A Predictable Response from the Anti-Turbine Crowd

Ms. Barteau contends reviewers are in the pocket of the wind industry

By Dave Kent

Last week, the Massachusetts DEP released a study that reviewed the science related to the effects of wind turbines on humans.

Of course we knew in advance that, unless the study found vast evidence of serious human impact, the anti-turbine crowd would denounce this report.  And sure enough, that denouncement came immediately, in part via this this article by Louise Barteau.  

Predictably, Ms. Barteau contends that the people chosen by the State to conduct its scientific review are in the pocket of the wind industry.  Let’s examine her claims. 

To begin with, here are the seven people on the panel that conducted the State’s review:

• Jeffrey Ellenbogen, MD; MMSc. Asstistant Professor of Neurology,HarvardMedicalSchoolDivision Chief, Sleep Medicine,Massachusetts GeneralHospital

• Sheryl Grace, PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering;  Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering,BostonUniversity

• Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, PhD;  Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,Boston University School of Public Health; Chair, Lexington Board of Health

• James F. Manwell, PhD Mechanical Engineering; MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics; Professor & Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Mass, Amherst

• Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, FAAP; State Health Officer, Maine 1996–2011; Vice President for Clinical Affairs, University of New England

• Kimberly A. Sullivan, PhD’ Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,;BostonUniversitySchoolof Public Health

• Marc G. Weisskopf, ScD Epidemiology; PhD Neuroscience; Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Epidemiology; Department of Environmental Health & Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health

Ms. Barteau focuses on just two of these seven people.  Apparently, she found no fault with the other five members.

Of Dr. Dora Anne Mills, Ms. Barteau says:

“Mills has already testified in 2009 that according to previous literature searches she performed while employed as a public health official of Maine, she found no link to adverse health affects with turbines.  So we know she didn't have an open mind.”.

Ms. Barteau “knows” that Doctor Mills doesn’t have an open mind?  Geez, I didn’t realize that turbine opponents were blessed with ESP with which to look into a person’s soul.  Very impressive.

I encourage readers to do a web search of “Dora Anne Mills Maine”.  You’ll find that Dr. Mills is the scion of Public Health in Maine.  She served as director of the Maine Center for Disease Control for 15 years where she became widely recognized for her accomplishments that included reducing Maine’s rates of tobacco use, teen pregnancy and childhood obesity.

If you want to read the testimony that has damned Mills in the eyes of Ms. Barteau, click here.   Here’s an excerpt to give readers an feel for this supposedly close minded turbine supporter:

“I found no evidence of adverse health effects from the noise generated by wind turbines except for those associated with annoyances from the audible noises. These effects, however, are mitigated or disappear with proper placement of the turbines from nearby residences. So, although the noise qualities are different, it seems as though what was found to be true of airports and highways is true of wind turbines: It is primarily a matter of distance. However, there is no one proper distance for all wind turbines. Research indicates that a number of factors determine proper placement, including the height of the wind turbine, the surrounding topography, wind conditions, and wind direction. As with airports, annoyance levels are difficult to assess and vary from person to person. Careful measurements of different noise frequencies in a variety of weather conditions should assure proper placement of wind turbines that protect against annoyances and resulting effects.”

A highly respected, senior Public Health official conducts a review of turbine impact science and concludes that there is little evidence of impact.  Oh my God!  Unacceptable!  Unacceptable, that is, because she disagrees with anti-turbine people like Ms. Barteau.

Finally, before leaving Dr. Mills, if testifying on turbine science ruins a person’s credibility then Ms. Barteau as ruined hers.  See her recent testimony to her local health board here.

The second panel member with which Ms. Barteau has a problem is Dr. James F. Manwell of which she says:

“Manwell runs the UMass Amherst Wind Energy Center, which studies and promotes the use of wind turbines”.

Studies and promotes?  A review of the Wind Energy Center website finds it laden with descriptions of its educational programs and its research, but its promotional activities?  Sorry, there are none to be found.

Honestly, Ms. Barteau is on more solid ground criticizing Dr. Manwell than Dr. Mills:  When one devotes one’s career to research in a particular field it is often very difficult to avoid becoming a proponent of that field.  We probably can presume that Dr. Manwell is a proponent of wind power.  Of course, that doesn’t, mean that he didn’t act honestly and professionally during this review, but at least there’s some small basis for doubt.

So that’s one panel member out of seven who may possibly be biased regarding wind turbine effects.  The panel contains six other highly professional and qualified members, including an exceptionally well regarded Public Health official that Ms. Barteau just “knows” is in the pocket of the wind industry.

Weak, Ms. Barteau, very weak.   And, sadly, just what we expected from the anti-turbine crowd.

Dave Kent, who teaches High School on the Cape, earned a BS from Cornell University and an MBA from Duke University.  Before changing careers to teaching, he had a long career in Accounting/Finance and Information Technology, largely in the Insurance Industry.