Below the extract is a list of references I used for the article, for your joyous perusal.
Five years ago, Calvin Luther Martin hated the wind industry. ‘Hate’ in the palpable sense – a frothing, unchecked revulsion that cannot be feigned. He remarked, in 2009:
“The wind sharks fabricate their own [evidence], using whorish little companies to perform noise measurements and do environmental impact studies…Companies often consisting of four guys with sweaty balls and BS degrees from nondescript bullshit state colleges.”Martin stated that he had been ‘fighting the wind bastards well over 4 years’ – which would place the commencement of his activism in late 2005. Incidentally, his wife Nina Pierpont, an NYU-trained paediatrician (with a PhD in ornithology), put out the following advertisement in early 2006:
“Dr. Pierpont is asking anyone living near wind turbines and suffering ill health effects of whatever sort which he/she suspects are a result of the wind turbines -- asking these people to contact her”With these words, Pierpont placed a flag firmly in the venerated soil of pseudoscientific endeavour. Pierpont uses the term ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ in the advert, and specifically requests to hear from individuals who have attributed their ill-health to wind turbines. From the very inception of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’, the conclusion was scratched deeply in stone. Pierpoint wrote soon after her study was released:
“I never set out to prove that wind turbines cause Wind Turbine Syndrome. This was already obvious. Instead, I chose to study and document the observations made by people who had already figured it out and proved it on their own.”This ambitious, unashamed inversion of the scientific method is a major characteristic of her legacy. Pierpont claimed in her 2006 advert that her work ‘will be published in a leading clinical medical journal sometime within the next 12 months’. 88 months later, her work is yet to be published in any peer-reviewed journal. Instead, she chose to self-publish – you can buy the book from her website for the princely sum of $18 AUD, plus shipping and postage. The New South Wales Department of Health was unreserved in its criticism of Pierpont’s study:
“This 'study' is not a rigorous epidemiological study; it is a case series of 10 families drawn from a wide range of locations……This work has not been properly peer reviewed. Nor has it been published in the peer-reviewed literature. The findings are not scientifically valid, with major methodological flaws stemming from the poor design of the study."With the inception of ‘wind turbine syndrome’, Pierpont and Martin found a viable alternative to profane hyperbole and impassioned vilification. And with a conclusion etched firmly in stone, Pierpont simply had to nominate a cause.
Information on Aspartame safety
The article in The Independent, covering Pierpont’s research:
Todd et al’s response to Pierpont’s appropriation of their work
Interesting piece from Four Corners on wind energy, including quotes from Sarah Laurie
The Laplace Principle - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Long document by Laurie, opposing NSW Collector wind farm, including statement about Pierpont’s PhD in Ornithology:
Background Briefing story on King Island wind farm, and interviews with Laurie