Certain facts about Industrial Wind Turbines have emerged over many of their use. Each year, more and more complaints have emerged. The many complaints emanating from different countries, with different geographies, and from people who have had no contact with or knowledge of one another are remarkably similar. Also, whenever communities have been fully informed of ALL the risks and registered complaints regarding Industrial Wind Turbines before their construction, usually deny the construction proposals presented to their local governments. Another universal truth is, "Philosophy follows funding." It is obvious how this plays a role with wind power developers given the millions they receive in subsidies, tax breaks, and artificially augmented compensation for the electricity they generate, usually substantially more than the going rate for alternative electricity sources. Similarly, governmental entities stand to receive an extraordinary amount of financial support from industries that they support. Consequently, when Mass CEC has engaged Ms Stacie Smith to serve as an arbitrator between the wind industry and those who complain of health problems as a result of living nearby IWT's, it should give us some pause. Despite her training, experience, and personal qualities, it should be remembered that the Mass CEC mission statement explicitly promotes and expedites the development of wind energy, and "Philosophy follows funding." It has been said that Mass CEC has NEVER denied a permit for an Industrial Wind Turbine Proposal. Additionally, folks who base their whole approach to business on following funding can't imagine that other people might value their own personal and family health and welfare more than money. There are many examples of people who originally supported the notion of "clean wind energy" and even accepted financial compensation for it until after the IWT's were put in place and didn't live up to the developers' promises. Some families have even moved out of their homes rather than suffer with the adverse effects of IWT's too close to their homes. Finally, any studies that are authorized should utilize modern tools, should account for aerodynamic acoustical modulation, and should measure infrasound (inaudible low frequency sound). Rather than measuring sound in segments one second or longer, they should measure the more rapid, pulsatile nature of IWT generated sound. There hasn't been a single such test that has shown that IWT's conform to even the most basic sound ordinance. Furthermore, testing should take place INSIDE homes where there have been complaints. People live in enclosed spaces with tympanic properties similar to those of drums. People don't live outdoors in open fields. Also, variations in weather and wind alter the sounds generated by Industrial Wind Turbines, sufficient time must be allocated to assess noise levels fully during many different wind and weather conditions. Please note that I am not raising issues regarding the relative merits of Industrial Wind Turbines on shore in the low wind Northeast versus in the big wind Great Plains or far off shore. Neither am I discussing the dubious and poorly supported claims that Industrial Wind Turbines lessen our carbon footprint. Rather, as a physician, I am raising concerns about the physical and mental health risks of individuals forced to live next to industrial electricity factories against their will and whose subsequent complaints are either ignored, diminished, or flatly denied by companies and governments that profit from the installation of Industrial Wind Turbines. I am also skeptical because neither the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection nor the Department of Public Health has lived up to their public promise that the biased and unscientific literature review of selected articles that they performed over a year ago (and then released as if it had ben a definitive scientific study) was only a first step. They promised then to determine what new science needed to be developed along with devising a reasonable scientific next step. I am still waiting.

It's too bad that The Boston Globe allowed Nissenbaum to toot his own horn without checking his credentials (he is a radiologist, not an MD skilled in acoustical impact on health) or his affiliation (he is a founding member of the Society for Wind Vigilance, an anti-wind group, which publishes data that it admits it cannot check the veracity of).  

Further, his testimony in court was recently discredited by Justice R.C. Mills who wrote: “Dr. Nissenbaum is a medical doctor. He has not had any specialized training in any of the issues I have identified that are required in order to provide opinion evidence to support the injunction application. … If Dr. Nissenbaum could be considered an expert to provide opinion evidence on the issue surrounding the granting of the injunction, there are two further reasons to reject his evidence. The first is that he has assumed the role of advocate. A review of his affidavit No. 2 especially shows that he does not take an objective approach to the issues at hand. He passionately believes in the harmful health effects of wind turbines from his own survey on the Mars Hill project and has made that the basis for his foray into an area that he has little real knowledge of. It is clear from the content and tone of his second affidavit that he has no objectivity in respect of the issues. Secondly, in addition to the leaps of logic that were contained in para. 17 of both affidavits, he makes bold, unsupported statements on issues critical to the injunction." 

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Nissenbaum&language=en&searchTitle=Saskatchewan&path=/en/sk/skqb/doc/2010/2010skqb374/2010skqb374.html

Don't tear down the Wind turbines, sell the homes to the town, it's cheaper.