Talk:Wind turbine syndrome

Donald Trump's comments
Donald Trump's comments are not policy, and do not represent any policy impact. Should be removed. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

10 May 2022
This article has a negative tone like a hit piece that other pseudosciences like humours (blood) don't have. The political implications are pretty obvious here and as far as I understand it Wikipedia is not supposed to be political and is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:ADE7:8C00:38BA:3225:C693:9346 (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. It is also highly inaccurate and reads like propaganda.  Just because there are groups opposed to wind farms, some of which are associated with the fossil fuel industry and use similar tactics, does not mean the issue is settled scientifically. Redstillrising (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to agree sadly. Stuff like "A 2011 literature review found that although wind turbines are associated with some health effects, such as sleep disturbance, the health effects reported by those living near wind turbines were probably caused not by the turbines themselves but rather by "physical manifestation from an annoyed state." is ridiculous. If the health effects are from annoyance caused by phenomena produced by the wind turbine, then those health effects are caused by the wind turbine. By applying the same logic, one could say waterboarding does not have health effects because it is the psychological terror induced by the process that harms the health rather than the water itself. Imagining a step of abstraction does not separate the two. The effects of noise on sleep, and sleep on health, and noise on health, are very well documented and continue to be a relevant topic of further research on health, so dismissing all complaints as pseudoscience simply because of a subset of other opportunistically dishonest parties is harmful and inappropriate. As an avid proponent of advancing these technologies, the subject needs to be viewed in a neutral manner and without dogma to proceed with the best implementation rather than dismissing potential effects because of their inconvenience to a current implementation. 2600:4040:5205:CC00:7CE2:4081:B536:4E31 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Clearly advocacy, as advocates edit to remove counter evidence showing adverse health impacts of living near wind turbines. Redstillrising (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Nuisance from windmills
I live near windmills. I can assure that those things are a nuisance in the form of low noise, vibration and floating current. 2A02:A451:95AD:1:F5B5:963E:C571:99EE (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is about the pseudoscientific claim that wind turbines can cause serious disease. There is no evidence to back that up. Whether they are a nuisance or not is very subjective and not the topic of this the article. Vpab15 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. As a scientist in a different field (biochemistry), I found the tone of this article and some of the research cited highly subjective and a blanket attempt to dismiss productive discussion and further research. Redstillrising (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

English, please!
i've read this line like 25 times now and STILL can't parse it:

"The distribution of recorded events, however, correlates with media coverage of wind farm syndrome itself, and not with the presence or absence of wind farms."

clearly it's a variation on "there is no data to support the claims", but how exactly so? could someone pls reword this to comprehensible english? 2601:19C:527F:A660:1475:AC28:2461:DF84 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother. This entire article reads like an attempt to dismiss any valid research or concern over human health impacts to living close to wind turbines. Redstillrising (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Redstillrising this article is about the fake medical condition. Maybe you're looking for Health effects from noise? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an article only about a 'fake medical condition', but about potential negative health effects from living near wind turbines found in published research. It is mere advocacy to deny any such potential, and a tautology to dismiss any counter evidence simply by labelling a collection of adverse impacts, real or imagined, as 'fake.' Redstillrising (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are different types of "published research". In general, primary research articles like the one you added cannot be used to invalidate the conclusions of review articles with good methodology. This is especially important when talking about human health. There's a guideline about the source policy for health claims at WP:MEDRS. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's simplistic, and betrays a position of advocacy, to suggest that citing primary research 'invalidates the conclusions of review articles.' The cited research on detrimental impacts on heart rate variability is valid, and heart rate variability is correlated with many aspects of human health.  By removing this research citation, you seem to be attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to dismiss a priori the potential of any negative human health impacts due to the siting of wind turbines.  That's not scientific, not informative, and clearly advocacy.   In general it may well be that most of the health issues attributed to living near wind turbines are not directly (via a physical mechanism without psychological transformation) caused by the wind turbines, but this is not for you to decide by removing research that does not support your position.  Furthermore, a number of these review articles determine that not enough research has been done to show wind turbines do not cause harm. Redstillrising (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:UNDUE, articles must present all viewpoints according to their prominence in reliable sources. How is a single primary source just as important as several secondary sources? Usually the way to present minority views in articles like this is to make a new section for them, but as I said a better place for that would be the article on the health effects of noise. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

several of the sources should be checked
A cursory glance at one study seems to show that said study doesn't agree with the point in the middle of the article. Or atleast is ambivilent, I don't know the rules of wikipedia and therefore don't want to try and fix it. One of the sources also no longer works. 2600:1000:A101:51A2:56B7:BDFF:FEB4:99B2 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)