Windfarm Sickness Spreads By Word of Mouth 482
eldavojohn writes "Just like the many stories surrounding alleged 'Wi-Fi sickness,' research is now showing that windfarm sickness spreads by word of mouth instead of applying universally to windfarms. Areas that had never had any noise or health complaints were suddenly experiencing them after 2009 when anti-wind groups targeted populations surrounding windfarms. From the article, 'Eighteen reviews of the research literature on wind turbines and health published since 2003 had all reached the broad conclusion that there was very little evidence they were directly harmful to health.' While there's unfortunately no way to prove that someone is lying about how they feel, it's likely a mixture of confirmation bias, psychosomatic response, hypochondria, greed and hatred of seeing windmills on the horizon that drives this phenomenon."
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not really substantiated. People used to think you could get sick from drinking from the same water fountain as a person with different skin color. Segregation wasn't just something they did without imagined moronic reason. If anything, this kinda stuff is tame compared to the levels of human stupidity we've achieved in the past.
By any real metric, people are getting smarter.
Re:Someone should do this coal power (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggest someone spread around the idea that coal power plants endager the health those nearby. A bonus is that this might actually be true.
Before scrubbers and such, one of the deadly elements thrown into the air from burning coal was Mercury.
But that's nothing. Really.
You've no doubt seen how hazardous Asbestos is to the lungs. People were tearing apart buildings, because floor tiling, ventillation and insulation was loaded with it. BUT ... Never mind that, all cars were whizzing around for decades with Asbestos brake linings, filling cities with the fine dust of from these as motorists slowed down or stopped here and there by the tens of millions.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
I dont know... there seems to be evidence that they're stupider.
I'd be surprised if they were either notably smarter or notably dumber individually(Probably a few points of extra credit for nutrient abundance, a few demerits for all the mercury we've liberated since the industrial revolution); but as a system the effect might be a lot more dramatic.
If you live in some teeny tribal kin-group, the 'believe whatever crazy shit the people around you believe, especially if they told you about it when you were a dumb kid and they were a responsible adult' heuristic is probably a pretty good one, unless you've been provided with demigod-level intelligence and unlimited time to experiment.
In a modern, mass-media saturated environment, where you are being fed a steady stream of what feels just like social input; but is produced by people who have nothing in common with you or your situation, nor occupy the same boat as you, it's hard not to be pessimistic about the possibilities.
If you talk only to your neighbors, feeling more or less safe based on how often crime is mentioned probably works out OK. If you sit down and tune in to the 24/7 National Sensationalist Violence Channel, you are still applying the same heuristic; but to every photogenic crime in a population north of 200million. That's going to work real well...
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
In countries with more wind farms the damage is magnified. See Costa Rica. If only more people even gave a shit.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
If this is not some half-hearted attempt at a joke, fox news came about in a time when the only sources of news were newspapers and evening news on TV. Really technically advanced people could dig into news on the usenet and the beginning of the web, and people who were really interested in world affairs would subscribe to physical periodicals about an in depth subject.
24 hour news as a service started for real in the late 90s. CNN existed since 1980, but the content they delivered was not substantially different from the evening news until that time. The 2000 election marked the first time constant infotainment managed substantial ratings, and things took off. They launched the idea of the pundit train during prime time, and made a ton of money that way.
If anything, Fox News is an artifact of people consuming more information faster than ever. People who previously were quite disconnected from news and world events.
Re:Someone should do this coal power (Score:5, Interesting)
It didn't consider accidents at coal plants either
Accidents at coal plants don't release significant radiation. When a billion gallons of coal ash slurry are heading toward your house, radiation will be the least of your concerns.
Besides, the original study assumed that all radiation is equal. But most radiation in coal is from thorium, which has no biological role [wikipedia.org], and does not bio-accumulate, unlike the radioactive iodine, cesium, potassium and strontium released in nuke accidents. Furthermore, thorium emits primarily alpha radiation, which is harmless when outside the body. Thorium does emit radon, but that is only a danger in unventilated enclosed spaces. So you should not make your house out of coal ash, but otherwise the radiation from it is basically harmless.
Fight confirmation bias with a placebo (Score:5, Interesting)
They should install some garish but non functional thing on them, a big box on the side that has blinking lights, a fan, some cables and some steam-punkish looking stuff on it.
Then tell everybody they are "Windmill Disruption Dampeners" and that the company went almost bankrupt buying them for the residents.
Placebos work, even if the person KNOWS it's a placebo. ;)