Skip to main content

Do Wind Turbines Cause Adverse Health Effects?

By
This claim is a bit bogus in my opinion but Dr. Nina Pierpont in NY is set to publish a book next month that claims "living close to wind turbines ... can cause sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, headaches, childhood "night terrors" and other health problems."

Since a doctor makes these claims I guess these health hazards must be real ... not necessarily. Needless to say, the nuclear industry deals with this kind of stuff day in and day out. I wonder how the wind folks will react to these types of claims.

Wind advocates, welcome to a whole new game of PR!
Labels:

Comments

Matthew66 said…
I'd like to think a medical practitioner knows what she's talking about, but Helen Caldicott springs to mind (I did see the link).
August 14, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said…
Expect to see some of the same nuclear advocates who have historically derided Caldicott for not having relevant credentials ("she's just a pediatrician") citing Pierpont as a credible expert on why wind energy is no good.
August 15, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Hugh said…
The "syndrome" in question consists of a grab-bag of non-specific, patient-reported symptoms. Basically, all of life's little aches, pains and mood swings are included:

"sleep problems (insomnia), headaches, dizziness, unsteadiness, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, depression, memory loss, eye problems, problems with concentration and learning, tinnitus (ringing in the ears)."

quoted from Nina Pierpont's own site.

None of these necessarily indicate an underlying medical problem or environmental influence. Barring bang-up pier-reviewed research (which BTW, Pierpont isn't doing on this subject) results, there doesn't appear to be a there there.
August 17, 2008 at 1:31 AM
lad said…
I live close to Bruce Power and several wind projects. We have had no problems living by a nuclear plant, but there are currently four families living in homes powered by generators (supplied by the wind company) due to the problem of stray voltage created by the turbines. A few other people have left their homes due to headaches and the incessant noise. The Ontario noise guidelines are inadequate and families are being exposed to excessive repetitive noise from these projects. There is a very good reason why the setbacks from residences is much greater in Europe.
August 17, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …
1 comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…
Post a Comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…
Post a Comment
Read more