micky wrote:
> Why do people make fun of trump for saying windmills cause cancer?
>
> Windmills really do cause cancer.

This is generally true:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/

Canadian family physicians can expect to see increasing numbers of rural
patients reporting adverse effects from exposure to industrial wind
turbines (IWTs). People who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have
experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance,
stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive
dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief, or a sense of injustice.
Suggested causes of symptoms include a combination of wind turbine
noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, ground current, and shadow
flicker.1 Family physicians should be aware that patients reporting
adverse effects from IWTs might experience symptoms that are intense and
pervasive and might feel further victimized by a lack of caregiver
understanding.

Go to:
Background
There is increasing concern that energy generation from fossil fuels
contributes to climate change and air pollution. In response to these
concerns, governments around the world are encouraging the installation
of renewable energy projects including IWTs. In Ontario, the Green
Energy Act was designed, in part, to remove barriers to the installation
of IWTs.2 Noise regulations can be a considerable barrier to IWT
development, as they can have a substantial effect on wind turbine
spacing, and therefore the cost of wind-generated electricity.3
Industrial wind turbines are being placed in close proximity to family
homes in order to have access to transmission infrastructure.4

In Ontario and elsewhere,5 some individuals have reported experiencing
adverse health effects resulting from living near IWTs. Reports of
IWT-induced adverse health effects have been dismissed by some
commentators including government authorities and other organizations.
Physicians have been exposed to efforts to convince the public of the
benefits of IWTs while minimizing the health risks. Those concerned
about adverse effects of IWTs have been stereotyped as “NIMBYs” (not in
my backyard).6,7

Go to:
Global reports of effects
During the past few years there have been case reports of adverse
effects. A 2006 Académie Nationale de Médecine working group report
notes that noise is the most frequent complaint. The noise is described
as piercing, preoccupying, and continually surprising, as it is
irregular in intensity. The noise includes grating and incongruous
sounds that distract the attention or disturb rest. The spontaneous
recurrence of these noises disturbs the sleep, suddenly awakening the
subject when the wind rises and preventing the subject from going back
to sleep. Wind turbines have been blamed for other problems experienced
by people living nearby. These are less precise and less well described,
and consist of subjective (headaches, fatigue, temporary feelings of
dizziness, nausea) and sometimes objective (vomiting, insomnia,
palpitations) manifestations.8

A 2009 literature review prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health9
summarized case reports by Harry (2007),10 Phipps et al (2007),11 the
Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee for the Town of Union (2008),12
and Pierpont (2009).13 These case studies catalogued complaints of
annoyance, reduced quality of life, and health effects associated with
IWTs, such as sleeplessness and headaches.9

In 2010, Nissenbaum et al used validated questionnaires in a controlled
study of 2 Maine wind energy projects. They concluded that “the noise
emissions of IWTs disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and
impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km of the two IWT
installations studied.”14

Reports of adverse health effects15 and reduced quality of life16 are
also documented in IWT projects in Australia and New Zealand.

A 2012 board of health resolution in Brown County in Wisconsin formally
requested financial relocation assistance for “families that are
suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the
irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes
and property.”17

An Ontario community-based self-reporting health survey, WindVOiCe,
identified the most commonly reported IWT-induced symptoms as altered
quality of life, sleep disturbance, excessive tiredness, headache,
stress, and distress. Other reported effects include migraines, hearing
problems, tinnitus, heart palpitations, anxiety, and depression.18 In
addition, degraded living conditions and adverse socioeconomic effects
have been reported. In some cases the effects were severe enough that
individuals in Ontario abandoned their homes or reached financial
agreements with wind energy developers.19

After considering the evidence and testimony presented by 26 witnesses,
a 2011 Ontario environmental review tribunal decision acknowledged IWTs
can harm human health:

This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be
simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans.
The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if
facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved
to one of degree.20

Go to:
Indirect effects and annoyance
When assessing the adverse effects of IWTs it is important to consider
what constitutes human health. The World Health Organization (WHO)
defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social
well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”21

Despite being widely accepted, the WHO definition of health is
frequently overlooked when assessing the health effects of IWTs.
Literature reviews commenting on the health effects of IWTs have been
produced with varying degrees of completeness, accuracy, and
objectivity.22 Some of these commentators accept the plausibility of the
reported IWT health effects and acknowledge that IWT noise and visual
effects might cause annoyance, stress, or sleep disturbance, which can
have other consequences. However, these IWT health effects are often
discounted because “direct pathological effects” or a “direct causal
link” have not been established. In 2010, the Ontario Chief Medical
Officer of Health released The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines,
which acknowledged that some people living near wind turbines report
symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance but
concluded “the scientific evidence available to date does not
demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse
health effects.”23 The lead author of the report,23 Dr Gloria Rachamin,
acknowledged under oath that the literature review looked only at direct
links to human health.24

Focusing on “direct” causal links limits the discussion to a small slice
of the potential health effects of IWTs. The 2011 environmental review
tribunal decision found that serious harm to human health includes
“indirect impacts (e.g., a person being exposed to noise and then
exhibiting stress and developing other related symptoms).”20

According to the night noise guidelines for Europe:

Physiological experiments on humans have shown that noise of a moderate
level acts via an indirect pathway and has health outcomes similar to
those caused by high noise exposures on the direct pathway. The indirect
pathway starts with noise-induced disturbances of activities such as
communication or sleep.25

Pierpont documented symptoms reported by individuals exposed to wind
turbines, which include sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear
pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia,
irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes
associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake
or asleep.13 The American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind
Energy Association convened a panel literature review that determined
these symptoms are the “well-known stress effects of exposure to noise,”
or in other words, are “a subset of annoyance reactions.”26

Noise-induced annoyance is acknowledged to be an adverse health
effect.27–30 Chronic severe noise annoyance should be classified as a
serious health risk.31 According to the WHO guidelines for community
noise, “[t]he capacity of a noise to induce annoyance depends upon many
of its physical characteristics, including its sound pressure level and
spectral characteristics, as well as the variations of these properties
over time.”32 Industrial wind turbine noise is perceived to be more
annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable
sound pressure levels.33 Industrial wind turbine amplitude modulation,34
audible low frequency noise,35 tonal noise, infrasound,36 and lack of
nighttime abatement have been identified as plausible noise
characteristics that could cause annoyance and other health effects.

Go to:
Health effects in Ontario expected
Evidence-based health studies were not conducted to determine adequate
setbacks and noise levels for the siting of IWTs before the
implementation of the Ontario renewable energy policy. In addition,
provision for vigilance monitoring was not made. It is now clear that
the regulations are not adequate to protect the health of all exposed
individuals.

On 2024-10-02 11:49, Mittens Romney wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> Why do people make fun of trump for saying windmills cause cancer?
>>
>> Windmills really do cause cancer.
>
> This is generally true:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-10-02 11:49, Mittens Romney wrote:
>> micky wrote:
>>> Why do people make fun of trump for saying windmills cause cancer?
>>>
>>> Windmills really do cause cancer.
>>
>> This is generally true:
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...

Great environmental stresses over a long period of time can lead to or
exacerbate cancer.

Many of us are hoping you soon succumb and will do whatever it takes to
speed the process along for you, asshole.

--
⛨ 🥐🥖🗼🤪

Alan wrote:
> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...

You ran from a lie you made.

Let's talk now about your craven cowardly act of running away from this
massive aquatic lie you repeatedly tendered on Trump:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/22/delta-smelt-fish-trump-california-aoe

"Last fall, Trump signed a memorandum directing federal agencies to
review and roll back environmental standards slowing down the flow of
water to farms in the Central Valley. In February this year, the
president nominated David Bernhardt to serve as his interior secretary.

....turning down the pumps isn’t quite as easy as shutting off a faucet.
The multi-story state and federal pumping plants operate in tandem and
are powerful enough to make rivers flow backward.

If the delta smelt go, California may be able to pump some more."

https://envirobites.org/2019/06/24/farmers-vs-fish-the-story-of-delta-smelt/

"To move water around, over 1,400 dams and miles of aqueducts have been
constructed. A tidal wetland-turned-agricultural land, the Sacramento –
San Joaquin Delta is the center of California’s water distribution
system. About half of California’s developed water moves through the
delta via two pumping plants: Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State
Water Project."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project

"The Central Valley Project (CVP) is a federal power and water
management project in the U.S. state of California under the supervision
of the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). It was devised in
1933 in order to provide irrigation and municipal water to much of
California's Central Valley—by regulating and storing water in
reservoirs in the northern half of the state (once considered water-rich
but suffering water-scarce conditions more than half the year in most
years), and transporting it to the water-poor San Joaquin Valley and its
surroundings by means of a series of canals, aqueducts and pump plants,
some shared with the California State Water Project (SWP). Many CVP
water users are represented by the Central Valley Project Water Association.

Two large reservoirs, Shasta Lake and Trinity Lake, are formed by a pair
of dams in the mountains north of the Sacramento Valley. Water from
Shasta Lake flows into the Sacramento River which flows to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and water from Trinity Lake flows into the
Trinity River which leads to the Pacific Ocean. Both lakes release water
at controlled rates. There, before it can flow on to San Francisco Bay
and the Pacific Ocean, some of the water is intercepted by a diversion
channel and transported to the Delta-Mendota Canal, which conveys water
southwards through the San Joaquin Valley, supplying water to San Luis
Reservoir (a SWP-shared facility) and the San Joaquin River at Mendota
Pool in the process, eventually reaching canals that irrigates farms in
the valley. Friant Dam crosses the San Joaquin River upstream of Mendota
Pool, diverting its water southwards into canals that travel into the
Tulare Lake area of the San Joaquin Valley, as far south as the Kern
River. Finally, New Melones Lake, a separate facility, stores water flow
of a San Joaquin River tributary for use during dry periods. Other
smaller, independent facilities exist to provide water to local
irrigation districts"

https://water.ca.gov/programs/state-water-project

https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Operations-and-Maintenance

Big old shutoff valve seen = check!

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:49:02 -0600, Mittens Romney wrote:

> There is increasing concern that energy generation from fossil fuels

Hydrocarbons are the safest, densest (not counting radio-isotopes)
energy transport mechanism we have: so far batteries *ain't* up
to snuff either way.

It's the "fossil" part that's a problem.

Dhu

--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:55:55 -0600, Mittens Romney wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-10-02 11:49, Mittens Romney wrote:
>>> micky wrote:
>>>> Why do people make fun of trump for saying windmills cause cancer?
>>>>
>>>> Windmills really do cause cancer.
>>>
>>> This is generally true:
>>>
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
>> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...
>
> Great environmental stresses over a long period of time can lead to or
> exacerbate cancer.
>
> Many of us are hoping you soon succumb and will do whatever it takes to
> speed the process along for you, asshole.

'BOTs don't get cancer. They do get virii, tho' ;-)

Dhu

--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell

In sci.environment Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-10-02 11:49, WrongWayImNuts wrote:
>> micky wrote:
>>> Why do people make fun of trump for saying windmills cause cancer?
>>> Windmills really do cause cancer.
>> This is generally true:
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...

The numbers are the other way, of course:

States like: Windpower GWh Cancer/100k Model
Alaska 13.000000 139.2 151.033*
California 1521.000000 136.7 150.549*
Iowa 3278.000000 158 149.985
Kansas 2282.000000 157.2 150.305
Massachusetts 22.000000 149.3 151.03
Michigan 553.000000 161.3 150.86*
Minnesota 1085.000000 146.8 150.689
Montana 191.000000 152.6 150.976
North.Carolina 40.000000 157.1 151.024
North.Dakota 1196.000000 142.6 150.653
Oregon 914.000000 154.2 150.744
Pennsylvania 282.000000 161 150.947*
Rhode.Island 20.000000 154.2 151.031
South.Dakota 788.000000 156.9 150.784
Texas 9354.000000 146.5 148.034
Washington 714.000000 148.4 150.808
Wisconsin 137.000000 153.2 150.993
Wyoming 565.000000 136.1 150.856*

y = -3.210325e-04*x + 1.510372e+02
T-test: P(beta<0) = 0.636651
Rank test: calculated Spearman corr = -0.062951
Crit val = .399 at 5%; accept H0:not_connected
r2 = .00785

If you test Beta==0 at the 5% confidence level you get a rejection:
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta != 0.000000
calculated t = -0.355718 at 16 d.f.
|t| > tc (0.0636987 2-sided); reject H0
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta < 0.000000
t < tc (1.74588 left tail); reject H0

I.e. it is not provable there is "no connection".
It is weakly negative and definitely not positive.

--
[GH] has to do with CO2 ABSORBING the IR, and converting that
electromagnetic energy into thermal (kinetic motion of molecules) energy.
Thus the air near the surface becomes warmer.
It has nothing to do with photons "bouncing around in transit".
-- Marvin aka Mike Varney@Boulder, 26 Mar 2014

Absorbing is perfectly reversible.
There would have to be strongly non linear thermal gradient
for air to be significantly heated by IR absorbtion.
-- Poutnik, 27 Mar 2014

In sci.environment Dhu on Gate <campbell@neotext.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:49:02 -0600, Mittens Romney wrote:
>> There is increasing concern that energy generation from fossil fuels
> Hydrocarbons are the safest, densest (not counting radio-isotopes)
> energy transport mechanism we have: so far batteries *ain't* up
> to snuff either way.
> It's the "fossil" part that's a problem.
> Dhu

I dont know about the breathing methane is perfectly safe part.
But scientists would not have a climate problem if gasoline was
made from the air using solar or wind power.
The problem fos fossil cos would be then it could be made by anyone
and they would lose control of their fenced-off rentseeker resource.
Can't have that!

--
The most likely culprit [for the dieback of Azorella on Macquarie
Island] would seem is climate change. Having evolved in an environment
with a remarkably consistent climate -- albeit consistently cold and
wet -- on a tiny speck of land within the latitudes of the furious
fifties, Azorella looks to be well suited for constant drizzle and
howling westerly winds. This climate has become less consistent over
the last 30 to 40 years, heavy rain is more common; periods of several
days with no drizzle at all are more common; wind may be getting
stronger; and sunny days possibly more common. Maybe a threshold has
been crossed and Azorella is no longer superbly adapted to its
environment because the environment in which it has evolved over
thousands of years has changed.
-- ABC, "Walking the climate tightrope on Macquarie Island", 19 May 2014

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q="forest+dieback"&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=YEAR&as_yhi=YEAR

year #results
2000 107
2001 121
2002 112
2003 120
2004 139
2005 151
2006 170
2007 189
2008 220
2009 286
2010 336
2011 315
2012 277
2013 361

AR regression finds growth of 23 additional publications featuring
keyword "forest dieback" each year.
R2 = 80%.
Beta = 23.16 +- 6.25
P(beta>0) = 99.9982%
Spearman = .945055 at 11 d.f.
critical value = 0.673000 2-sided at 1%
therefore reject hypothesis variables are independent
and accept theory that #articles is increasing each year.
Serial corr rho = 0.411282.

estimated rho = 0.411282
avx 1181.968087
sdx 2.202781 (= 0.186365% of avx)
rangex 1178.435780..1185.500395 (= 0.597699% of avx)
avy 134.700738
sdy 57.013505 (= 42.326052% of avy)
rangey 62.234865..247.074856 (= 137.222701% of avy)
_a = -27244.6
_b = 23.1642
_a := -46277.9
4 (30.8%) points > 1 \sigma
1 (7.7%) points > 2 \sigma
y = 23.1642*x + -46277.9
sdx 7.94224
rss 8410.04
se 27.6505
r 0.894974
limits for beta at 90.0% CI
tc = 1.79589 at 11 d.f.
beta in 23.1642 +- 6.25229 = [16.9119, 29.4165]
T-tests on beta:
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta != 0.000000
calculated t = 6.65361 at 11 d.f.
|t| > tc (1.79589 2-sided); reject H0
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta > 0.000000
t > tc (1.36343 right tail); reject H0
Probabilities:
P(beta!=0.000000) = 0.999964
P(beta>0.000000) = 0.999982
limits for alpha at 90.0% CI
tc = 1.79589 at 11 d.f.
alpha in -46277.9 +- 7390.02 = [-53667.9, -38887.9]
r2 = 0.800979
calculated Spearman corr = 0.945055
Testing:
H0: vars are independent
|r| > rc (0.673000 2-sided) at 1%; reject H0
tag x y yp
foo 2000 107 50.4716**
foo 2001 121 73.6358*
foo 2002 112 96.8
foo 2003 120 119.964
foo 2004 139 143.128
foo 2005 151 166.293
foo 2006 170 189.457
foo 2007 189 212.621
foo 2008 220 235.785
foo 2009 286 258.949
foo 2010 336 282.113*
foo 2011 315 305.278
foo 2012 277 328.442*
Durbin-Watson d = 0.997284
% n is too small; can't test d
avx -1.573626
sdx 28.967512 (= -1840.812567% of avx)
rangex -43.063736..56.894505 (= -6352.094972% of avx)
avy -2.514286
sdy 28.022885 (= -1114.546571% of avy)
rangey -43.063736..56.894505 (= -3975.611888% of avy)
rho(b) = 0.355408

De-Trois-Leaning <dtl@invalid.net> wrote in
news:vdk51l$3bl9k$2@dont-email.me:

> Alan wrote:
>> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...
>
> You ran from a lie you made.
>
Where's the quote?

You won't quote, because you can't quote a statement that doesn't exist.

In sci.environment Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
> De-Trois-Leaning <dtl@invalid.net> wrote in
> news:vdk51l$3bl9k$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> Alan wrote:
>>> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...
>>
>> You ran from a lie you made.
>>
> Where's the quote?
>
> You won't quote, because you can't quote a statement that doesn't exist.

This is the 21st century! It doesnt matter if it's true!!

--
[Net 0:]
Bail harder, Effendi, I want to get a premium for my
bottled water tonight!

R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in news:vdl2st$1uhm$1
@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com:

> In sci.environment Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> De-Trois-Leaning <dtl@invalid.net> wrote in
>> news:vdk51l$3bl9k$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> An article that doesn't so much as mention cancer...
>>>
>>> You ran from a lie you made.
>>>
>> Where's the quote?
>>
>> You won't quote, because you can't quote a statement that doesn't exist.
>
> This is the 21st century! It doesnt matter if it's true!!
>

tRumpWorld is built on lies - nothing but lies