Talk:Wind turbine syndrome

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)

For some reason this author is reporting symptoms that seem ridiculous. The serious symptoms that people are reporting that are making them ill are hearing loss, dizziness, ringing in ears (Tinnitus), pressure in ears, Vertigo (spinning room, nausea, vomiting)and headaches. (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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwest55 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Additionally, it would be better to re-name the title of this page, Illness caused by Wind Turbines, rather than Wind Turbne Syndrome which is not a recognised illness, as the author has already stated. This makes the whole article nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwest55 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 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'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)

Chapman's job is an "Academic"?.... that's not a scientist. If he was a scientist that would be stated. He has a PHD in "social medicine"... are you kidding? 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 really trust any conclusions about Nocebo effect from someone who is not a scientist. Also there is no mention of illnesses due to wind turbines in the article "Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy" mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwest55 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Any reference material from wind companies or "wind-associations" and the Ontario government cannot be considered reliable, especially 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, 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 as reliable as you can get unless you think they are all crazy or liars or that the reporter too is a liar. Otherwise, this undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as just parroting unsubstantiated propaganada.... don't you think? Perhaps that is the real purpose of this article. By the way, the serious illnesses that cause people to sell their homes have nothing to do with audible noise or looking at the turbine so the author should not be confusing the issues unless that is also the purpose of this article. The underlying 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 should consider these facts before publishing information about wind turbine illnesses because it will greatly undermine his credibility and that of Wikipedia.