether it's the alleged existence of vampires or the alleged detrimental health effects of wind farms, you can't help silly people believing stupid things.

Careful Sue, you run the grave risk of confounding poor George with your excessive use of facts. You know how allergic to evidence he is… but back to the article.

In both cases it reveals the paucity of scientific understanding exhibited by many in the community. We have recidivists like George P who happily invoke all sorts of unproven excuses to demonise windfarms with selective anecdotes.

George simply doesn't get it that the so-called medical experts he worships are not expert in the science they misuse to criticise wind energy/windfarms. Neither do they understand or use basic scientific methods used to test the truth or otherwise of claims being made. Sarah Laurie and Pierpoint have no double-blind tests to support them, only a few anecdotes and even those are carefully selected.

What George didn't bother to tell anybody is that Leventhall specifically stated to the Senate committee that the noise levels Sarah was referring to were 1 million times greater than any recorded from wind farms. Proving that she doesn't understand the terminology or the physics of sound.

Sarah trained as a GP and practised as such before retiring. She has absolutely no qualifications relating to the interactions of sound and health yet she is parading around the countryside as some authority on the fictitious wind turbine syndrome.

And it has been reported that hosts like David Mortimer in SA, have become so ill and agonised by wind turbines that they have decided to speak out...

On another note: I have never heard a couple divorcing each other on the wedding date. They same to do it at some later time, when the love for each other run a little thin.

Could this explain why wind turbines are less likely, at least initially to speak out about their "marriage" to wind developers?

I assume you must have a PhD in witch craft?

I have no Doctorate in Mumbo Jumbory but I have a Bachelor of advanced cape swirling from the Christopher Lee Polytechnic.

Norm, be prepared, because even such subtle and rationale suggestions may stir up a bizarre commenter's backlash against you. We live in interesting times. Science progresses but many scientists still have the old traits that contributed to the most strangest and violent twists of human history.

The whole point of this article (as I understand it) is that, since the science does not support the "syndrome", it is being discussed as a sociological phenomenon, not a medical one.

In previous discussions on this same topic here, we have learned that the operative factor does not appear to be NIMBY, but whether the commenter is deriving a financial benefit from the wind farm.

Making rural properties more financially viable seems to do a lot for sleeplessness and headaches.

Meanwhile, this author - who is not claiming to be medical or scientific - compares the cultural significance of the various manifestations of mass hysteria. If I understand the author correctly, the "wind farms are OK" message is understood.

"popping off profusively"....."flying fauna"...

Peter O, you are not just a velvet voice of reason but also an artist of alliteration!

Peter, today I sitting in my little "home office", the winds are howling westerlies. There is this strange rumbling fan noise. Any explanations why I only here it here and no other region where there are not any wind turbines?

My closest neighbour's house is 500m away. So what am I hearing? Sydney airport?

Peter, I am amazed how difficult it is to even get you to enjoy the benefit of the doubt about my claims. I don't overdose on caffeine or stuff my face with other "social" nutritional drugs.

That is what I term this "pro-wind turbine syndrome" - an ability to listen when the "glory of the wind turbine" is under threat.

George - you still don't seem to get the point: there is a whole world of noise-producing phenomena out there - from trucks to explosives, to volcanoes, to dance parties. If, as you propose, all noises have a component of infra-noise that propagates to great distances all over the world, then we must all be exposed to these infra-noises.

If that is the case, it's not about wind turbines. It's about those proposed 10% of you who claim to be affected by infra-noise to get some help to cope with it.

Sue, clearly you don't want to get the point. I suggest you live next to Sydney airport, right next to the expressway. It might drive in the concepts of vibrations, low frequency noise and noise nuisance in your head!

I'm sure you will then understand why people don't get sick at the beach side, but are driven to desperation by wind turbines.

George - you are getting more and more shrill. I don't live in a quiet bucolic environment like you do. I live on a city bus route. My bedroom windows are on the street, so I assure you that I know all about noise and vibration. The windows shake when the bus idles.

And yet, no Bus Route Syndrome in my street. Curious, isn't it?

Ryan and Sue, no point arguing with George. The last wind turbine article brought George out of the woodwork as well, and at that time I explained to him and referenced the physics involved.

Basically infrasound and other sounds require a level of energy to have any impacts. Sounds can affect things, no doubt, but the energy required is far higher than that made by wind turbines at distances more than directly under the turbine itself. But he completely ignores this in favour of his nonsense.

And once again George ignores the bleeding obvious. Infra-sound on the coast and in the cities is greater than any coming from wind farms in the country. Seems to be a difficult concept for hocus-pocus George to grasp.

@ George P

Hypothetical question.

If all wind-farms were located off-shore well away from sensitive eardrums, would that satisfy you?

Personally, I'd rather live near a wind-farm than a freeway (noise & pollution), or a mine, or large industrial site, nuclear processor or even an airport, these products of human industry are of greater concern to me. However, you appear to think that wind-farms hold greater health risks than any of the above?

It's hypochondria George. Keep up.

@ George P

Thanks for your reply, such as it was. I wanted to gain some insight as to how you perceive various technologies.

From you evasive answer, I conclude that you see wind-farms as more of an environmental threat than off-shore oil rigs, freeways, airports, industrial complexes, open cut mining, oil refineries, shipping tankers and various other known environmental technology we are trying to clean up or phase out.

Therefore, please supply evidence that wind-farms are such environmental threats they are more dangerous than any of the technologies I have listed above.

And Diana from you reply, I also see that you see other option but wind turbines, regardless of how safe or destructive these things for ecology.

In case you're not aware, 200 acres of solar panels, would match the output of the same 40km by 5km stretch of wind turbines. No noise, no fuss, no chopped up birds and bats - just 1km by 1km of black panels.

Dianna, note how George lies even to himself. What he doesn't mention is that 200 acres of solar panels precludes the land from any meaningful agriculture apart from possibly some greenhouse related crops, while wind farms do not stop any existing farming practice. George also conveniently ignores the fact that while 200 acres of solar panels might produce useful quantities of power in daylight, they won't produce anything at night. Windfarms will. I suspect joints hasn't got a clue how big an area 200 acres really is.

@ Blair D

"200 acres of solar panels precludes the land from any meaningful agriculture"

Which is why solar panels work just fine on roofs.

George clearly doesn't think things through all that much, unless he's trying to evade a straight forward question.

Even he knows that wind-farms do not offer anywhere near the threat of most current industry.

"George clearly doesn't think things through all that much, unless he's trying to evade a straight forward question."

Got it in one.

"Even he knows that wind-farms do not offer anywhere near the threat of most current industry."

George is in denial though

@ George P

My studies and experience in environmentalism means I can prioritise and sift through the mass of information with a critical eye.

There is no peer reviewed evidence for your claims regarding wind turbines. There is, however, mass evidence for climate change and the input of human activities in exacerbating climate events.

I have listed previously many of the human activities which are of greater significance and import than your personal campaign against wind turbines.

Dianna, as you can see, when George has no answers, realises he has contradicted himself or intentionally avoids questions put to him, he resorts to putting fingers in his ears – or the forum equivalent.

Dianna, maybe George has painted himself into a corner so severely that he's lost the courage to admit he's got it all wrong?

Even so, his unscientific, loony beliefs put him more in league with Deepak Chopra and Lord Monckton (now that's a scary combination) than with any scientifically literate, environmentally aware humanitarian alive today.

His reliance on discredited arguments illustrates his intellectual bankruptcy.

George, thanks for proving beyond doubt that you are in denial of reason, evidence and being honest, even with yourself.

It's already been explained to you many times that your peer-reviewed studies were flawed and from biased sources.

And I'm glad that you agree with me that conversation with you is like dealing with a brick wall. I wonder if you have noticed that your mortar is coming loose…

Peter, I think an EEG on your brain first would suffice, before I send you one on mine!

I have twice provided my e-mail address for the curious to come out and hear what I hear. That is all I am willing to offer.

Peter, the problem with the vertical axis turbines is in part the bit you mentioned, "once you remove friction…". Bearings aren't made to have sideways forces. Also there are problems with differing wind speeds at differing height. It's quite remarkable that different the wind speeds are as you move away from the ground. I know from my hang gliding experiences. There is also a problem with excessive torque – which is why vertical axis machines exist but only up to a certain size. I agree that in theory they make heaps of sense and I think you will see more of them in backyards in years to come as adjuncts to solar panels.

HI, James

Your link only goes to the abstract. Did you read the paper? Was the survey blinded? Did the participants know the purpose of the study? Were the responses verified in any way?

According to Simon Chapman, in an earlier TC about this topic:

"There have now been 17 reviews of the available evidence about wind farms and health, published internationally. These are reviews of all studies, not single pieces of research. Each of these reviews have concluded that wind turbines can annoy a minority of people in their vicinity, but that there is no strong evidence that they make people ill."

George - how do I cope with applying evidence in medical practice?

Demonstrably better than you cope with applying evidence to your arguments.

James, these little allusions are simply considered more polite than pointing out that, given that, like global warming deniers, you cherry pick material of such poor quality that it cannot in any sense be defined as scientific evidence and advance it as if it were, you are talking crap.

It's closely related to learning to understand that there is a difference between publication in 'Nature' magazine and publication in 'Nexus' magazine, and that there's more to peer review than being approved by Christopher Monkton or Nigel Lawson.

But in the end, regardless of how directly or indirectly it may be expressed, regardless of courtesy and rules of debate, the simple truth is that you are talking crap.

Peter, I don't doubt any of your comments above and I agree that all these are evolving technologies but even so, levitating trains operate by large amounts of electricity generated elsewhere being applied to electromagnets - whereas turbines are designed to produce electricity, not consume it. No matter what is tried, each development has an energy cost. The trick is to find the most efficient, reliable and environmentally sound option for a particular region.

George - the results of sleep deprivation are well-known - especially for shift-workers.

Many people have to cope with noise and vibration. There are techniques for people to cope with these disruptions.

There is no good evidence, however, for "wind turbine syndrome".

Oh wow, a letter from an anti-wind quack who doesn't even understand the science, posted in an anti-wind, climate change denial blog. I'm sure the Prime Minister will be falling over herself to read that.

I just love your hypocrisy George. You bitch and moan about wind turbines but you happily enjoy the products of electricity regardless of where it's sourced. You think you're hypochondria puts you on a higher pedestal while your paranoia makes you more important than the tens of thousands of people in this country who have to endure pollution from coal-fired generators – but you couldn't give two hoots about them.

Peter, for shame, you uttered the unmentionable words, "permanent magnet" which as best I understand are currently only made from rare earths. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Rare earths are one of George P's pet hates which he uses to condemn wind turbines…

That said I'd love to see some fast trains, seriously fast, operating between Melbourne and Brisbane – ideally shooting straight through Parliament house (without stopping) – but I fear our federal politicians don't have the brains or the cojones to think of the long-term and the days when fossil fuel usage will become a serious economic penalty and something of a luxury.

But, but Peter, I love the smell of minced bat in the mornings. As for hobbits, well they have become extremely wary and rare in this area since fox shooting declined. The last hobbit tickle was recorded years ago – so sad.

I suspect we don't have to worry too much about foil helmets though, I'm more concerned about the folks that wear 'em.

The Skull has a blood barrier?

Too funny. Wake up George, your BS meter is broken. It's gullible idiots like you that denialist sites like wind watch rely on spread their propaganda. Try something novel and think for yourself just for once.

Ryan, when did tobacco did become carcinogenic, prior to research or after? Where is the research into wind turbines and health

"Ryan, when did tobacco did become carcinogenic, prior to research or after? Where is the research into wind turbines and health"

George - good afternoon, what will you do should you read peer reviewed research that satisfies you that a steel stick with a fan at the top DOESN'T harm any animal, organism, micro-organism et al, near it?

I am not going to quote the plethora of evidence that no causal link is present in current Science - a fact which is totally logical to me.

By the way, the British Royal Protection Society for Birds has called for a "switch to renewables" yes I agree Birds can be a short term casualty of Wind Energy - until they learn the new environment, so, please read the full article here; http://bit.ly/aOFFhE

Our Energy alternatives cripple Biodiversity, stuff the atmosphere, ruin the food producing land, drain the aquifers, alter the cost of living and our high valued Dollar is devaluing our Rural Produce by billions, please see ABC Rural; http://bit.ly/YZtP4T

Otherwise this debate reminds me of an iconic argument sketch:

"that's not an argument" // "yes it is" // "no it isn't" // "listen; just saying no it isn't, isn't an argument" // "yes it is" :))

As usual George is so infatuated with his self-interest that conflicting evidence is ignored. The fact that no causal link has been made between wind turbines and ill-health is irrelevant, at most an inconvenience to George's special pleading.

As for ostriches, he must be unaware it's a myth, that they don't really stick their head in the sand – much like his beloved wind turbine syndrome is a myth. Once again George kicks an own goal.

Ken, spot on. I live not far from the Bald Hills wind farm site. The rubbish the anti-wind rabble have been spouting down here over the years has been remarkable for its dishonesty, exaggeration and ignorance.

It hasn't been helped by the fact that the major noisemakers have direct and indirect links with the Liberal party and fossil fuel interests and that at least one state Liberal party member (Mary Wooldridge – sister of rabid windfarm opponent Michael Wooldridge) owns land in the area. Don Argus also owns property in the region and has helped fund opposition to wind farms.

Strangely these heroes for environmental and human health are deathly silent on matters such as coal seam gas developments, coal mine expansions, quarries and land clearing.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/?p=8305

Peter, at the risk of sounding a bit sycophantic: BRAVO!

OMG, George is as ill informed about cattle and pastures as he is about basic science.

For your information George, South Gippsland is one of Victoria's prime milk producing regions. Several of the state's largest dairy farms operate within a couple of kilometres of two windfarms, yet not one farmer has raised concerns about wind farms affect the cattle.

I know the vets that work in this area quite well and have asked them about concerns about the wind farms and whether anyone has raised issues. They just laughed and said no but they did suggest that animals are smarter than some humans.

By the way, there are two properties near the Toora windfarm that have horses – generally known to be flighty creatures. Again, the owners of these properties have never observed the horses exhibiting distress from the windfarm operating nearby, even when shadow flicker crosses the paddocks brief period of time.

Correct Peter, we do need to act on Climate Change, in the short time I have been "on the land" - a little more than half a century I can confirm the downturn in productivity, the Biodiversity loss (most important risk) and after three prior generations' we have a solid 'natural history' of what a place is like.

That is why I have optioned for large scale Wind Farming, my Station could be producing enough energy for 8 to 12,000 homes by 2018, everyone needs to do their 'bit' if our little orbiter is to survive - as we know it.

As for hysteria that my livestock are going to turn into zombies from the death rays emitted by the Turbines on my land, well, I am relaxed by the family living near the Challicum Hills Wind Farm in this ABC 7:30 report I saw recently. http://bit.ly/oualCB

Pay particular attention to the Mum, what she says about the nearby Wind Farm (not on their land by the look of it - only nearby), like so many country Mum's she says it like it is when being questioned whether the Turbines nearby harm their Merino Sheep, "that's just a myth" was the reply to look for in the transcript.

Makes you think, doesn't it - George!

George Papadopoulos: "Comforting hearsay ...". Or maybe, George, it's the real world.

For your psychogenic illness, have you considered psychological treatment?

George, your latest comment removes any doubt that your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. Despite lacking any credible evidence, you insist that everybody else, including those tens of thousands who live happily alongside windfarms are all part of some major conspiracy while you are privy to "the truth".

Get some help George, you need it more than you realise.

George Papadopoulos: "... do you ever question the behaviour ...". George, the only one claiming to be ill with a condition which all the science shows to psychosomatic is you.

Yoron Hamber: "... mobile phones has been proven ...". Actually, there's insufficient data to be considered convincing evidence, let alone proof. I have doubts myself about electromagnetic pollution, but let's not overstate the case.