Talk:Environmental impact of wind power/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

84.170.152.169 hs neither read nor understood the sources in question

• 83 (Kirchhoff) quoted
• 84 (Job) quoted
• 85 (Ratzbor) quoted
• 91 (Ohlhorst) quoted
• 92 (UNESCO) quoted
• 97 (Nohl) is btw way professor of landscape planning, quoted
• 98 (Schöbel) titel tells what is worded in the article, he is professor for landscape architectur at TUM Munich
• 99 (Fittkau) doesnt need page entries, since he doesnt have any. Its the Deutschlandfunk entry about the government survey, not the survey itself

Beforwe the aestetics entry was more or less based on guardian articles and lobbying fact sheets. If this were about nuclear energy, one could state greenwashing without being offended by users logged out to convey their runts. Serten (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with the first one (Kirchhoff), which you use to reference a statement like "Aesthetic considerations of wind power have a strong impact on the evalution of energy infrastructure". But that does not reflect the nuanced discussion in the article. The author rather says that 'aesthetic considerations are of relevance when landscapes are used for energy production from renewable sources' and that 'renewable energy plants can have significant impact on the aesthetic qualities of landscapes that from the perspectives of conservative, romantic or enlightenment ideals can be considered as worth protecting'. See the difference? --ELEKHH^T 23:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to comment here either on your statement at the Portal site and answer your question.

* ON the portal, you claim "undue weight", "cherrypicked examples" and "overall POV" from my side, right? Lets try to keep WP:Civil ;) First UNESCO or local heritage status - and the impact of wind mills in question is not at all a minor issue nor cherrypicked. It has major implications, is part of a controversy which is part of the scientific discourse (Werner Nohl, a professor for landscape planning, is much more critical than I). The controversy does as well divide those which are in favor to protect the environment. Insofar the alleged POV is a sourced one. We all have a POV, articles that describe controversies have to describe the POVs of the different parties involved in the real scientific and lay communities.

* Reagrding (Kirchhoff), your quotations is more of an selective interpretation, you imho mention the method he uses, but not his basic assumptions. My entries cover the basic statement in the abstract "the changes of the visual landscape are frequently significant, and they emotionally rank first for many citizens". Neither is wind mill resistance is a mere Nimby issue, nor the points raised by Kirchhoff lack general value. E.g. the US Cape Wind project was delayed for years for aestetic reasons. According Kirchhoffs article, the aestetic impact of wind turbines on landscape views is much more relevant than the one on species - since the aesthetic impact covers / impairs much more space. He tries to introduce objective criteria (based on the different aesthetic standpoints you quote) which may help to find adequate compromises. Thats a good approach btw.

As said, the previous version of the articles aestetics section was neither covering the debate nor did it use adequate sourcing. My change request has been based on the impression, that birds and noise are being covered much more in detail (undue weight) und did not cover the relevant issues, which are, as quoted and sourced from te scientific debate predominantly aethetic. This still has to be correctedSerten (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Serten, please name the page numbers of your quotations. I asked you to do that yesterday and you did nothing. You named several publications or books, but NEVER cited a precise page number. I want you to correct that and use precise page numbers so everyone can check if you cited properly or not. And that only works if you name the precise page number. And precise does mean 123 or 123f, but not 123 ff or 123-133. These aren't quotations, these are signs of lots of free interpretation and no real quoted sentence. And that's not what we are supposed to do here. So please give us that important page numbers or I have to ans will delete every sentence that I cannot verify. 84.170.168.60 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Serten, your answer is again missing the point, none contested the relevance of aesthetic considerations. Please try read more carefully what others say. Back to Kirchhoff, "strong impact" is not the same with "frequently significant", and emotional rank is not the same as "evalution of energy infrastructure". And the bolded text above 'the aestetic impact of wind turbines on landscape views is much more relevant than the one on species - since the aesthetic impact covers / impairs much more space' is again severely distorting the text, as "wirken" in this context does not mean "impair", but 'have an effect'. Also note that making many edits within minutes without edit summaries and often revising previous edits makes cooperation difficult. Given that what you're doing is contested and you make so many English mistakes, I would suggest you work on a draft in a sandbox before editing the article. --ELEKHH^T 04:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to summarize sources, not to verbally quote them. I wont give a page entry, when the whole book - already based on its title and author - is supporting a entry I provide. I do not agree with the notion of "severely distorting". The author says effect, yes, but he talks about a negative effect. Summarized, its a possible impair / negative impact, not merely a side show. With regard to my POV, I see as one of the problems, that people tend to discuss whole technology branches (as wind, fracking or nuclear energies) instead of discussing projects and their specific use and gains. That said, I am not willing to take part in a discussion about wind energy or renewaeables being bad or good for mankind per se. IMHO Reneweables are or may be an important part of the energy mix, but as any infrastructure technology, they get more of a nuisance in some places than others. I suggest youre coming up with a corrected wording yourself. Serten (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You summarize sources?! Oh my goodness... So you want to say that you read a book and than write something of an essay of what you think is the opinion of the author? That is worse than what I expected. There is only one possibility: Stop that immediatelly!! That is not the way we work in wikipedia. You seem to be new so maybe you didn't know, but this way of working is just absolutely impossible.

I'm sorry, but then I will have to delete every sentence in which you didn't quote what the authors wrote. This may be explaining your insistent resistance to name page numbers and the discussions here at the talk page, but sorry this working style is a absolute no-go. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but better you learn it the hard way in the beginning before you get used to it. In Wikipedia your opinion is completely meaningless. But by summarizing sources as you understand them you only write your opinion and even attribute it to works of authors that probably wrote something completely different. That is a huge problem, even if you maybe didn't notice till now. 84.170.173.128 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning to User Serten

By looking at what is going on here, it is clear that the edits of User Serten are NOT covered by the sources he cites. See this edit amongst others on this discussion page. In the German Wikipedia he has lost the right to flag his edits as a sighted version after this case of vandalism because of exactly this behavior. He continues exactly at the point where he stopped. This is unacceptable. --Hg6996 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Serten, you deleted a section of another user, who explained to us that in the German Wikipedia you have lost your user rights due to continuing and massive source problems (wegen anhaltenden und erheblichen Zweifeln an seiner Quellenarbeit)? And you did this in a discussion about massivly missinterpreted or possibly manipulated sources? Do you really think this is a wise behavior? What ar you expecting us to think now? First there are massive problems with your sources, then somebody else tells us that you did this several times in the German Wikipedia. And than you delete this warning, which is most important to other users here as if to hide this? This is really a challenge for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You know that it is, don't you? Now I expect a very detailed and believable explanatory statement. And I must admit that I think about reverting every of your edits, if this statement leaves questions. Don't play with us, give answers. Manipulation of sources is a very severe vandalism, and it is nothing I allow someone to do. I think I have been clear. 84.170.173.128 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you havent, and the whole runting doesnt belong here. Serten (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Miracle

According the German IP coal or gas power stations remain transparent or invisible to the naked eye is a) stated in one of the sources in question and b) a valid statement. Youre kidding, right? Serten (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You just beat me to it. That's ridiculous nonsense. I shall delete it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite interesting - if I provide page numbers, there are people that do not wat to read them. I mean if some one is to reinstall nonsense just to annoy another author, he (or she) should stop etiting at all here. Serten (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop claiming things that are wrong. On page 91 (you wrote 90 ff) there is written: "Als Gegenentwurf zur bisherigen Energiepolitik wurden der Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie, Energiesparkonzepte sowie ein konsequenter Umstieg auf Techniken zur Nutzung regenerativer Energien gefordert (Bechmann 1984: 218; Binswanger et al. 1988: 45 ff.). Diese system-oppositionellen Forderungen nach einem Pfad der „sanften Energienutzung“ waren das Leitthema eines kritischen Energiediskurses, der in den 1980er Jahren in der Ökologiebewegung geführt wurde (Mautz 2008, im Erscheinen).52 Die Umweltbewegung schaffte sich in dieser Zeit eine umfangreiche institutionelle Struktur (Roth & Rucht 1987)."

On page 163 is written: "Zum anderen sieht sich die Nischenkonstellation mit Problemen konfrontiert, die aus der vorangehenden Boomphase resultieren und als Preis- und Innovationsdruck in Erscheinung treten. Zugleich nehmen Anzahl und Größe der Windenergieanlagen zu. Damit wird die Technologie sichtbarer, ihre Entwicklung wird von einer steigenden gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung begleitet, die zum Teil sehr kritisch ist. Naturschutz- und Umweltverbände sowie Bürgerinitiativen äußern verstärkt Kritik an dem zunehmend industriellen Charakter der Windenergiegewinnung."

So, where can I find the sentence that wind energy isn't soft path? In the second part there is absolutly nothing about soft path, or wind turbines being not soth path. The fact that turbines nowadays are produced industrially instead of local maufacturing has nothing to do with soft path. So the conclusion drawn by you, i.e. that wind energy isn't soft path is made up by you. And it is WP:Syn, because you mixed up two sentences which are on p 91 and 163 (!) as if they are following each other. In fact they are in different chapters, dealing with different things and don't even refer to each other! Again you manipulated your sources to make them say your opinion about wind power. Do you find that funny? You did this again and again and again the last few days! This is vandalism! 84.170.173.71 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As said, summarizing the essence of complete books is somewhat important (and completely in line with WP guidelines), Wikiquote is elsewhere. Youre having a quite personal view, among anothers that coal plants are invisible. Try WP:fringe and do not disturb grown up people. Serten (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, manipulating sources is not in line with WP guidelines, and personal attacks aren't either. It's absolutely clear that both sentences don't refer to each other and that by putting these together you draw a conlusion that isn't the author's. And because you know that and can't deny it you must start a personal attack. If thats what you call grown up, then thats not what I want to be. And that two sentences that are taken out of context are the esence of the book is a claim I can't take serious. And I wonder why the auther doesn't repeat it in the conclusion if it is the essence of the complete book.

About the visibility, I'm sorry, this was my mistake. What I understood was that there are a lot of wind turbines which are high, whilst there are only few gas power plants, so most people see wind turbines while only few see gas power plants. But after looking after other contributions of the user I can conclude that it was vandalism and I didn't notice. Can't comprehend my thoughts any more, maybe had not enough coffee yesterday. So this revert was wrong, the others weren't. 84.170.173.71 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No greenhouse gases?

"Unlike electricity derived from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, wind power does not use fuel or employ a fueling cycle, thus emitting no air pollution or greenhouse gases.[2]" is asserted in the lead. The offshore wind turbines in the North Sea cost £10M each and presumably use a lot of concrete and metal to build. They will also presumably need a bit of an effort, involving fossil fuels, to remove at the end of their ?20 year life. No greenhouse gases? Ridiculous. What should this be amended to? Gravuritas (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement you condemn is absolutely true. Simple logic tells us so. If you want to go hunting for well sourced, comparable figures for construction and decommissioning costs for all power sources, feel free, but don't think you can just make up some figures for wind turbines yourself and include them in the article in isolation. They would mean nothing HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, as you've asked so nicely, try Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources for a source that blows away "...no ..greenhouse gases..". Incorrect statement deleted.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Better manners and honesty would have had you say that you corrected the sentence, rather than deleted an incorrect statement, but thank you anyway. Are you heading to all the fossil fuel articles now to highlight how much air pollution and greenhouses gases are involved with them? HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Lessons in honesty from someone whose logic tells him that wind power has no greenhouse gases? Or lessons in manners from someone who can't admit that their logic went astray? It's very hard to know which is least appealing. Certainly taking advice on which entries to edit from someone who can't logic their way out of a paper bag is not on my agenda.

If you prefer, I could have stated that I "deleted a clause which made the sentence incorrect, and inserted two words to ensure that the restriction is clear"- well that took 6 times as many words as the three that I used, and I don't think anyone other than the loser of the discussion would think the 3-word approximation was dishonest.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Its a wording issue. The operation of wind energy has a low carbon footprint, comparable to nuclear energy, the installment and erection of wind energy is sort of carbon intensive. Does carbon intensity plays a major role in the real world? The trading schemes have failed, at least in Europe and Energiewende encreased the CO2 output of Germany. Serten (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gravuritas - I can accept your new wording, but I still insist that the original wording was completely accurate. If your role really is to make this article genuinely neutral, you may see it that way too. I note your avoidance of the issue of greenhouse gases and pollution from fossil fuels. But I can stop now without using personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Move Request to include Cultural Impact

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Especially if one talks about hertiage protected landscapes, one shouldnt divide cultural and ecological impact - both aspects have to be covered. So far the article mentions negative aestetic impacts on individuals, whatever that might be, but doesnt take into account visual sight pollution for whole communities, who would accept a wind power station before Uluru? I suggest to move the article to a more adequate title.

Environmental impact of wind power → Cultural and environmental impact of wind power – either aspect is important and cannot divided in various regions, as cultural important sites often have ecoogical value and vice versa, compare Waldschlösschen Bridge for the general aspects and the points about Mont-Saint-Michel for a wind power specific conflict. The heritage protection status of the Wadden Sea coast in germany has basically ruled out offshore wind power installations in the german Territorial waters - heavily increasing the technical challenges and delaying the planned german Energiewende offshore capacity buildup compared to DK and GB. This has to be taken into account and to be mentioned in the article. [User:Serten|Serten]] (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of Environmental impacts in English includes 'social' & aesthetic issues, such as the heritage issues you mention above. To add 'cultural' impacts would change the English meaning of the title only slightly- it would then include songs, plays and films. The cultural impact of wind power is trivial: the biggest impact was probably 'A mouse lived in a Windmill in Old Amsterdam'. I suspect that the frontier of these meanings of environmental/cultural is subtly different in German, and that environmental may be a slightly less inclusive concept there. The change is completely unnecessary in English and putting Cultural first is completely ludicrous.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If so, i agree with the title as it is and may stay. Howevber these aspects have not been in the article so far, that came with the entry my dear IP colleugue wants to be erased for unknown reasonings ;) I strongly disagree with the notion that putting Cultural first would be ludicrous. Germany could save billions if they built wind mills in the watten sea territorial waters but it doesnt. That is based on predeominantly aesthetic evaluations of the the (cultural) heritage, of sights and views, not on treehugging. Btw cultural heritages receives - compare the Hague Convention - higher value ratings than human life, I would doubt that for birds and beetles. 12:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per Gravuritas. The visual impact of wind farms on cultural heritage sites is within the scope of this article per the current title. --ELEKHH^T 13:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The cultural impact of wind power is small and tangential to the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article improvement suggestion

One article improvement suggestion is that in respect to the section on noise, just link to the actual studies on noise and how any really noisy environment- whether it be living beside a busy road or too near a wind turbine - will increase stress hormones.

I put this material here in February but it is now archived, no one seems to have responded to it. Despite the fact that it covers the ecological impact of farming near/really close to turbines.

"Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines." Pubmed now includes the study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597302

Am I wrong to think farmers would probably want to know about this - that if they put a wind turbine on their land and livestock grow up nearby (less than 500 m away) then the livestock will have more blood cortisol and have less weight gain than had no turbine been erected, a small effect sure, but statistically significant like a busy/noisy road.

178.167.185.54 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be more impressed by your claimed goal of neutrality if you were you to try to use the same caution in your language as the researchers have. There is little certainty in their claims. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My goal is not to impress anyone, merely to collaborate in improving the article. Can you specifically cite the "caution in the language of the researchers" and how my talk page comment above lacked this same caution? To respond to your second claim, if anything their paper supports the assertion that the statistical significance of their findings lends a great deal of certainty, considering the following sentence - "Lower activity and some disturbing changes in behavior of animals from group I[those closest to the turbine] were noted".

There is a large body of peer reviewed evidence finding that being real damn close to noisy things for a long time causes blood cortisol levels to increase, this in the study, was 50 meters away from the base of the turbine, but had it been a road producing the same sound signature, it would naturally have produced the same blood cortisol results.

If all this is new to you, just read Health effects from noise and search for cortisol.

Or read this review on the subject, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24398354

"...Because environmental noise above certain levels is a recognized factor in a number of health issues, [human] siting restrictions have been implemented in many jurisdictions to limit noise exposure..."

So you can't claim that animals living in close proximity to a noise source, nearer than the human siting restriction distance, aren't going to have their health affected. They're animals just like us.

But hey, by all means say that the study was "preliminary" but it obviously should be included, as it is peer-reviewed and other studies corroborate the underlying- noise leads to stress- response that is their underlying hypothesis.

92.251.246.107 (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your wording - "the livestock will have more blood cortisol and have less weight gain". The researchers describe statistical results of a study in the past. They don't try to predict the future. You are telling us what will happen, effectively in every case. Your bias is clearly on display. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As the study passed peer-review and has a large body of evidence behind it, my telling you that if livestock were once again put near a noise source of comparable magnitude as that in the study, they would again show the same responses as detailed in the study; is not a mere bias but based on experimental evidence. This is not bias friend, this is science, if the experiment is repeated you'll get the same result over and over again until the end of time.

According to your view, you also believe that Newton was also biased to believe that in the future, if an apple was dropped from above his head, he'd once again get hit on the head?

178.167.196.163 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Stupid analogy. Peer review says it was good research. It does not prove that the same thing WILL happen next time in every case. And BTW, Newton wasn't peer-reviewed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an apt analogy, as it is one of repeatability, furthermore you are now calling the researchers' integrity into question, the same thing will happen every time the same conditions in the experiment are found, namely being beside a noise source of comparable magnitude. For you to argue that what they observed was a complete and utter fluke and by extension not worthy of publication in a science journal is to call their integrity into question. Is this what you are now arguing? Have you any reason to believe that they are bad scientists? BTW despite never actually insinuating that he had, seen as you brought it up Newton was actually peer-reviewed, he just didn't go through the same modern system of peer-review as modern scientists do, obviously.

178.167.196.163 (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're talking rubbish. And I've had enough of this game. See ya. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Seen as you're now claiming all this peer reviewed science is "rubbish" and not worthy of inclusion, I'll request a third opinion on the matter, to help us move toward a "consensus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.211.17 (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as 178.167.196.163? I can see you're both from Ireland. I suggest you register to edit on Wikipedia. It makes conversation simpler, and protects your identity more. I am not claiming all this peer reviewed science is "rubbish". The research seems fine. It's your interpretation that bothers me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I am, my edit history as this IP address even corroborates that, so I'm not trying to hide that fact, just see my talk page comment here User_talk:BatteryIncluded#Asteroid_impact_avoidance_edit. I think I get a new address every time my router reconnects.

Back to the issue, my recent edit of this article, which attempted to summarize the study was as neutral sounding as I could muster, if you found it contaminated with a point of view that is not supported by the actual paper, then by all means you are free to re-word it! However seen as you just removed/reverted my edit under the reasoning that we haven't built a consensus yet to include the study, I thought it a good idea to request a third opinion on the matter.

04:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.211.17 (talk)

Just to add another opinion, it strikes the most reasonable way forward would be to add the new citation but work on neutralizing the language, since the actual result of the study (statistically significant negative effects at 50m, but none apparently at 500m) is a datum that would be worth having. Bucketsofg 12:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, right through this discussion I've been trying to think of a way of pointing out that nobody is going to live within 50 metres of a wind turbine, and most people are unlikely to even keep geese that close. If we used the study to argue that it's fine to keep geese and live 500 metres from one that might be a different kettle of fish. However, my main point is still that, while this study may have been conducted with the greatest rigour (and I have never suggested otherwise), it's not a sound basis from which to predict the future with any certainty for anything other than geese in a very unlikely proximity to a turbine. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your concerns. Would something like this do?

A recent study compared the health effects of wind turbines on growing geese, preliminary results found that geese raised within 50 meters of a wind turbine gained less weight and had a higher concentration of cortisol in blood than geese at a distance of 500 meters.

Bucketsofg 02:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. My response to a sentence like that is "So what?" Is anyone going to be surprised by such a discovery? It's precisely what everyone will assume to be the case without even thinking about it. It adds very little to the article. It's what a favourite TV character of mine would have described as "the bleeding obvious". HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's not a surprising result, really. But if you don't like this edit, can you suggest one that suits you? Bucketsofg 03:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't add anything to the article. There's a lot of research out there that we don't use. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So my request for a third opinion has succeeded in getting a third opinion? Great. I agree that user Bucketsofg's compromise edit is good as it correctly summarizes the scientific paper, however Hilo48 appears to want to only to include the study if it is framed with supporting the notion that being raised 500 m distant is fine and dandy, which is not what the paper found at all, it merely compared the two groups of geese. Although I tend to implicitly believe around 500 m distant for people is about accurate for safety reasons, that's not what this article is about.

For example, something you wrote here has struck me as kind of misleading, this article is about the environmental impact of wind power, it is not about people per se, my recent edit to the article to include the paper under discussion here was titled something to the effect of "impact on livestock" so your statement -

"I've been trying to think of a way of pointing out that nobody is going to live within 50 metres of a wind turbine, and most people are unlikely to even keep geese that close"

- strikes me as a bit of a red herring. Farmers with livestock or natural wild animals may indeed live that close to a wind turbine, whether or not you personally believe it to be "unlikely" to happen is not supported by any data and it is actually especially likely, if in the case of the farmer, being unaware that there is peer-reviewed science stating that it might result in their livestock gaining less weight. This is something that clearly isn't common knowledge, as the paper seemingly is the first of its kind to study the matter.

31.200.173.137 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Too much on bird deaths

There is too much detailed coverage on bird deaths, which unbalances the article. I was looking at Environmental impact of nuclear power and there is only one sentence and one reference on the issue of fish and aquatic life which are killed on the water intake trash screens, yet this has been a widely studied issue. Maybe we should cut some of the less notable or obsolete wildlife impact studies here, and add some relevant studies to the nuclear article to beef it up a bit? Johnfos (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If wildlife mortality is underadressed in the nuclear power article, that is no reason to cut down its coverage in this article. Comparing coverage of the same issue in the wind and nuclear articles is apples and oranges, because the principal environmental concerns of the two are very different, as you would no doubt agree. If you think that the wildlife mortality section in the nuclear article should be expanded, fine. But I don't think that bird and bat deaths are overaddressed in this article, because they are perhaps the most high-profile environmental effect of wind power. That said, the section could certainly be improved. For one thing, the 2013 Sovacool study is covered repetitively in three paragraphs, which would be better off if combined and trimmed to one paragraph. Regards. Plazak (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Plazak but would add that seen as both of the section's tables are based on Sovacool's controversial studies, I raise the concern that with trimming the Sovacool paragraphs, one might then have a section that fails in getting across to readers that the two tables are therefore not representative of the consensus on wind's impact on birds.

178.167.148.81 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping all the general info and meta-studies here, and splitting off info on particular wind farms to the relevant separate article. Johnfos (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree in general with Johnfos that the article should not go into detail on every individual wind farm. But there are a few problematic wind farms around the world with disproportionately high bird deaths, which should be mentioned as examples of how the technology can be used inappropriately. Plazak (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wind turbines are skyscrapers in the countryside. How can their impact be minimal?

Collapsed discussion because Wikipedia is not a forum - please keep discussion on topic of proposed changes to article.

I find the introductory paragraphs of "Environmental impact of wind power" to be among the most biased of any Wikipedia article, beginning with this statement: "The environmental impact of wind power when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor." The citations that immediately follow that claim are only related to greenhouse gas emissions. Obvious visual impacts (aka landscape blight) are left out of the total "impact" equation, only to be understated in the final intro section: "Aesthetic aspects of wind turbines and resulting changes of the visual landscape are significant...." (Why not emphasize that in the first intro sentence, since it's the major complaint about wind turbines?) The remainder of the article goes into greater detail and admits to wind turbine downsides but the casual reader is likely to not spend time there, and comes away with the impression that all is OK with wind power. That's nothing less than propaganda. The world's natural scenery is being sacrificed in large chunks and political-correctness is urging it on. Wind turbines are already visible from 60% of the land in Scotland (per study at http://www.jmt.org/). There is widespread intrusion of wind turbines onto rural lands that never planned to accommodate such large structures. The visual impact is worse in many ways than fracking, since wind turbines are much taller than oil rigs and intended as a permanent landscape feature. Many fracking sites are dismantled and partially reclaimed when depleted. Even if wind towers are eventually torn down it will be impractical to remove their concrete bases, and access roads carved into mountainsides will leave permanent scars. Mars Hill in Maine is a famous example of ridge-line destruction and many more will follow if "clean energy" plans expand as projected. The article includes a photo of three cows with a single wind turbine in the background, greatly de-emphasized in size like a harmless barn. This is typical of pro-wind marketing. It's unclear if most people know how big these machines really are since you rarely see them near urban centers. Another heavily biased aspect of the article is the claim that "There are anecdotal reports of negative health effects from noise on people who live very close to wind turbines.[10] Peer-reviewed (government funded) research has generally not supported these claims." It links to just 3 studies from the Canadian government (Ontario CA is well known for pushing wind turbines on an unwilling populace) and pretends that all other reports are invented or imagined. Surely it's obvious that putting 400+ foot spinning structures on formerly quiet lands is going to impact the noise profile with hum and infrasound? The industry disingenuously compares them to refrigerator noise but few people choose to sleep with a refrigerator in the room, and the character of wind turbine noise goes well beyond decibel readings. Topography and location affects people differently but industry/government studies tend to ignore those with the worst problems. If the environmental movement (of which I'm a part) wants to maintain credibility, it should stop pretending that wind turbines are a benign form of energy or a sacrifice we "must" make because CO2 is a problem and oil is finite. There are other considerations in the full context of what "the environment" means to people and animals. Our landscapes and quality of life are being marginalized for the sake of one power source that could largely be supplanted by solar panels on existing man-made structures. On-site solar is not favored by utility companies who'd rather build their own installations and bill customers, thus wind turbines win the game of expediency over morality. I am not against all wind turbines, but they are far too heavily relied on as the flagship for renewable energy. They have been rightfully described as "mechanical weeds" that keep expanding their range. A 2009 study from Stanford (Jacobson & Delucchi) enthusiastically envisions "3.8 million large wind turbines" around the globe. Imagine the landscape and seascape if that comes to pass. Any attempt to edit the original Wikipedia article meets with passive-aggressive deletion, indicating denial along the lines of GOP climate propaganda. Who gets to decide that "environmental impact" is mainly measured in terms of generating electricity? If Wikipedia wants to be a neutral source of information it can do much better than this. An honest article would admit that the landscape is an integral part of nature and wind turbines are turning vast swaths of land (and ocean) into highly visible industrial plants. A single wind farm can cover over 25,000 acres and more are planned all the time. Another disinformation technique is to pretend that the only "affected acreage" is actual tower pad sites, not the land between them or access roads. The 2014 revival of the "Cosmos" TV series committed that error in episode 12. When the same argument is used to promote ANWR oil drilling ("2,000 acres" vs. a true 1.5 million acre total) it gets called out as dishonest by "clean energy" proponents. These double standards are egregious and need to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.162.249‎ (talk) But people have been modifying the landscape of Scotland for the last 2000 years. If there's not enough in the article about visual impacts, please summarize some sources and add it here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Above is an astonishing and lengthy advocacy for a particular, highly-subjective point of view. An encyclopedia article on the visual impact of wind turbines should of course mention the fact that some people object on visual grounds but should emphatically not argue for a particular point of view. I suggest deleting this entire section from the Talk page as it is just adding noise. Noel darlow (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article and that is exactly what the above post is about. There is nothing "astonishing" about it at all - it actually reflects a very common view of wind turbines and their impact on the landscape. You may or may not agree with what's said but we don't delete posts just because we don't agree with them. Richerman (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Talk pages are for discussing what to include and how best to organise an *objective* *encyclopedia* *article*. I agree discussions should not be edited except in very rare circumstances but the above rant is very clearly misusing the Talk page to advocate an opinion about wind turbines instead of, as should be the case, presenting an opinion about how best to objectively explain the environmental impact of wind power. On this page we are considering how to produce a balanced synthesis of facts and opinions found in the real world. It is a misuse of the Talk section to add our own to them. Should schedule for deletion unless there is some serious argument against. Noel darlow (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC) PS: please note the warning at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". Noel darlow (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC) The political right has always fostered a kind of 'environmentalism' that is based on things like clamping down on litter in the street, and the 'environment' being something very pretty that middle class people enjoy a good family walk in, after a hearty Sunday lunch. To them, anything that is not open grouse moor or well-managed woodland looks bad. When the 'environmental impact' of wind turbines is discussed, many more people are thinking about the rates of species extinction, and the ability of a polluted atmosphere and oceans to support life as we know it, and depend upon. It's about comparing a disastrous, extractive, global economy with something that is less damaging to the biosphere, but is nonetheless acceptable to people who still see no need to alter their energy-profligate lifestyles. I'm not sure to what extent the present article makes this clear, but the suggestions above seem to me to want to take us in the opposite direction. --Nigelj (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC) That's a good point. The article probably should mention the positive environmental impacts of wind turbines ie the development of renewables capacity in order to mitigate climate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel darlow (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Well that's very interesting. You posted after Nigelj but chose not to put the warning about "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" below that post which includes claptrap like "The political right has always fostered a kind of 'environmentalism' that is based on things like clamping down on litter in the street, and the 'environment' being something very pretty that middle class people enjoy a good family walk in, after a hearty Sunday lunch. To them, anything that is not open grouse moor or well-managed woodland looks bad". What's that got to do with improving the article? I take it that means that political rants are OK as long as you agree with them. In answer to the point made by 98.232.162.249 about their edits being reverted, the reason was that they were unsupported. If you want to add something or change something it needs to be in the citation that's already there or it needs a new citation that supports what you're saying. Richerman (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) I am suggesting that this whole section should disappear including this meta discussion and all our comments. Should we discuss how best to present the issue of visual impact? Of course we should, as necessary, but "this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" (wikipedia). The lurid title of this section and comments such as "the world's natural scenery is being sacrificed in large chunks and political-correctness is urging it on" is not in any way helpful. We are being pulled down a path of dogmatic arguments about wind turbines. That is not what this Talk page is for Noel darlow (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Somebody has, in your words, put forward a "lengthy advocacy" for altering the article, and your repeated response has been that it should be deleted. I guess your response to arepetition of this apalling crime would be what- ten years or the electric chair? Get soome perspective- someone's arguing fir A, you believe B, so make your points in a real debate and pipe down with your unpleasant view that anyone differing should be rubbed out. Gravuritas (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Perspective is exactly the point. May I remind you (again) that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article. A Talk page "is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" as it says right at the top of the, er, Talk page. It is not a place to vent or to advocate a particular point of view. We should discuss how to deal with the issue of wind turbines's visual impact based on evidence from the real world but (clearly) we cannot discuss our own subjective opinions about visual impact or submit them as evidence. Do you see? Noel darlow (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC) No-one has actually made an argument against deletion on the grounds that (a) a Talk page "is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" and (b) we should not submit our own subjective opinions as evidence (we need verifiable evidence from the real world). Therefore I'll go ahead and delete this if there is no further comment. Noel darlow (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Derrybrien

Please stop posting references to Derrybrien peatslide as evidence of the environmental impact of wind turbines. The damage to the peat structure which made the slope susceptible to landslide was caused by forestry and drought not turbine construction. Noel darlow (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Noel darlow, I reverted your edits because they were totally inept and you are damaging the article rather than improving it. The Derrybrian paper says:

A substantial bog slide occurred at the wind farm just two weeks prior to the main October slide. It was associated with a floating road and a well-drained turbine base, involved a large volume of peat and extended over a distance of around 150 metres. The event was regarded merely as curious, its causes were not investigated and working practices were not reviewed in the light of this clear sign of instability. Evidence is also presented for peat movement along the line of an avalanche corridor within the development site. At nearby wind farm, a large bog slide occurred around the same time as the Derrybrien collapse and the origins of this slide also seem to be linked to a turbine base and road.

How is that not related to turbine construction? In the other edit I reverted, you seem to have removed a reference because it was written in German, completely changed the sentence and then marked the change as "minor". In fact, looking at your contribution history, you mark almost all you edits as minor, including you contributions to talk pages. Also, with you third edit you screwed up the date for the reference. I am going to revert those two edits again, please don't change them back without explaining you're reasoning here first and gaining consensus for the changes. Richerman (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I started this section to discuss Derrybrien. Please start another if you think there are other issues which need to be discussed. The damage to the peat structure at Derrybrien which made it vulnerable to a landslide was caused by forestry and drought. The acrotelm layer peeled off in ribbons which followed forestry plough lines. Please read up on some studies which have looked into this in detail and do not undo other people's edits without discussing them here first. Noel darlow (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to previous comments please read the study of the Derrybrien slide by Richard Lindsay and Olivia Bragg. It is clear that forestry created extensive damage to the peatland in the area of the slide and that this was exacerbated by drought. Construction work - in particular the evacuation of large amounts of water from an excavation at the top of the slope - may have triggered the slide but turbine construction was not the cause of the fundamental structural instability which created the slide conditions. This is a bad example to use as a reference. Noel darlow (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange idea about how wikipedia works. It's not for you to decide who discusses what or where they discuss it on the talk page but it is up to you to justify your edits if challenged. The Derrybrian report entitled "Wind farms and blanket peat" has been used as an example of the factors that need to be considered to protect peat bogs when building wind farms. That is something that the report discusses at great length so how you can conclude it's a poor example is beyond me. As it happens they are quite critical of the company for not properly assessing the potential impacts before construction, but that is really incidental to its purpose as a reference here so I'm not going to argue with you about what caused the peat slide. You do still need to justify why you removed the German language reference but I'll leave it up to others to comment now. Richerman (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you can understand why a section begun to discuss a specific issue ought to stay on topic. Of course you can discuss what you like but please raise other issues in an appropriate place.Noel darlow (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that our efforts would be better spent creating a balanced, neutral and accurate paragraph on the potential impacts on peatlands using references which do not conflate damage caused by other factors. However, if you want to restore the Derrybrien reference please address the points raised, namely that an environmental impact primarily caused by forestry is being misrerpresented as an environmental impact caused by wind turbine construction. Simply claiming that "it has been used as an example" is not actually an argument. Noel darlow (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: it's not the report itself I object to but the use of the Derrybrien landslide as an illustrative example of the kind of damage which wind farms can cause to peatlands.Noel darlow (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The report is used to reference a sentence which says "Prevention and mitigation of wildlife fatalities, and protection of peat bogs affect the siting and operation of wind turbines" How does that make it an illustrative example of the kind of damage which wind farms can cause to peatlands? It discusses protection of peat bogs and has a section on Statutory designations and features of conservation value which discusses the Habitats directive and the Birds directive, which make it the right reference for that sentence. Richerman (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop being evasive and address the points raised. The article introduces a valid issue ie the "protection of peat bogs" - fine so far (in fact this should have a dedicated section within the article). However, the reference used to illustrate this refers to a landslide on a slope where the peat structure had been thoroughly destabilised by forestry not wind turbine construction - clearly not fine. Noel darlow (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I give up - I'll let others comment. Richerman (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already clarified that I'm not making any criticisms of the contents of the report. I think it does a good job of analysing the Derrybrien incident. It would make an excellent reference in an article about the Derrybrien slip. However, mentioning the Derrybrien slip here as an example of damage done to peat bogs conflates forestry damage with the impacts of wind turbines and therefore is confusing and misleading. Noel darlow (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To sum up, the arguments given so far against removal appear to be:

(1) Flat denial that there is a problem.

(2) A claim that the study in question contains *background* material about general peatland damage. Arguing on that basis is self-defeating. A good reference should deal *directly* with the topic to which it is supposed to refer.

No attempt has been made to address the points raised ie the need to avoid confusing/misleading references which conflate non-wind peatland damage with specific impacts caused by wind farms. Suppose there is a geography article on floods caused by meltwater. One would expect that any references would (a) deal with meltwater impacts in general and/or (b) mention specific events which are representative of commonly observed meltwater impacts. It would be disappointing - and confusing - to find a reference devoted to a specific, rarely-observed flood event which was primarily caused by heavy rains with only a secondary contribution from meltwater. The fact that the same study might have included some background information on the thing we're really interested in, meltwater flooding, would not make it any more suitable.

Good references would (a) deal in general terms with the positive and negative impacts of windfarms on peat and (b) avoid mentioning specific examples of environmental damage if wind was not the sole factor.

It's just common sense isn't it? Noel darlow (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is open for editing again after the "edit war". Unless someone can present a convincing argument for the Derrybrien reference which deals with the points raised above I'll go ahead and remove it. Noel darlow (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for Visual Impacts

The visual impact of wind turbines is a question of aesthetics and hence is highly subjective. People's feelings may differ widely. Thus we should not, for example, say that: "wind farms have a detrimental effect on visual amenity" as if that were a subjective fact. However, we could (and should) say that "many people feel that...etc etc". Even better if we can present objective evidence such as "survey X found that 62% of local residents strongly objected to the visual impact of wind turbines in their community". Noel darlow (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Great Sales Brochure for the Wind Industry

This is an amazingly pro wind article. Looking into the section on human health I noticed there was no mention of the increased suicide risk or increased mental health risks associated with turbines, not even to deny them. Then we look at the risk of blade shadow chatter causing car drivers to crash, or inducing epileptic fits, again no mention at all. Like the (hypothetical) article on the health hazards of cigarettes that only considers the risks of minor burns and concludes that cigarettes are safe..
There is an interesting documentary on the health aspects of wind turbines - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_(2010_film) Note that that I had to make a small correction on the documentary page as a bad review turned out to be by a wind turbine salesman. I suspect that some of the authors of this article might also work in wind farm sales.... Lucien86 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no place for pro-wind bias on wikipedia but that cuts both ways. Equally there is no place for anti-wind bias on wikipedia. Suicide risk for example would appear to be extremely tendentious. Noel darlow (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that mental health and suicide risks have been raised, as have problems with blade shadow flicker. All you have to do is sit in the shadow of a large turbine and try to do something like read a book and its quite obvious that there's an epilepsy risk and a serious distraction risk. The problem is that there is no mention at all of these factors and there should be. Maybe the research has simply not been done or it has not been found.. Any studies showing a negative correlation would be just as important and if they exist should be mentioned in the article.. We know there are potential problems because there are sighting regulations for turbines near roads or human dwellings.. Lucien86 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sighting regulations aren't necessarily evidence of suicide or epilepsy risk; they may have been created for other reasons. However, any regulations which specifically mentioned suicide or epilepsy risks would be worth a mention in the article. Strictly speaking they would be evidence that a concern exists not evidence for the object of concern - although that too might become apparent by investigating the process which gave rise to the regulations. Noel darlow (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cherry Picking and Bias

I removed the completely biased edit of Jaminhubner [1], because it was absolutely biased against wind. Cherry-Picking isn't scientific and most studies don't come to the same conclusions as put here. The claim that only pro-wind-lobby came to the conclusion that wind is not harmfull and all real scientific work does say it is harmfull is just wrong. And removing the Pierpont book, who has been proved her scientific fraught is striking. Maybe some of the edit can be used, but the whole edit was completely biased and POV. Andol (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with Andol's assessment (above) for a number of (what I can hope are obvious) reasons. It is ironic that my entire motivation for the revision was to eradicate the horrendous cherry-picking that was already extant in the article - a selection that was shamelessly biased to favor of wind energy. As previous revisers have already noted, not only was this page a virtual "brochure" for wind energy, but there is increasing and substantial scientific concern about the effects of wind energy on human health - and, as noted in the revisions, these scientific concerns are systematically swept under the rug by literature reviews and panels explicitly and publicly sponsored by national wind energy associations. Why should wikipedia also be the mechanism by which such peer-review literature is systematically ignored?

Given that the section of this page prior to my revisions provided (in an entire, separate paragraph!) only the credentials of those scientists from this select, chosen pro-wind energy group and *not* from critics, the effort at establishing the credibility of such pro-wind efforts is undeniable. How can it possibly be argued that an article that, in bulk, lists only the credentials of pro-wind advocates and researchers and no one else is unbiased? How is that not a prime example of "cherry-picking"? (Imagine going to a panel discussion of four pro-wind scientists and four anti-wind scientists, and the program only lists the credentials of one side. I think you can see the problem.)

With regard to Andol's written concerns, there are a few responses in order.

First, there is absolutely no basis for the assertion that "most studies don't come to the conclusions as put here." I would like to compare these "studies," side by side according to the nature of the data collected and see just how true this really is. I am happy to participate in this scholarly challenge - because, as any trained academic knows, the use of "most" requires specific justification (and that is rather hard to provide since exhaustive knowledge is inherently required to make such sweeping statements!)

Second, the removal of the Pierpont's book is only striking if a person comes to the table with a preconceived bias that the book is somehow a standard reference work for pro-wind advocates, or some other kind of literary presupposition. As my revisions indicate, that is hardly the case. Pierpont's book is popular in certain circles of wind-energy skepticism, especially as it marked a new phase in the debate and encouraged new lines of inquiry, but it is hardly representative of the scholarly consensus as a whole for those who are concerned about human health and turbines - especially today. Again, the very fact the the removal of Pierpont's self-published volume is considered "striking" only shows the pro-wind biased cherry-picking of Andol on this matter. I removed a whole section talking about Pierpont's article precisely because the scholarly debate has largely moved beyond it. And if it really is an inferior resource (which is debatable), Pierpont should not be used in wikipedia at all - unless only to provide an example of shoddy scholarship. If that is Andol's concern, then that is how the use of Pierpont's resource should be integrated into the page; but, as it should be clear, such considerations hardly merit an eradication of 100% of my revisions!

Much more could be said, but I think it is clear that the article previous to my revisions is by all means inferior both in scope and in content, especially given the changing winds (no pun intended) on this topic in the last three years. A complete undo of my revisions is wholly unjustified without much, much further discussion. jaminhubner (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2015 (Mountain Time)

Oh come on, you cited Wind-Watch in a lengthy direct quote to display that all studies that come to the conclution that wind turbines are causing no or only minor effects on people are wrong and biased. And that is what you call scientific. You state that all the studies who find evidence are true, but then you write sencences like:

"Other attempts at mitigating scientific concern about wind turbines and health involve relegating concern to psychological bias (i.e., "it's only in your head"). Consider the following example noted in an article from Nature and Society:

"Where noise problems are acknowledged, some academics such as Professors Simon Chapman at the University of Sydney and Keith Petrie at the University of Auckland subscribe to the mass hysteria ideas promoted by controversial British psychiatrist Simon Wessely. Such assessments primarily implicate people’s fears and anxieties about new technologies to explain noise complaints and sleeping difficulties that appear in conjunction with wind farm developments. [I am not persuaded by such arguments, given the seriousness of some of the adverse health effects observed.]” [139] (Wind watch)"

If that is not biased and full of weasel words (attemps for example) then I don't know what biased is. How come that you think a statement of an anti-wind-campaigner-site is a valid source for dismissing all evidence that wind farms aren't that dangerous? That is more than ridiculous. And your whole edit is like that. And most of the sources you used are recommended by wind-watch. You just quoted one side, removed the other side and even claimed that these aren't scientific sources. And than you wonder that your edit is no improvement? Andol (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to absolutely nothing I said in my previous response - and yet, feeling apparently confident enough to once again revert 100% of my fully cited additions and revisions. Perhaps it would be wise to at least respond to something I've written (or haven't you even read it?). And if you have a problem with parts, then change those parts. That's what wikipedia is for. Wholesale dismissal (especially of recent primary sources) is the surest sign of unwillingness to change and face new data - as is the unwillingness to engage with another person on what they've brought to the table. As I originally argued, I think it is clear which revision is fraught with "cherry-picking"...

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the page that you're discussing, but there are headings that indicate what is being talked about. The citation you provided by Nature and Society is in the context of the debate regarding data interpretation - which you apparently feel strongly about; if you don't think it fits at all, then delete that portion. But you seem to be forgetting that there is peer-review literature attempting to dismiss the entire enterprise of scientific study regarding this subject purely on a psychological basis. How is that, and responses to that, not important to this entire discussion?

Even so, I have no idea why you are criticizing for linking to an anti-wind websitee. Almost every website on wind energy is biased for wind energy or against. In fact, I can object to any resource cited in wikipedia on the basis of it being cited on a website that has an ax to grind (regardless of perspective or subject matter). Are you willing to erase the vast majority of wikipedia for that reason? If not, why are you not consistent with that principle with regard to this article? If I am consistent with your principles, probably 90% of wikipedia itself would have to be eradicated simply because of links to biased websites! (For the record, I've removed that portion mainly for your sake...I am willing to compromise...are you?)

Before you lecture a person on words, I suggest using spellcheck, as your reply is fraught with numerous spelling and grammatical errors.

In summary then, no one reading this thread has heard any substantive answers from you, and until you can at least begin to have an intelligent conversation about the debate instead of dismissing all updates with new peer-review literature under the guise of what can only be summarized as "but I think you're biased because it disagrees with the previous revision and sort of sounds bias but I haven't addressed anything of substance," you truly have no basis for reverting it back to the way it was. Everyone reading this thread has the right to know what credibility and relevance is lacking and what intolerable bias is found in the general medical and academic publications Noise and Health, Public Library of Science One, and Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society. jaminhubner (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My problem with your changes is that you deleted almost every evidence for wind turbines being no or just a small harm and subsitute these sources with papers that find harm. And above that you depreciate the few sources that you didn't delete. That is a no-go in wikipedia and a clear sign of POV. As is your language that is clearly not neutral. The original version showed both sides, your version shows only one side and discredits the other side. You describe all the reported health problems as fact, but you state that all studies who don't find evidence for that were conducted by pro-wind-organisations (suggesting they are wrong). This is even true for such peer-reviewed reviews as McCunney et al, who did a review of 162 studies on wind turbines and health. You defined which is good science (studies finding evidence) and which is bad science (studies finding no or few evidence, even if they are peer-reviewed). That isn't how wikipedia works.

What do you mean you don't have no idea why I am criticizing for linking to an anti-wind website? Do you really think that dismissing peer-reviewed work for coming to "wrong" conclusions, as you did, is ok, but you can cite an anti-wind-website at the same time? This is ridiculous. There are almost no websites that could be more biased as such a campaigners-website. And you used it as a central statement. And no, I really don't think that 90 % of wikipedia are based on biased websites. This is a much exaggerated claim of yours. However yours right at one thing. I should bring up peer-reviewed literature. And that is right what I do now, because then it should be clear that your edit is as biased and one-sided as I claimed at the beginning.

As most of your critics is about infrasound and health effects I concentrate on this sector. First of all, and contrary to your suggestions, there are several studies who state that infrasound of wind turbines does not pose a threat to human health. I will concentrate on review studies because they have the broadest scope and therefore obviously can summarize the findings of scientific literature, which other studies can’t.

For example, Firestone et al write that there exists a controversy about infrasound, but: “The general consensus among acousticians is that infrasound emitted from wind turbines is below an average person’s hearing thresh-old, or 20 Hz, and does not pose a threat for adverse human health effects.” Then they discuss reported annoyance. [2]

A similar conclusion is drawn by McCunney et al, as you already know. They conclude: “1. Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infrasound is emitted by wind turbines. The levels of infrasound at customary distances to homes are typically well below audibility thresholds.

2. No cohort or case–control studies were located in this updated review of the peer-reviewed literature. Nevertheless, among the cross-sectional studies of better quality, no clear or consistent association is seen between wind turbine noise and any reported disease or other indicator of harm to human health.

3. Components ofwind turbine sound, including infrasound and lowfrequency sound, have not been shown to present unique health risks to people living near wind turbines.

4. Annoyance associated with living near wind turbines is a complex phenomenon related to personal factors. Noise from turbines plays a minor role in comparison with other factors in leading people to report annoyance in the context of wind turbines.” [3]

Also Knopper et al conducted a review and found that wind turbines likely have no effects no serious effects on human health. “The available scientific evidence suggests that EMF, shadow flicker, low-frequency noise, and infrasound from wind turbines are not likely to affect human health; some studies have found that audible noise from wind turbines can be annoying to some. Annoyance may be associated with some self-reported health effects (e.g., sleep disturbance) especially at sound pressure levels >40 dB(A). Because environmental noise above certain levels is a recognized factor in a number of health issues, siting restrictions have been implemented in many jurisdictions to limit noise exposure. These setbacks should help alleviate annoyance from noise. Subjective variables (attitudes and expectations) are also linked to annoyance and have the potential to facilitate other health complaints via the nocebo effect. Therefore, it is possible that a segment of the population may remain annoyed (or report other health impacts) even when noise limits are enforced. Based on the findings and scientific merit of the available studies, the weight of evidence suggests that when sited properly, wind turbines are not related to adverse health. Stemming from this review, we provide a number of recommended best practices for wind turbine development in the context of human health.” [4]

Another review was done by Jesper Hvass Schmidt and Mads Klokker. They find: “Wind turbines emit noise, including low-frequency noise, which decreases incrementally with increases in distance from the wind turbines. Likewise, evidence of a dose-response relationship between wind turbine noise linked to noise annoyance, sleep disturbance and possibly even psychological distress was present in the literature. Currently, there is no further existing statistically-significant evidence indicating any association between wind turbine noise exposure and tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo or headache.[…] Exposure to wind turbines does seem to increase the risk of annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbance in a dose-response relationship. There appears, though, to be a tolerable level of around LAeq of 35 dB. Of the many other claimed health effects of wind turbine noise exposure reported in the literature, however, no conclusive evidence could be found. Future studies should focus on investigations aimed at objectively demonstrating whether or not measureable health-related outcomes can be proven to fluctuate depending on exposure to wind turbines.” [5]

A review by Knopper and Olsen found a some difference between peer-reviewed literature and popular literature: “Conclusions of the peer reviewed literature differ in some ways from those in the popular literature. In peer reviewed studies, wind turbine annoyance has been statistically associated with wind turbine noise, but found to be more strongly related to visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise. To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. If anything, reported health effects are likely attributed to a number of environmental stressors that result in an annoyed/stressed state in a segment of the population. In the popular literature, self-reported health outcomes are related to distance from turbines and the claim is made that infrasound is the causative factor for the reported effects, even though sound pressure levels are not measured.” [6]

Then there are a lot of studies who come to the conclusion that most reported effects are caused indirectly by psychological effects. For example Crichton et al further tighten the observation that “scientific reviews have failed to identify a plausible link between wind turbine sound and health effects”. So they conducted a psychological study which found: “During exposure to audible windfarm sound and infrasound, symptoms and mood were strongly influenced by the type of expectations. Negative expectation participants experienced a significant increase in symptoms and a significant deterioration in mood, while positive expectation participants reported a significant decrease in symptoms and a significant improvement in mood. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that expectations can influence symptom and mood reports in both positive and negative directions. The results suggest that if expectations about infrasound are framed in more neutral or benign ways, then it is likely reports of symptoms or negative effects could be nullified." [7]

Also Taylor et al conclude: “Concern about invisible environmental agents from new technologies, such as radiation, radio-waves, and odours, have been shown to act as a trigger for reports of ill health. However, recently, it has been suggested that wind turbines – an archetypal green technology, are a new culprit in explanations of medically unexplained non-specific symptoms (NSS): the so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome ( Pierpont, 2009). The current study assesses the effect of negative orientated personality (NOP) traits (Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity and Frustration Intolerance) on the relationship between both actual and perceived noise on NSS. All households near ten small and micro wind turbines in two UK cities completed measures of perceived turbine noise, Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity, Frustration Intolerance, attitude to wind turbines, and NSS (response N = 138). Actual turbine noise level for each household was also calculated. There was no evidence for the effect of calculated actual noise on NSS. The relationship between perceived noise and NSS was only found for individuals high in NOP traits the key role of individual differences in the link between perceived (but not actual) environmental characteristics and symptom reporting. This is the first study to show this effect in relation to a so called ‘green technology’.” [8]

Often the reported symptoms are referred to be caused by the nocebo-effect. For example Chapman et al found: “Results: There are large historical and geographical variations in wind farm complaints. 33/51 (64.7%) of Australian wind farms including 18/34 (52.9%) with turbine size .1 MW have never been subject to noise or health complaints. These 33 farms have an estimated 21,633 residents within 5 km and have operated complaint-free for a cumulative 267 years. Western Australia and Tasmania have seen no complaints. 129 individuals across Australia (1 in 254 residents) appear to have ever complained, with 94 (73%) being residents near 6 wind farms targeted by anti wind farm groups. The large majority 116/129(90%) of complainants made their first complaint after 2009 when anti wind farm groups began to add health concerns to their wider opposition. In the preceding years, health or noise complaints were rare despite large and small-turbine wind farms having operated for many years. Conclusions: The reported historical and geographical variations in complaints are consistent with psychogenic hypotheses that expressed health problems are ‘‘communicated diseases’’ with nocebo effects likely to play an important role in the aetiology of complaints. [9]

Very similar is the line of argument by Rubin et al: “Throughout history, people have suffered from physical symptoms that they have attributed to modern technologies. Often these attributions are strongly held, but not supported by scientific evidence. Symptoms attributed to the operation of wind turbines (called "wind turbine syndrome" by some) may fit into this category. Several psychological mechanisms might account for symptoms attributed to wind turbines. First, the "nocebo effect" is a well-recognized phenomenon in which the expectation of symptoms can become self-fulfilling. Second, misattribution of pre-existing or new symptoms to a novel technology can also occur. Third worry about a modern technology increases the chances of someone attributing symptoms to it. Fourth, social factors, including media reporting and interaction with lobby groups can increase symptom reporting. For wind turbines, there is already some evidence that a nocebo effect can explain the attributed symptoms while misattribution seems likely. Although worry has not been directly studied, research has shown that people who are annoyed by the sound that turbines produce are more likely to report symptoms and that annoyance is associated with attitudes toward the visual impact of wind farms and whether a person benefits economically from a wind farm. Given that these mechanisms may be sufficient to account for the experiences reported by sufferers, policy-makers, clinicians and patients should insist on good-quality evidence before accepting a more direct causal link.” [10]

By now it should be more than clear that your edit is clearly biased and ignores virtually every evidence that suggests minor or no health effects of wind turbines. As I have demonstrated with these sources, all of them peer-reviewed, you just quoted sources that suggest serious health effects while ignoring every other research. On contrary the literature reviews I cited suggest that most studies did not find evidence for wind turbine syndrome or serious health effects. It is clear that health effects are hotly debated in scientific literature. But your edit didn’t reflect that debate, not at all. So the deletion was more than justified because it WAS cherry-picking. Andol (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, the scientific consensus is that wind turbines do not cause health problems.

To take one trivial example from the text that was added, it was claimed that 90dB of infrasonic sound could cause long-term health issues. I find this extremely unlikely, but even assuming it to be true; I could find absolutely no evidence that 90dB of infrasonic sound was present at residential distances.GliderMaven (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The majority of your critique is irrelevant since nobody is claiming (to my knowledge) that wind turbines directly, through gold-standard test methodology - "cause" "long-term health effects." Studies have identified strong associations between them and scientists are increasingly, not decreasingly, expressing their concerns through academic literature (and that's saying something because federal money is generally only flowing into the pro-wind side; those that rise up to question the status quo do so at a greater cost). I believe that is how I generally framed such quotations. If you believe that this is entirely irrelevant, I would like to know why (since, unless there are 20 years to spare and millions of dollars to conduct the ideal study, this is the kind of research data that's available).

This is indeed an issue of methodology - and this is a concern of central importance, and it is also thoroughly discussed in the literature, so I am very glad you have brought it to our attention. Your position appears to be that if no direct causal link can be established via the highest tests possible (or at least the kind of studies that passes your litmus test), then it merits deletion from the wikipedia page and is irrelevant to the discussion (that is, after all, what your actions have proven to be the case). But this is absurd; on this basis, once again, most of wikipedia would have to be deleted. Most of peer-review literature would also have to be tossed since they don't directly prove or resolve the larger debates at hand. (For heavens sakes, not even doctors conduct their practice in this way!) Nor do most scientists accumulate their knowledge in such an unrealistic fashion. But don't take it from me...

“The gold standard for proving causality of an exposure is the randomized clinical trial. But when it comes to testing the health effects of noise exposure on humans, such a study design is likely to be not only impractical and difficult to implement, but also unethical. The next-best evidence would come from longitudinal field research…Most of the studies performed to date around both transportation and wind-farm sources have been cross-sectional, which makes it impossible to assess causality. That’s because investigators cannot establish whether the potential cause precedes the potential effect.”

“Because cases in a case series study are often self-identifying and population controls are lacking (as in this study), it is difficult to investigate and measure exposure-outcome relationships, and it is impossible to extrapolate results to the general population as selection bias is always a concern. That said, case reports (or case series) often provide the first indicators in identifying a new disease or adverse health effect from an exposure.”

“Large-scale wind turbines are a relatively recent innovation, so the body of peer reviewed research addressing the potential impacts of their unique brand of sound is sparse and particularly unsettled. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests a connection between turbines and a constellation of symptoms including nausea, vertigo, blurred vision, unsteady movement, and difficulty reading, remembering, and thinking.24 The polarizing issue of wind-turbine noise is often framed one of two ways: Turbines are either harmless, 25 or they tend to have powerful adverse effects, especially for sensitive individuals.26 According to Jim Cummings, Executive director of the nonprofit Acoustic Ecology Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico, most of the reports to date that have concluded turbines are harmless examined “direct” effects of sound on people and tended to discount “indirect” effects moderated by annoyance, sleep disruption, and associated stress. But research that considered indirect pathways has yielded evidence strongly suggesting the potential for harm.”

And, you also appeared to have missed how studies on your side (your position is: "the scientific consensus is that wind turbines do not cause health problems") has typically failed to actually measure sound that's even relevant to the problem:

“For wind-turbine noise, the A-weighting scale is especially ill-suited because of its devaluation of the effects of low-frequency noise. This is why it is important to make C-weighted measurements, as well as A-weighted measurements, when considering the impact of sound from wind turbines. Theoretically, linear-scale measurements would seem superior to C-scale measurements in wind turbine applications, but linear-scale measurements lack standardization due to failure on the part of manufacturers of sound-level meters to agree on such factors as low-frequency cutoff and response tolerance limits. The Z-scale, or zero-frequency weighting, was introduced in 2003 by the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC) in its Standard 61672 to replace the flat, or linear, weighting used by manufacturers in the past.”

“A-weighting corrects sound measurements according to human hearing sensitivity (based on the 40 phon sensitivity curve). The result is that low frequency sound components are dramatically de-emphasized in the measurement, based on the rationale that these components are less easily heard by humans. An example showing the effect of A weighting the turbine sound spectrum data of Van den Berg (2006) is shown in Figure 4. The low frequency components of the original spectrum, which resulted in a peak level of 93 dB SPL at 1 Hz, are removed by A-weighting, leaving a spectrum with a peak level of 42 dBA near 1 kHz. A-weighting is perfectly acceptable if hearing the sound is the important factor. A problem arises though when A-weighted measurements or spectra are used to assess whether the wind turbine sound affects the ear. We have shown above that some components of the inner ear, specifically the OHC, are far more sensitive to low frequency sounds than is hearing. Therefore, A-weighted sounds do not give a valid representation of whether wind turbine noise affects the ear or other aspects of human physiology mediated by the OHC and unrelated to hearing.”

I would very much like to know what is so terribly out of place about the three assessments regarding methodology above - and why you find the method of how sound is measure irrelevant as per these last two quotations...because if these are generally correct, then your demands are almost certainly artificial and your eradication of 100% of my revisions is unwarranted. Many of the studies you insist on keeping in the article should not at all be given the weight you think they should, and the demand for "direct cause-effect" studies may actually turn around and bite you if you hold it too consistently...

Such demands obviously reveals bias about what information "counts" and what type of study "counts" (ironically vindicating my quotation of Carl Phillips). But actions speak louder than words: if you really saw the matter in terms of trying to be balanced, why not modify my revisions instead of wholesale rejecting them under the boogy-man of "bias"? Why not utilize the resources in a way you deem "fair" instead of deleting them? Even so, everyone knows that no-one is neutral; there is no ultimate "unbias," because what one person deems "significant" and "relevant" another does not, regardless of the ultimate positions they hold; libraries are not neutral in what books they hold nor are encyclopedias in the contents they have, the language choices they make, the content choices they make, or the manner and way in which that content is told in a subjective narrative. The scientific method itself is not even neutral in deeming what are "significant fact gathering" and formulating a "relevant question" (none of which can themselves be arrived at "scientifically"!). Biases can only be controlled towards a specified outcome, not eliminated in Plato's ideal world the forms.

So even if you are correct that my revision is framed in a way that is hopelessly biased, that still doesn't warrant its entire deletion. That's because in doing so, you would mostly be deleting direct quotations of relevant peer-review literature that were not on the page before. I do not see how much material is beyond repair if you really want to present an "unbiased" account. Indeed, if you find yourself deleting scores of primary source literature that conflicts directly with your conclusions without even attempting to modify the manner in which they are framed, then your bias appears to be rather evident, not simply mine.

So once again, the very issues of content and the manner in which it is presented (biased/unbiased, fair/unfair, etc.) are actually ignored because no-one so far, since my first revision, has even attempted to address both of these in a meaningful fashion. All that has occurred is simple dismissal of the entire thing because of (apparently) unpleasant suggestions derived from it. So you can re-state the conclusion "the scientific consensus is that wind turbines do not cause health problems" repetitively, and remove every heading and every quotation of relevant literature I've provided on this subject, but that doesn't make the methodological problems (which are of utmost importance), the literature, or the increasing reports of health problems somehow related to windturbines magically go away. To make things easier for you, I've undone your undoing of my revision, so you can modify parts you feel should be modified. jaminhubner (talk) 11:50 24 April 2015 (Mountain Time) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be lacking basis knowledge what Wikipedia is and how it works. You constantly try to to prove what is "good" science and what is "bad" science. You did that massively in your article edit and you did it several times here on the discussion page. You have your opinion and try to confirm that while simultaneously rebutting everything that proves something else. You don't want to describe the ongoing debatte, you want declare which side is right and which side is wrong. You just accept papers from one side and reject papers from the other side because you have an opposing viewpoint And this cannot and won't work here, because it is against the fundamental principles of wikipedia. What your doing is WP:OR and lacks WP:Neutral point of view. So none of your citations will help, because when you try to prove that your side is right you automatically violate the core of wikipedia.

There is only one way we can solve this dispute: We have to consider both sides. There isn't a consensus in scientific debate, so we can't declare a consensus. We have to describe the position of both sides, and do that open-minded. No accusations made by anti-wind-campaigners that the other side is wrong, no ignoring of the studies I showed above, no conclusions that the science is settled and above all, no claims that federal money is generally only flowing into the pro-wind side. Because all of that is massively biased and just a personal opinion that is completely irrelevant here. That means that your whole sections "Critical Reactions to Studies Supporting Adverse Health Effects" and "Responses to Critical Reactions of Studies Supporting Adverse Health Effects" have to be fully deleted, and the section "Low-Frequency and Inaudible ("Infra-Sound") Noise and Potential Effects" has to be rewritten in a neutral form and added with some of the studies I listed above. So that it reflects both sides, doesn't draw conclusions that are nonexistent in scientific debate and therefore is both neutral and free of personal opinion/original research. But to do that, it needs to be newly writing from the beginning, because it is absolutely interspersed with POV and OR, so your edit just cannot be the basis of a newly written section. Andol (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have huge difficulties with the idea of having a section devoted to 'Vibro Acoustic Disease' which sounds to me like it is simply a made up disorder. Even your edits admitted that it has not accepted in the legal or medical communities. As such Wikipedia cannot cover it in an article like this.GliderMaven (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactely. The whole Elsevier catalogue, one of the largest scientific databases existing, doesn't list a SINGLE publication with this disease [11]. And over that I find it very interesting that you ecessivly quote the "Bulletin of Science Technology and Society", a journal, that seems to be highly dubious, isn't listed in Web of Science, has no impact factor and seems to even lack peer-review. So reliability of this source is at least very uncertain, you could also find other words [12]. Andol (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)