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
Anonymous 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
Anonymous 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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more