tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post6741350600563176047..comments2022-12-17T17:14:29.447+11:00Comments on Some Air: Creating a Spurious Correlation: How The Most Recent 'Wind Syndrome' Study Ditches The Scientific MethodKetanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-47401513472478624392015-01-27T10:54:43.290+11:002015-01-27T10:54:43.290+11:00On first hearing of this study, I looked for other...On first hearing of this study, I looked for <b>other</b> reports of connections between low-frequency noise and human effects. There's quite a literature.<br /><br />Although inaudible, very low frequency sound—0.5–20 Hz—has indeed been shown to cause harm. But these effects are found at <b>absolutely stunning</b> power levels: the studies I saw were 100db to 150db, which cause physical harm to the ears on very short exposures, whether the sound is in our normal audible range or not. Perhaps drug-addled music listeners could tolerate the lower levels for an hour or two. I can't understand how studies could endanger subjects at the higher levels.<br /><br />I saw exactly zero careful measurements of sound levels from these turbines. While their inaudibility makes guessing the level very difficult, I find it hard to believe that anybody concerned about effects would NOT include power measurements.<br /><br />I infer that the researchers knew the levels were very much lower and so intentionally excluded information which would point out the disparity from honest studies. The small sample size might be forgiven if there were solid empirical information to support a model of how sound might be a problem. <br /><br />Alas, neither. Junk “science.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com