Ed. Note: The health effects of industrial wind on local residents continues to attract mainstream research despite severe political incorrectness. It’s common sense: huge industrial machines moving in the open air have negative effects. For other posts at MasterResource on this subject, see here. This post complements yesterday’s on the nighttime amplification of noise.

“Wind turbines generate low-frequency noise (LFN, 20–200 Hz)…. [which causes] headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability, fatigue, dizziness, tinnitus, aural pain sleep disturbances, and annoyance. Clinically, exposure to LFN from wind turbines may cause increased risk of epilepsy, cardiovascular effects, and coronary artery disease.”

“In order to reduce LFN transport from outdoors to indoors, we recommend that the windows should be kept closed, especially at nighttime because LFN is most noticeable at night. In addition, … residences in close proximity to wind turbines should be equipped with airtight windows.”

WIND TURBINE “NOISE,” (GRINDING, AND THUMPING AND VIBRATION ASIDE), SWOOSH AND/OR AMPLITUDE MODULATION IS ACCELERATED BY UP TO FIVE TIMES AT NIGHT; FLINDERS UNIVERSITY FINDS

LIKELY MORE ANNOYING THAN OTHER SOURCES OF NOISE AT THE SAME LEVEL, STUDY FINDS.

Australia has commissioned a five-year study of the effect of noise from industrial wind turbines on the local residents. The rare investigation can only be bad news for the PR-propped industry, given the image of turbines being noiseless and in a field of green (mute and photoshopping at work).

In RENEW ECONOMY, Sophie Vorrath reported the latest:

New federally funded research investigating the association of wind farm noise with adverse effects on humans has found that the “swoosh” sound made by spinning turbine blades was likely to be more noticeable – and more annoying – to nearby residents during the night than during the day.

Ed. Note: This interview with Robert L. Bradley Jr. by Jane Shaw Stroup appeared earlier this week at the Liberty and Ecology website of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research. Comments are welcomed, including new questions to clarify the role of nuclear power in a free economy.

Q1. What role should nuclear power have in the years ahead?

A. “Let the market decide” is the straightforward classical-liberal, free-market answer. This means government neutrality in terms of not subsidizing or penalizing one energy technology versus another to determine what, when, where.

The decision to build new capacity, or the decision to operate-versus-retire, should be based on stand-alone economics, without government favor or penalty.

Q2. Under this standard, what is the future of nuclear in the energy mix as far as new capacity?…

This fortnightly Master Resource post will excerpt energy and climate material from the Media Balance Newsletter, published every other week by physicist John Droz Jr., founder of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. The complete MBN for this post can be found here.

The first story, from Minnesota, suggests what might happen if the advocates of renewables had to prove their case in a forum bound by objective evidence. (Hat tip to the Heartland Institute.)

Wind Energy:
Minnesota Court Rules Natural Gas More Environmentally-Friendly than Solar or Wind
Wind turbine makers struggle to profit from wind energy boom as costs rise
Turbine noise goes on trial
Group files lawsuit against US offshore wind project
Trump adviser involved in Offshore Vineyard Wind opposition

Nuclear Energy:
Germany Flirts With Power Crunch in Nuclear and Coal Exit
New school year, new Classroom Resources for Navigating Nuclear!…