Talk:Wind turbine syndrome/Archive 1

Strange little article
As the article says, "Wind turbine syndrome" is not recognised by any international disease classification system and does not appear in any title or abstract in the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Much of the reliable health effects info is presented in other WP articles. Why do we need this strange little article? Johnfos (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently a bunch of people think they suffer from living close to a wind turbine, and they really do have problems, although the mechanism responsible for the problems is elusive. I think enough sources discussing the issue would be found to show its notability, although the article is a little odd. Hmmm, I just looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wind turbine syndrome and it does not inspire confidence, particularly given WP:Articles for deletion/Health effects of wind power which discusses a page that redirects to Environmental impact of wind power. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is whether it's a notable fake disease. I would argue it is, based on the sources the article has, and also that including this content in reality-based articles on wind turbines gives it undue weight. Like electromagnetic hypersensitivity, it is a fake disease for which people are likely to look to Wikipedia as an information source. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a suggestion to improve the credibility of this article. Much of this article is completely outrageous and has no foundation in reality or science. The author is trying to push an agenda for the Wind Companies and Wind Associations. Not one country-side resident should be forced to leave their house because they are being blasted by air pressure pulses from an Industrial Wind Turbine that unfortunately, their middle-ear conditions are susceptible to. (note the word industrial....not suitable for a residential area.) This is a real failing of our government systems. Please note that the real health problems that people are reporting are hearing loss, dizziness, ringing in ears, Vertigo, tinnitus, headaches and sleep loss,... the same symptoms as Barotitis, also caused by changes in air pressure... not the goofy symptoms that the author is reporting above. (Wilson, 2013)Reference Wilson, T. (2013, August). Citizens call for CAW turbine shutdown. Retrieved July 7, 2016 from the website address: http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2013/08/26/citizens-call-for-caw-turbine-shutdown Mwest55 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not a WP:RELIABLE source, so would be unsuitable for inclusion in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines where it says that you are allowed to completely delete my comments on the Talk page, in favor of the biased opinions represented in this article. Please do not do that again. Other people might like to read my comments on how to improve the credibility of this article. I think that you need to consider what I am saying as I have done a considerable amount of research on this issue and I am neither a proponent nor opponent of wind-power nor am I a believer nor skeptic on all issues that have been associated with the field of illness caused by wind turbines. Thank you. Mwest55 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've found material from Simon Chapman (academic) and Mark Diesendorf (who wrote Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy) to be particularly relevant and reliable here, see Google Scholar. Johnfos (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is another suggestion to improve the credibility of this article. The author is very quick to state that a public newspaper (unbiased) is not a reliable source of information, (when actually "the rules" state that it IS!) while some dubious wind-association publications and other sources in his reference list are clearly not suitable as per the definition he provided at WP:RELIABLE (biased). In fact, the very first reference is to a completely unscientific article in a website/blog Popular Science, by a person named Rebecca Watson, who has no credentials listed and states "If I pause for a moment and really pay attention to my own body, I am currently suffering from mild nausea, difficulty breathing, and a headache. However, I do not live near a wind turbine, so I do not have Wind Turbine Syndrome. I do currently live within a few miles of an empty bag of “Fun Size” KitKats, so I believe I may actually have Halloween Candy Syndrome". This is a completely unscientific argument. Click on her name on that website and look at the list of articles. It does not instill confidence in this reference. The above-referenced Chapman's job is an "Academic"?.... that's not a scientist (like physicist, chemist, medical-physicist, or even an MD). If he was a scientist that would be stated. He has a PHD in "social medicine"... I wonder what that is? What is his true under-graduate training? You can get a PHD just by writing a paper that is quite unrelated to your training. He was 2013 "Skeptic of the Year"; a very dubious title, indeed. I would not trust any conclusions about Nocebo effect from someone who is not a scientist and is willing to be dubbed a "skeptic" by an "association of skeptics". Also there is no mention of illnesses due to wind turbines in the article "Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy" mentioned above. Mwest55 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a suggestion to improve the credibility of this article. Any reference material from wind companies or "wind-associations" and the Ontario government cannot be considered reliable, since this has become a contentious and political issue here in Ontario due to the very small offset-distances that were allowed from homes to turbines, (the CAW turbine is 100 m from some homes!) and also due to the fact that their jobs depend on presenting a positive view of wind turbines and for some reason they are not able to admit mistakes now and then. Since there has been no scientific-method studies done on the topic, most of the other references are really not reliable either. The Author should consider these facts before publishing such notions as Nocebo effect. Direct and unfiltered reports from people stating symptoms in a public newspaper are "data" and are as reliable as you can get unless you think they are all crazy or liars or that the reporter too is a liar or incompetent. Otherwise, this undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as just parroting unsubstantiated propaganda from establishments.... don't you think? The serious illnesses that cause people to sell their homes have nothing to do with the low-levels of audible noise or looking at the turbines so the author should not be confusing the real issues with obviously ridiculous ones. The underlying political issues are the same as those concerning mistakes made during the operations of "fracking" wherein oil companies and the licensing bodies (government) present the notion that they are always correct and can do no wrong. I think the author has really taken on a "hot (and confused) potato" here and should consider these facts before publishing information about wind turbine illnesses because it may greatly undermine his future credibility and that of Wikipedia. Mwest55 (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard
Hello everyone. Just to let you'll know, there is a discussion at WP:NPOV/N on this article. Please share any thoughts you have there! Thanks. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have removed all of the truthful information about Illness due to Wind Turbines and have left this other rubbish which is completely incorrect. This outrageous behaviour shows that you are afraid of the truth and are only interested in perpetuating your lies about  illness due to wind turbines, such as Barotitis which is a real problem. Your article is complete rubbish and this is not an opinion, but a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwest55 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * By design, Wikipedia content on medical subjects will reflect the consensus of medical experts, as published in highly regarded medical texts. Wikipedia content will give no regard to conspiracy theories and personal anecdotes, even if they managed to get published on a news site. Your fight is not with Wikipedia, but with the medical consensus that WTS is a psychosomatic disorder. Your only options are to locate WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that present an alternative, or give up. If you don't give up, but still can't find good sources, the Wikipedia community will inevitably tire of your presence, and you will be banned. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)