“In my opinion, good journalism always has to be on the side of the weak, keeping a critical eye on all powers that be and any power – political, economical, military, industrial and religious. Good journalism is obliged to react to any repression of humans. And the way the wind industry works is – in my opinion – pure repression and abuse of democratic values.”

“The wind industry is very aggressive, and because of its poor performance, and environmental and human health impacts, it obviously does not belong anywhere. Together, world wide, we must work to educate each other about the mechanics of the wind industry; how it exploits, how it abuses power at the highest levels.  This is the substance of my new book.”

–  Peter Skeel Hjorth (interview below)

In 2014, Dr Henrik Moeller, a leading world expert on low-frequency sound, was sacked after 38 years at Aalborg University in Denmark.…

[Editor Note: This essay, the fourth in a series aimed at correcting the most harmful wind energy-related policies of the Obama era, examines how the U.S. Department of Energy has set aside its scientific objectivity and, instead, has assumed the role of chief advocate for wind power in the federal government.]

Since 2008, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has touted the technical feasibility of using wind energy to meet 20 percent of the nation’s electricity demand by 2030. In 2015, the agency refined its plan with the release of its Wind Vision, which further qualified the opportunity and laid the groundwork for the US to achieve 10 percent wind power by 2020, 20 percent wind power by 2030, and 35 percent wind power by 2050.

DOE and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) insist that the industry is on track to meet these goals, but even a casual look at DOE’s claims makes clear that the reports are more advocacy than reality.…

“Statements from Physicians for Human Rights and from Human Rights First are long overdue. Despite the enormity of its victims’ suffering, the Wind Scam is off limits for most of those who have become famous for speaking out for social justice and human rights.”

“Dismissing or denying Big Wind’s serious health impacts is akin to presenting tobacco as harmless because we profit from it or enjoy smoking. Hardwired into every environmental impact statement should be a Surgeon General’s Warning: Industrial wind turbines present a significant human health hazard to those residing within 1.25 miles or more!”

[This post completes a three-part series: Part I: The General Problem and Part II: Nina Pierpont and the ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’]

How did we get to this point?

Energized by the Arab oil embargo of 1973, federal and state grants, energy tax credits, subsidies and mandates spurred a stampede toward an artificial market for wind-generated electricity.…

“Imagine fighting Goliath in compromised health: lives given over to complaint protocols, sound measurements, lawyers, delays, appeals, desperate pleas for relief. For some, it becomes a life of learned helplessness.”

“How have we been brought to such an extraordinary betrayal of basic human rights and social justice – a Kafkaesque world where corporate, local and state government personnel ignore and elude victims’ pleas? It is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, of well-intentioned individuals who don’t do their homework, of a new industrial health crisis shunned by news media who are supposed to educate, inform and protect.”

Nina Pierpont paved the way 

This is the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), a constellation of symptoms first given a name by the brilliant young MD/PhD, Nina Pierpont. She followed up her astute and compassionate observations of turbine neighbors around the world with epidemiological research, using a robust case-crossover statistical design: subjects experienced symptoms that varied with proximity to the turbines.…