Slashdot Mirror
Windfarm Sickness Spreads By Word of Mouth
eldavojohn writes "Just like the many stories surrounding alleged 'Wi-Fi sickness,' research is now showing that windfarm sickness spreads by word of mouth instead of applying universally to windfarms. Areas that had never had any noise or health complaints were suddenly experiencing them after 2009 when anti-wind groups targeted populations surrounding windfarms. From the article, 'Eighteen reviews of the research literature on wind turbines and health published since 2003 had all reached the broad conclusion that there was very little evidence they were directly harmful to health.' While there's unfortunately no way to prove that someone is lying about how they feel, it's likely a mixture of confirmation bias, psychosomatic response, hypochondria, greed and hatred of seeing windmills on the horizon that drives this phenomenon."
IIRC coal plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants do, so you're quite probably correct.
Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Not to mention all the mercury that's currently poisoning the sea, etc.
I love it when the greenies insist on Sea Salt because it's more 'organic' than the other stuff (which they seem to believe is made in one of the dreaded 'refineries' or something...)
Me? I want my salt to be as refined and inorganic as possible. Na and Cl in equal proportions, nothing more.
No sig today...
They release more radiation than nuclear plants that haven't had an accident. Unfortunately, nuclear accidents have released orders of magnitude more radiation than the entire history of operating coal plants.
Note: I'm actually very pro-nuclear, but I think this is a fact that needs to be discussed. The coal plant radiation myth is unfounded and makes pro-nuclear people look stupid when they use it. The danger from coal plants is the stuff that doesn't have a half-life, like mercury, arsenic, and soot. The uranium they release is mostly harmless.
The cell phone guys already know this - people report symptoms even when the tower isn't powered on.
IIRC coal plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants do
This is something that is often said, but it is questionable if it is really true. When I have tried to find the sources, they all point to a single study done in 1978 by a scientist at Oak Ridge National Labratory. There are several problems with this claim:
1. It only looked at radiation released during "normal" operation. It didn't consider accidents at nuclear plants, which in reality account for nearly all the radiation they have released.
2. Coal plants today release far less fly ash than they did in 1978.
3. This study was done by ORNL, which has a vested interest in pushing nukes.
Disclaimer: I am pro-nuke, pro-windmill, and anti-coal, but I am also pro-truth, and this "factoid" about radioactive coal needs to die. There are plenty of real reasons to oppose burning coal.
Small point, but the main reason for preferring sea salt is that it tastes different than "normal" table salt.
Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to the individual
I can't find a reference to it at the moment, but a community was opposed to cell towers due to radiation. This caused much problems for anyone trying to build infrastructure in the area. One provider put up some towers and the residents complained that the towers radiation made them ill and the improvement on reception was only marginal.
In a review with the community leaders, they invited them to tour the facilities while they measured the field strength. The tour revealied that there was no equipment installed. The towers were installed early to measure the baseline illness so when the equipment was installed, that illness that was attribuitable to the radiation can be measured.
I wonder how much the baseline changed when the equipment arrived.
The truth shall set you free!
Why can't nuclear power stand alone, out of curiosity?
Nuclear power can't stand alone, at least with current reactor designs, because their output can't be ramped up or down very quickly. Many areas of North America (California is an example I know best) exhibit extreme daytime load peaks, followed by deep night-time lulls, due to the air conditioning load.
Years ago, during the California power crisis, BC Hydro made a killing due to this effect. During the daytime, they would run their hydro-electric plants flat out, at completely unsustainable levels, and sell the power to California utilities at almost usurious rates. At night, they would shut the hydro plants down, allow the water to pool up again behind the dam, and buy dirt cheap nuclear power from California.
The real point is that while Nuclear can work for the baseline load on the grid, current designs simply aren't nimble enough to meet the peaks and valleys they would face in normal day to day operation. They need to be complimented with some other power source that is more nimble.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
The reality was the concentrations of these compounds were in like 5 ppb (parts per billion), when checked on by DNR and others. Put into perspective it was like a football field, a mile high and one marble sitting in the end zone. Pretty mild
5PPB is "mild"?!
You're talking about compounds with an LD50 in the micrograms/kilogram.
Safe exposure is 4 picograms/kilogram/day
5 ppb in your drinking water would get you about 18 micrograms/day, or 60,000-ish times that.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time