In the Wellington Times article, “Unity of knowledge” (4 November 2010) the author, Rick Conroy, makes numerous arguments and claims. One of his strongest claims is that the negative effects of wind turbines on human health should dismantle Ontario’s Green Energy Act and shut down industrial wind turbine businesses. In particular Conroy claims:
“[The industrial wind turbine business] has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets. They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale. None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.” (Conroy 2010).
Conroy produces evidence presented by scientists and researchers to support this claim, however, most of this evidence is considerably weak. Conroys first argument appears to be that wind turbines have negative effects on human health, ranging from sleep disturbances to cognitive performance deficit. Another of Conroy’s arguments seems to be that the Ontario government failed to use the precautionary principle when it removed regulations to developers of industrial wind energy.
Inconclusive Evidence
Conroy’s first argument is supported by inconclusive studies and ineffective research conducted by seemingly bias scientists. At the beginning of this article, Conroy first states that every animal with a functioning hearing organ is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by wind turbines whether they are aware of it or not. Conroy gives no proof, research or reference as to where the validity of this statement arose. To back up his first argument, Conroy references Dr. Nina Pierpoint who conducted a study on the cognitive performances of those living near wind turbines in comparison with those who don’t. Her findings concluded that the group living near wind turbines had more difficulty reading, spelling, and other cognitive performances. She also went on to state that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. At first glance, these findings seem plausible and convincing. However, Pierpoint shows no evidence that the noise from wind turbines are loud enough to be a cause of stress to the hearing organ, and she also fails to conclude that there is a direct and proven link between noise generated by wind turbines and feelings of panic and fear. When read further, the article explains that Pierpoints findings were based on a sample group of only 21 people.
Conroy continues with another allegation in which he claims that the low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on hearing mechanisms. To supports his indefinite claim, Conroy references Dr. Alec Salt, who has conducted research which illustrates that the sound emitted from industrial wind turbines is inaudible by humans. Salt states that when the cochlear structures in the ear (canals for the transmission of pressure) move around it can have an effect on a range of symptoms. Conroy addresses that Salt is not clear on whether symptoms persist after exposure to wind turbine sound or if it is discontinued. The findings presented by Salt are, again, plausible but generalized with a lack of full certainty.
For further backup, Conroy also references Dr. Chris Hanning, a sleep expert. Hanning observes that sleep disturbances over time can lead to frustration, anger, and feelings of loss of control. Hanning suggests that the noise generated by industrial wind turbines is viewed as an invasion of a place in which people go to feel safe. This claim not only contradicts Dr. Salt’s argument (that the sound generated by wind turbines is inaudible) but also shows no evidence that wind turbines lead to the symptoms mentioned. Conroy mentions another study conducted by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, which concerns the effects of industrial wind turbines on residents who live within 1,100 meters from a wind turbine. Nissenbaum found that 82 percent of those closest to the turbine reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance since the turbines went online. These results sound convincing and prompting, unfortunately some of this shock value is lost when it is shown that Nissenbaums control group consisted of 27 people, and his affected group was that of only 22 people. Sarah Boesveld published an article in The Globe and Mail that explains a study conducted to test the before-and-after effects of wind turbines on human health. The researcher, Dr. Neal Michelutti, states:
“A lot of these symptoms are pretty commonly reported symptoms - anxiety, sleeplessness, these sort of things…It's difficult without having that baseline data to attribute them to a specific cause and effect like the windmills." (Boesveld 2009).
The amount of research presented by Conroy is indeed sufficient, however the lack of strength of claims in each reference diminishes this articles validity.
Precautionary Principle
Conroy’s second argument is that the Ontario Government didn’t use the precautionary principle when making policy on green energy. Conroy claims:
“the province failed to use the ‘precautionary principle’ when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act.” (Conroy 2010).
Conroy seems to believe that responsible policymaking operate on the precautionary principle which states that the right policy is the careful one. Jamie Whtye (2007) in an article from The Times explains that the precautionary principle is meaningless and provides no guidance when making significant decisions such a provincial policy. It is a matter of risk versus uncertainty. An outcome is considered risky when it is not guaranteed but the probability is known whereas an outcome is uncertain when its probability isn’t even known. In relation to Conroy’s claims, the risk would be the proven and known negative health effects that wind turbines have on humans. The uncertainty would be the unproven and possibly inexistent health effects of wind turbines on humans. The precautionary principle is even more so ineffective since we cannot identify safe options when we’re ignorant of the probable outcomes. In correlation to Conroy’s article, since industrial wind turbines show no certain and proven negative health effect on humans, using the precautionary principle is useless because it is a factor of uncertainty so there is no telling whether any policy is a safe or sorry proposition.
Conclusions
Conroy’s first argument is based upon generalizations and unproven statements made by unreliable sources. He draws conclusions from unrealistic sample sizes and uncertain data. His second argument relies on the alleged effectiveness of the precautionary principle. In situations where the probabilities are unknown, the precautionary principle falsely implies that ignorance is not a serious problem, that a wise policymaker is able to know that an action is right even when they do not know its likely effects. Nowhere in his article does Conroy state the benefits of having industrial wind turbines. The benefits of wind turbines are another in-depth investigation altogether, but these benefits do indeed exist. In conclusion, Conroy could improve his arguments in his article by using credible (peer-reviewed) research, not claiming the precautionary principle should be used as an effective means of policymaking, and presenting some benefits to wind turbines in order to minimize his bias.
References
Conroy, R. (2010) Unity of knowledge. Wellington Times, 5 Nov 2010. http://wellingtontimes.ca/unity-of-knowledge/. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.
Whyte, J. (2007) Only a reckless mind could believe in safety first. The Times, 27 July 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2148188.ece. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.
Boesveld, S. (2009) Study to determine health effects of turbines. The Globe and Mail, 8 July 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/whats-blowing-in-the-wind/article1210357/. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment