“The [Michigan] ordinances cite the potential negative consequences of wind turbines such as falling ice thrown by the blades of turbines, the flickering of shadows from the blades on nearby structures (shadow flicker), sleep disturbance caused by noise, and long-term health consequences of sound, also known as ‘infrasound’.”

When it comes to government-enabled, anti-consumer energy sprawl, local citizens have a say over unneeded, duplicative, invasive industrial wind projects. This is very bad news for the rickety supply-side strategy led by industrial wind. Real grassroot environmentalists are at war with Washington, D.C. Big Environmentalism, as well as the business rent-seekers making Bad Profit (as versus Good Profit).

The Progressive Left includes the pro-wind “investigative Watchdog Blog” Checks & Balances Project. Their “As Anti-Wind Zoning Ordinances Spread Across Michigan, Ordinances’ Language Varies Little” (November 10, 2021) recently reported on the growing movement against wind-turbine siting in a factual, lawyers-need-to-know basis.…

“Altamont Pass has been a black eye on the entire wind industry since its construction.” (National Audubon Society, below)

“… the need for renewable energy is not an excuse to … wipe out local populations of wildlife. Wind companies are making billions and can afford to ensure projects are responsibly sited and include adequate mitigations to reduce impacts to sensitive species.” (Ariana Rickard, Mount Diablo Audubon Society, below)

Altamont Pass again? Back in 1997, my Policy Analysis for the Cato Institute, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’,” included a section, “The ‘Avian Mortality’ Problem,” that focused on Altamont Pass, then the nation’s largest wind farm and a documented killing field for protected birds.

That 625-MW project was just a short car ride away from the San Francisco headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council.…

“It seems that, in common with the tobacco industry, the wind industry was well aware that its products were inimical to health. The introduction of larger turbines is also problematic because the larger the turbines, the more noise they produce.” (- Alun Evans, Centre for Public Health, The Queen’s University of Belfast, below)

Yesterday’s post presented a peer-reviewed article concluding that industrial wind turbines generate negative health effects for nearby residents: “Wind turbines and adverse health effects: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation (by Anne Dumbrille, Robert McMurtry, and Carmen Krogh).

That article inspired an editorial in the same journal by Alun Evans of the Centre for Public Health, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, United Kingdom.

————-

Evans’s editorial, ‘Big noises: Tobacco and Wind’ [Environmental Disease (2021) 6: pp.…

“The weight of evidence indicates occurrences of adverse health effects (AHEs) from living and working near industrial wind turbines (IWTs).”

“Based on our analysis of clinical, biological, and experimental evidence and its concordance with the nine [Bradford Hill] criteria, we conclude that there is a high probability that emissions from IWTs, including infrasound and [Low Frequency Noise], result in serious harm to health in susceptible individuals living and/or working in their proximity.”

A recent issue of Environmental Disease provides more evidence of the negative health effects of industrial wind turbines. It is common sense: audible noise and infrasound, vibrations, and flicker light are unwanted intrusions for those who live remotely to get away from industrialization.

Professional environmentalists must look the other way given that they have little supply-side strategy otherwise against consumer-preferred, taxpayer-neutral mineral energies. But at the grassroots, some farmers can get paid off, but friends are few.…