The list of new diseases to worry about just keeps growing:
Cases of nausea, headaches, insomnia and other ills have become common enough in states with wind farms that they've been given a name: "wind turbine syndrome."
That newfangled illness is just one of a growing list of health effects, inconveniences, risks and cost considerations that have resulted in a backlash against wind farms in other states, even as Indiana is in the midst of a rapid buildout of wind energy.
What's happening in other states suggests that the warm and fuzzy feeling many Hoosiers have for wind farms could change as the big turbines creep closer to more populated areas near Indianapolis, Lafayette and other cities.
I suspect a lot of paranoia, hysteria and medical hype are involved in "wind turbine syndrome," which sounds about as real as Gul
Comments
Leo:
Love the railroad "syndrome" thing...LMAO!
You make very good points, though.
But, I will be one of "those people" that WILL tell you that ANY prolonged excessive NOISE is detrimental to one's health.
Studies in major cities (Chicago and NYC) PROVED that children in schools that were exposed to more "city noise" learned at an slower rate than those who were not.
(who knew?)
Makes a DAMN good case against all these "boomcars" in our city, doesn't it?
But, on the "up" side, it DOES produce endorphins, causing a perverted sort of 'high"...yeah, add THAT to the drugs already in their veins and the alcohol already in their stomachs, and it's little wonder we (are forced to) "enjoy" many of our fellow citizens.
Even at THREE A.M.
SouthSide Syndrome...I have it, and the only cure is either EXPENSIVE (moving away) or ILLEGAL (got any TNT lying around?).
But I smell a HEFTY "resarch grant" (for me) to have an auditorium of doctors STUDY it...at length.
;)
I seem to remember a time not long ago when people couldn't stop romanticizing about a suburban lifestyle that included a soft job with a pension program, their own manicured-lawn-split-level with a two-car garage housing a couple of roomy gas guzzlers, a stay-at-home wife minding two perfect college-bound kids and a dog, as well as a barbecue and maybe a pool. I think the program was called "endless growth," or "the American Dream," (or maybe it was an especially memorable episode of "Leave it to Beaver;" I suffer from "1950s-1960s Fantasy Bubblevision Overexposure Syndrome," you know). So now you want we should stop with the romanticizing about cheap, harmless, endless energy and build 100 nuclear power plants instead (like some interplanetary congressman suggested) after they've voted to stop shipping the yucky stuff to Yucca Mountain? And as usual you want Eddie Haskel oiled up and put in charge of doing the dirty work, right? Okay, fine: then I say why not get voters to romanticize some more about a cheap endless supply of sausage by discontinuing taxpayer susbidies to the Pentagon and completely privatizing our military? It's already a mercenary operation with an inside racket anyhow. Sorry, can't help you with the voices-inside-your-head problem, though. Maybe you should talk to your doctor about an operation (if he's not already too busy writing prescriptions).
The suburban lifestyle dream was easily achievable as evidence by the many millions who did achieve it; that many have been disillusioned by it is beside the point. Defense of the country, even when ineptly performed and wasteful, is a constitutional mission and, given its 200-plus years record of success, also achievable. Cheap, harmless, endless energy is neither constitutionally authorized nor remotely possible, unless by some mirace people like you come to their senses and see the benefits of nuclear power.
Leo:
I wonder how many people realize that "if" we did happen to have 100% ELECTRIC vehicles for everyone TOMORROW...they would mostly ALL be "fueled" by COAL-fired power plants.
(cheap-energy?)
;)
Key word: WAS. And I would beg to differ: ensuing disillusionment is not beside the point when encountering otherwise well-educated people who continue to espouse "market equilibrium" as a basic tenet of an economy in which government already consistently intervenes on behalf of concentrated wealth seeking to game the system. Do you honestly believe that the nuclear power industry will not pursue public susbidies that would make $700 million per year smell like flatulence in a windstorm? I seem to recall someone's recently finding it laughable that Obama's should announce a goal of finding $248 million of expense reductions. Perhaps that "pittance" should somehow be diverted to cover the wind-power subsidy boondoggle.
Do you infer from my comments an argument opposed national defense as a consitutional mission? Then perhaps the operative word "defense" should be re-examined. Financially we have indeed proven that $439 BILLION annually spent on DoD is achievable, but (1) is it really for Defense, and (2) is it sustainable? Perhaps you also believe that it is the constitutional mission of our government to follow the historical trajectory of empires which for years continued to maintain expensive professional standing armies in foreign lands in order to enforce exclusive economic agendas. Or, perhaps, a miracle of jewel-line luminosity following the next celebrated celestial conjunction will simultaneously descend upon everyone, everywhere . . .
BTW, here's a link to an article from Industry Week with some updated info on the status of wind farm economics:
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/wind_market_taking_hit_in_2009_19757.aspx