“In its heyday the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was a bastion of objectivity. However this show revealed nothing but wind apologetics. The absurdities were thick and one-sided without a single thread of verity.”
Recently the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) pretended to take on the endless debate around the topic most people know little about – the health problems created by industrial wind turbines. The results were quite disappointing.
The Sunday, October 21st program (two segments) skated around the issues like Barbara Ann Scott.
The first segment was a cut and paste “documentary” by a novice reporter from Kincardine, Ontario about people in her “home town.” Frustratingly, and sadly, this entire set up piece merely touched at the edges of the actual concerns many of which have been reported on CBC by actual CBC reporters. This set the tone for a familiar experience – greenwashing.
John Twidell Misdirection
The second segment, 17 minutes, was devoted to a chuckling grandfatherly engineer and long-time proponent of industrial wind, John Twidell. The UK’s Twidell is former editor of Wind Engineering Magazine and has served as an advisor on wind and renewables to the UK government. He was a member of the lobbyist organization British Wind Energy Association.
The dubiously reverential tone of the interviewer, Karin Wells, permeated this piece of wind turbine propaganda. So why did this ignite us so? After all we are used to the green propaganda machine.
In its heyday CBC was a bastion of objectivity. However this show revealed nothing but wind apologetics. The absurdities were thick and one-sided without a single thread of verity.
Twidell mentioned that “there are NO health concerns in Germany and Europe, none.” His awareness of independent research Dr. Nina Pierpont had only commenced “this morning,” but he felt “expert” enough to dismiss her study as merely “sincere.” He added, in Europe, “Wind Turbine Syndrome” does not seem to exist.”
This is where, as Orwell states, black is white. Or in today’s vocabulary, black is green.
The banter went on to include other newspeak such as “turbines make our future more secure. They are more sustainable.” And the inevitable commentary, “People just don’t like the look of them.” The final moments spoken by this creative blandness was a cozy picture of the annual general meeting of the CO OP wind venture of which John Twidell is himself a contented part.
Imagine children playing laughing, everyone happy. We imagine that all developers at the annual meetings would celebrate their hapless “earnings.” But Mr. Twidell professes to know nothing of the environmental devastation and human suffering, despite growing worldwide condemnation of an industry that is in real trouble with with fiscal reform threatening traditional subsidies.
Twidell’s reality doesn’t reflect what we know in Europe and Germany, subsidy scandals in North America, energy distortions, and economic hardship. Well over 2,000 anti-wind groups are coalesced now, and for many years telling the truth about the bad economics, the financial hardship, the government cover-ups, the developers’ lies, the huge buckets of money in subsidies, hanging out entire economies in the wash.
We see Spain on her knees, the UK in energy poverty, and Germany building 26 new coal fired plants. Why? Wind just doesn’t blow all the time, and requires continuous back up.
CBC: Time for a Redo
For CBC to launch this Sunday Edition without having done the basic research leaves us with the sad bitter taste of “propaganda” hanging in the air. The ongoing factual record calls for a redo.
The sad stories continue to mount. Take Ted Whitworth of Amaranth who has lost 1/3 of his livestock in the shadow of wind substation with stray voltage problems daily. He has tried to get an audience for six years.
The Brindley family now living in Saskatchewan, has had its entire farm and family life demolished from turbine proximity, ill health, dying animals and miscarried livestock. Like many others unacceptable stray voltage plus noise and vibration and low frequency/infrasound have caused chronic problems.
Another family with three autistic children in fragile health is fighting more turbine installations near their farm.
From around the world, there are abnormal health issues (heart attacks, cancer clusters, and even suicide) that have put wind turbines on trial.
CBC Ombudsman Kirk LaPointe studied the complaints and stated: “The complainants felt that a CBC Radio program October 21, 2012, on Wind Turbines was unfair and lacked balance. I did not find a violation of CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.”
LaPointe did not offer an explanation as to why growing, robust research about the health problems of wind turbines (such as in Europe) did not apply to Canada. (NOTE: the dialogue between the Ombudsman’s office and listeners appears far from over.)
Both Sides, Please
The journalistic standards of fair play include that the truth be strongly embedded in programming or at the very least that both sides are represented. This is where the CBC’s mandated fairness ultimately failed. “Research in other areas where specialized knowledge is required should utilize the resources of institutions and experts outside the CBC/Radio-Canada. It should be recognized, however, that sometimes these have a partisan interest in the subject and that there must accordingly be a balance in the outside resources that are used.”
This was the most poorly researched piece my tax dollars have ever purchased from the CBC. Mr. Twidell as a carrier of mistruths to a broad CBC audience, should have been challenged left right and center, and not permitted to spout propaganda.
Mr. Twidell asks us to stand right under a turbine and listen. “It is not any louder than a refrigerator.” Well, ask why people in radius of even to 10 km are suffering acute sleep disorders, tinnitus, headaches, disorientation, depression, and abandoning vibrating homes full of unacceptable infra and low frequency noise.
The program’s final commentary by Ms. Wells stated grass roots groups in America and Canada are funded by oil and gas interests. This allegation which should have never have met the air waves is best left for legal teams. (We welcome an opportunity to correct these and other fairly obvious misrepresentations with equal time on the CBC.)
Conclusion
If CBC really believes in its standard “The trust of the public is our most valued asset,” then serious correction is in order for the next chapter in this continuing debate. It is time for reality to replace Orwellian greenwashing in the industrial wind debate.
Unofrtunately, this is far from the first time that the CBC has been peddling the unchallenged green party line. Nor is it the first time that the Ombudsman has responded in such an ignorant manner.
[Check the Friends of Science website for correspondence pertaining to their repeated airing of Gore’s AIT. You will be appalled at the “responses”.]
But not only are we subject to such biased views on supposed “news” and “documentary” programs – we get it from their entertainment programs, as well … I’ve lost count of the number of times “climate change” has cropped up in conversations on Banbury, Ghomeshi, Strombo (and I don’t even listen/watch these programs very often!)
If I din’t know better, I’d be inclined to believe that the CBC have taken their marching orders from the same notorious gathering of green advocates that indoctrinated the BBC in 2006 (and no doubt in prior and subsequent years).
And if you haven’t heard of this particular BBC scandal, that was unearthed fairly recently, you might want to start at:
http://omnologos.com/why-the-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-jan-2006-seminar-is-important/
Like the BBC, the CBC long ago lost “the trust of the public”.
[…] continue reading, click here) Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Tags: CBC, Lange, […]
globally the cover up of all the awful things about wind energy, from it ;s cost to its destruction of life for humans and animals, from its toxicity in production of the turbines and no way to dismantel and discard the toxic materials they are made of is truly astounding.
CBC needs to do this story again, using facts rather than windindustryspeak. There are people suffering terrible health problems that began with the start up of turbines. They are better when they get away from the exposure of the turbines and they are sick again when they return. Since when is an engineer qualified to judge anyone’s health? CBC, try again. Instead of giving an already entitled industry another soapbox to stand on, let the people who are being trampled tell you what’s really going on.
Excellent! Thank you.
Good article. I’m all for cutting or eliminating funding to the CBC. Why are my tax dollars paying for this tripe.
Expect less from the CBC, not more.
Pete Lomath, a 66 year old Canadian who is partly responsible for allowing the McGuinty government to put in place the Green Energy Act and by so doing removing the protection afforded by the various pieces of legislation to children, whould have been a valuable addition to this program. Next Time? Read his comments here:
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2011/12/06/an-apology-to-children-living-on-properties-leased-for-wind-generation-2/
Mr. Wrightman has indicated we may publish his comments and correspondence with the Ombudsman’s office. He raises some very valid points and highlights some of the “ignition” points re this biased program. Let’s hope the CBC allows a correction. Follows:
Here’s my original complaint to the CBC Ombudsman and the attachment has his reply. You have my permission to forward it to anybody.
Harvey
Dear Mr. Wrightman:
It isn’t clear from the correspondence if you are looking for a review of this matter. In the past some reviews have been launched when complainants did not want anything further done, so now I ask for something more formal in the way of direction.
Let me know if you wish for me to proceed.
Sincerely,
Kirk LaPointe
CBC Ombudsman
http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman
Dear Mr. LaPointe,
Below is my reply to Ms. Mahoney’s (the producer of this program) response to my complaint. As you will see, we are not in agreement on much. I apologize for putting this reply in the form of a rebuttal; but, it was way the thoughts came into my head.
I received Ms.Mahoney’s response to the issues I raised re: the Sunday Edition, 2012/10/20 segment “Wind Farms documentary/John Twidell”. My main point of complaint was the excessive time devoted to interviewing a purported wind energy expert who, according to the institution he is director of, AMSET, “…has written ~ 100 published papers on renewable and sustainable energy, a major textbook in renewable energy and chapters in 9 other books.”
This does not make Mr.Twidell an expert in the broad range of subjects he was asked to express his opinions on The program features his views or his comment on opposing views. As such, the interview is either very biased or of rather shallow intellectual calibre. From his cv. Mr. Twidell is not an expert on issues of noise or the medical conditions that arise from excess noise. He is not a medical clinician. In the program he offers his notions about the people who who live in wind projects and how may or may not be affected by the noise. He even speculates as to the incidence of people affected without offering any proof for his numbers. Since this interview dominates 2/3 of the program, it is hard to understand how this can be considered a balanced presentation of the noise/medical issues. No other person is interviewed for opinion, expert or otherwise.
Re: the lessons to be learned from the Euopean experience does correct Ms.Wells’ (the interviewer) mistaken assertion that little opposition exists in Europe. Though he doesn’t refer to it, recently the Province of North Holland decided to approve no further wind projects on land. Here’s the link http://epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=no8
For an academic paper that explains the changing noise emission pattern of larger (+2MW) turbines, this one from Henrik Moller and C.S.Pedersen, Aalborg University provides a very good and readable analysis. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Moller-Pedersen-Low-frequence-noise-large-wind-turbines.pdf
If looking for an acoustic expert who is reasonably unbiased, the producer and host would have been better served by American acoustician Jim Cumming of the Acoustic Ecology Institute whose website presents wind noise issues in a fair manner.
I’m afraid that the producer would find few if any medical clinicians who will dismiss the noise related health issues. Going further, I would ask/challenge Ms. Mahoney & Ms.Wells to find a specialist in otolaryngolgy who will state that wind turbines would not cause disturbances of the inner ear. Indeed, I have had correspondence with an otolaryngologist who has patients from wind projects with vestibular disorders (most commonly vertigo) that are as yet unexplained, real none the less, not “purported” in any sense according to the specialist. I’m quite sure thae wind industry would pay handsomely to have definitive opinion in its favour from an inner ear specialist.
If there is one statement that is used universally by the wind industry and its supporters it is much like what Ms.Mahoney wrote: “…(as to) why conflicts over wind turbines…do not seem to be as divisive in Europe as they are in Canada. Clearly conflicts do exist, but given the much more extensive development of wind power in Europe, they are markedly less widespread.”
This is a unsupported, sweeping statement that is contradicted by the link I have provided above. Clearly in North Holland, the populace and the government has had enough. Opposition exists elsewhere too, but is poorly reported by the media. At least in the first part of the show ( Paige Ellis), the journalist spent time at ground level interviewing people from both sides of the issue to present a truer picture.
Near the end of her letter, Ms.Mahoney states, “Finally, we decided to include the script about the Koch brothers’ funding of anti-wind movements in the United States, because credible sources have reported that this is the case.” This documentary began with a focus on resistance in Ontario specifically, and then progressed into a single-source discussion/interview with a rep from the British wind industry. Ms.Wells concludes with this ominous reference to some “purported” alliance/support for “the anti-wind movements in the US” through the Koch brothers whose wealth derives mainly from their holdings in the oil industry.
Is Ms.Wells implying “guilt by implication”? I am puzzled by this as locally we are fighting 3 NextEra wind projects (175 turbines) + 2 Suncor wind projects(70 turbines). I note that NextEra uses coal in much of its power generation in the US. Suncor is a petroleum producer. I find this particular inference to be particularly “low” and unbefitting the standards of “best practices” that the staff at CBC should aspire to, at least.
Tell, Ms. Mahoney, do you believe that either of these companies is funding our activities? If given the chance to respond on your program, I would have said, “No.”
Unfortunately neither Ms.Mahoney nor Ms.Wells sought out any local opinion that offered a counterview to the wind apologist, John Twidell.
Ms.Wells’ part of the program went beyond bias. It was prejudiced.
Sincerely,
Harvey Wrightman
What progams like this do is to totally ignore the down sides of wind power. They may be using a free resource but what are far from free are the problems. These include:
– very real health problems for some who live close to these huge machines
– very real huge reductions in property values of those living nearby. This problem is completely ignored by many advocates who live in their unaffected urban environments, blissfully unaware of the destruction of beautiful rural landscapes.
– the fact thatwind turbines cannot replace other sources of power as the wind is unreliable. Until such time as the power produced by wind can be efficiently stored, it will never be able to eplace conventional sources.
Countries that have been in the wind power business a lot longer than Canada are in the midst of a total rethink. In California, some are now being decommisined because they make no sense.
We should rethink wind power here too, before the industry has totally destryed our countryside.
[…] Wind Propaganda by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Orwellian greenwashing calls for correction) […]
Cut CBC off OUR $$$$$ and see how long it takes for Peter Mansbingo to hit the bricks looking for a real job!
I am a staunch supporter – usually – of CBC Radio but was appalled at the program being commented upon in this article.
Immediately after it aired, we wrote to the program to indicate how poorly the subject was covered and how disappointed we were in the bias of the documentary. We expect better of the CBC.
We live in Grey Highlands are about to be surrounded by wind turbines but I’ve been (minorly) involved for several years. These turbines are not good for rural Ontario, they are economically unviable and they are causing serious damage to people and animals (domestic, farm and wild).
The CBC has done a great disservice to Canadians who are not yet aware of the situation. I was hoping for a much more balanced documentary. Shame on The Sunday Edition.
[…] Lange’s article today on the excellent free market energy blog, MasterResource.org, notes: Wind Propaganda by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Orwellian greenwashing calls for […]
Read ‘Exposed’ by Brian Lilley, it is an eye-opening description of how the CBC obfuscates, refuses transparency and misuses taxpayer money. The book can be purchased from Amazon.ca at http://www.amazon.ca/CBC-Exposed-Brian-Lilley/dp/098816910X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354660343&sr=1-4 or on Kindle at https://kindle.amazon.com/work/cbc-exposed-brian-lilley/B009YWGX2E/098816910X
In his introduction to Patrick Michaels’ talk at the 2012 Heartland ICCC-7, the presenter recounted an example of how the CBC twists interviews in support of their own biases instead of presenting the truth and what was actually said. The video clip of this can be viewed here: http://www.lsarc.ca/Intro%20re%20CBC%20to%20Pat%20Michaels%20at%20ICCC-7.mp4
What a shame! The CBC has seriously lost its way. The requisite in-depth research required to present a balanced report was completely missing. Someones head should roll at CBC!
Here in North America we need to thank our lucky stars for committed and erudite watchdogs like Sherri Lange.
I heard the show. Fury started to set in within a few minutes. There is no doubt the show was biased towards wind turbine energy. It was probably designed to be.
The CBC have sunk to the point where they have totally lost credibility – like M Anderson I believe it’s time we pull the plug on them.
This biased unprofessional reporting by the CBC again proves why this Public broadcaster must be privatized. These people that run the CBC refuse to understand that they get paid by the taxpayers of Canada. Over one billion dollars a year to present and support lies about the damage cause by the wind turbine industry. This is just a waste of taxpayers money and must be stopped!
Excellent article. I live in Europe, and thought this control of the television medium by government was typical of Europe (see the scandal presently rocking the BBC about their overwhelming global warming and windfarm bias). I am disappointed to note that Canada is as (intellectually at the very least) corrupt as we are on this side of the pond.
“This was the most poorly researched piece my tax dollars have ever purchased from the CBC.”
Hmm…Your tax dollars probably helped mine pay for a piece with NO apparent research. Here’s potential competition begging top prize in that category, promoting what’s actually a non-renewable, private developer’s project that’s pretty much as tightly “tied” to the increase in IWT’s as are IWT’s to the increased need for storage to reduce grid instability – for your consideration:
On Nov 7, 2012 CBC Radio Canada produced a video mostly in French, that doesn’t question our local Reeve’s claim in clear English, that “We have not been able to find one party who do not think it’s a good project” or ask the sales rep for private developer Northland Power why this proposal he described as “It’s really a showpiece for the province” hasn’t gained any visible ground with provincial decision-makers, ever since it’s local taxpayer-funded marketing campaign nuttiness began dividing our rural community in June 2011:
http://www.radio-canada.ca/widgets/mediaconsole/medianet/6479776#%23
Yet as recently as Oct 25 2012, “forgetting” our existence altogether would have proven impossible for not only the Reeve, but the smaller-fry media that got stuck with covering a public demonstration by local taxpayers posing opposition in front of our local townhall, in addition to the well-publicized 10AM County Council meeting that followed, inside – but they did their best, with “greenwashing” guidance from the municipality’s fact-filled “press release” created the same morning:
http://www.wmakers.com/94/files/Other/Marmora%20Pumped%20Storage%20support%20press%20release%202.doc
You’d think if the regional small-fry could handle that enormous challenge, a taxpayer-funded, national big-fry like CBC Radio Canada might have at least glanced at the Municipality’s own “pumped storage” project promo page as bare-minimal research before videotaping less than 2 weeks later – to see for themselves the grand total of 3 Letters of Support that Marmora and Lake has received since the Reeve’s “requesting” began in June 2011, from people who actually live somewhere within our vast, rural municipality? It should have taken any CBC Radio Canada employee only seconds to scroll down this page and figure out more investigation might be warranted:
http://www.marmoraandlake.ca/view.cfm?Prod_Key=3849&PROD_DETAIL_KEY=5080&TEMP=Content%20Single&KeyWord=N%2FA
Kathy:
A point in your post reminded me that in business/economic terms, fossil fuels are renewable (nondepletable) and renewables are not (depletable). Siting is very scarse….
Sherri:
Fine job here.
As you know after I listened to the show I wrote both the journalist and the CBC Ombudsman. I listed several errors of fact.
When the Ombudsman report came out a few weeks later, he claimed to list all the complaints he received, and then superficially pretended to answer each of them.
I noted that he did not acknowledge getting my written complaints. My guess would be that this was due to the fact that he had no answers.
Kathy, your reference to Northland Power and lack of answers cross tracks to the turbine proposals to desecrate Manitoulin Island, too. Your inability to get answers also cross tracks to John Droz’ comments that the Ombudsman of CBC clearly had no answers to his questions as well. (Potent combination of media greening, and silence.) Very nice website, and keep up the fight.
SHAME ON YOU!!!!! Gone are the days of unbiased reporting….it is obvious that the CBC has either not bothered to investigate this topic or chosen to ignore the very real results…there is absolutley NO positive side to turbine development, unless you happen to be in the turbine business…..the only “green” in turbine development are the billions of taxpayer dollars that are being paid to turbine developers !
The “new experts” on the effects of IWTs are the Ontario Victims of IWTs.
They are the one’s who need to be interviewed by medical professionals, by engineers, by CBC interviewers for the next radio documentary about wind “energy” by the CBC.
hi rbradley – re “Siting is very scarse….”
Yes, for this particular type of centralized storage, it is. But by ensuring the opposition remains “greenwashed” (in our unique case politically silenced at every level in addition to by the media) the fact that merely re-locating their upper reservoir to the other side of the mine pit could be done on the very same property to eliminate most public safety concerns, remains a moot point.
Having to do this would not optimize the “economics” of this private developer’s potential profit relative to their capital investment for project construction, because that would require them to actually build the upper reservoir “from scratch”, from the ground up, likely along the lines of more conventional construction method for all load bearing structures – as opposed to their well-publicized (and lower capital cost to them) plan to merely “re-shape” the existing, long ago loose-dumped mine tailings pile, then line it with gravel and “impervious” asphalt so they can fill ‘er up from the spring-fed lake that has developed in the abandoned open mine pit.
It would cost a lot more money for this project’s upper reservoir “from scratch” construction if it were to be built from the bottom-up with ground preparation, analysis, grading and sorting of the waste rock building materials, then manual compacting in “lifts” (ie layers), even if this was done on the same property that’s privately owned by project partner Aecon – and even more costly if their upper reservoir was required to be constructed with roller-compacted concrete as was decided more appropriate for Taum Sauk’s upper reservoir replacement, following the catastrophic breach of its original?
Another locally fact never disclosed by proponents and related to “siting” is that a publicly accessible AIF from Northland Power reveals that they’ve had a second “pumped storage” project “under development” as well, but it would be sited on Crown land and further north here in Ontario. Northland indicated in documentation for its investors that getting approvals on public land would be less favourable for them… and I fully concur that this would be so, currently.
Hope this helps clarify that “scarcity of siting” thingie?
hi Sherri Lange: to date, MCSEA has been the only “wind” battle group who have returned contact with me. The individually embattled hearts here share their group’s every common pain and challenge. We were thrilled to have been personally invited to join them at their protest on Manitoulin last June and enjoyed being treated as if part of their group and battle all along, with their members holding up our signs and us holding up theirs:
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2012/06/16/manitoulin-wind-turbine-protest/
https://picasaweb.google.com/101082173833183811527/ManitoulinWindProtestJune152012
This fond memory may remain unique because the alleged political “opposition” to IWT’s here in Ontario decided and continues to fully support this particular “pumped storage” wind backup project – exactly as it has been proposed for Marmora. Also, the people in groups fighting the single-issue wind battles do not seem to be confronting our multi-issue, local battles that are related at their root. (yet)
When I heard this program was coming on I was anxious to hear what would be said. I really expected an unbiased two sided report. I was appalled at the one sidedness. I kept wondering aloud why questions were not being asked of Mr. Twidell and when the reporter from Kincardine came on, I wondered who this child was with nothing to say really. CBC has been going downhill for me generally over the years, but this really shocked me.
I have never hear such a disgracefully biased piece as this program on large, commercial wind (there are other less offensive wind energy sources). The wind lobby has hoodwinked governments around the world, including Ontario, despite being presented with evidence from others around the world.CBC should present a follow-up program and get knowledgeable people like Lorrie Gillis etc.
[…] good story about a Canadian broadcast that was a totally inadequate discussion of the turbine-human health […]
That was a very interesting article, Sherri, and I’d like to thank you to bringing it to my attention. In doing so, I have only begun to scour the internet for resources and more information that can help me form an informed and well-reasoned opinion on the viability of wind energy.
I have come across resources such as :
http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf
and
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ti1r2/conservative_thinktanks_launch_campaign_to_turn/
that lead me to be very skeptical of the claims that devalue wind energy. Perhaps the strongest criticism against wind turbines is that they are cost prohibitive (as all new technologies are). Furthermore, the rational discussion being had in the second link reveals much more interesting cons to wind energy than the rhetoric being repeated ad nauseum by pseudo-wind experts.
What’s more surprising, actually, is the complete denial of global warming or climate change (it does not need quotation marks) that I am reading in some of these comments. To think that scientists around the world have come together, from all different fields of science and parts of the world, to delude minds everywhere is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, it speaks of the power of the lobbying efforts working at the behest of the oil and gas industries.
Now, if anyone here has resources supporting their claim, please feel free to post them, as I’d be happy to entertain your position.
Once again, thanks again Sherri. I hope you help to make the CBC a more balanced news network.
Thank goodness for REDDIT !
Someone had uploaded a link to this blog. I am a big CBC fan so I am curious to delve into discrepancies regardless of the political spectrum.
Will digest the full article. It appears the comments reflect an intelligent discourse. I lean left yet am open to being swayed by intelligent discussions.
R. L.
Re: “… complete denial of global warming or climate change … in some of these comments.”
This is the “ultra skeptical” postion–that the human influence on climate is in the noise and not the signal, so to speak.
The important point is that there is some middle ground–global lukewarming–where I believe the science is headed. Chip Knappenberger writes on this for MasterResource: see here: http://www.masterresource.org/category/climate-change/global-lukewarming/.
Thank you for your comment
RL & Jonathan:
Please carefully study EnergyPresentation.Info. Then email me any questions.
Two things are horseshit: the free market and the claim that wind turbines cause health problems.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/windfarm-wing-nuts-public-health-expert-takes-aim-at-activists-20150805-girzqj