Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment Paperback – January 1, 2009


Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback, January 1, 2009
"Please retry"
$100.05 $49.99

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Month
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 294 pages
  • Publisher: K-Selected Books; First Edition edition (2009)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0984182705
  • ISBN-13: 978-0984182701
  • Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.9 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
  • Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (30 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,631,480 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Important Information

Ingredients
Example Ingredients

Directions
Example Directions

Customer Reviews

3.6 out of 5 stars
5 star
18
4 star
2
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
10
See all 30 customer reviews
D., Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis.
Hill Country Bob
The psychological element is not just omitted, but actually rejected by Pierpont, so denying many years of varied research into human response to noise.
JEFF
This vanity press (self-published) book has never produced a single scientific paper in any respectable peer reviewed journal.
Prof Simon Chapman

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

40 of 46 people found the following review helpful By Prof Simon Chapman on August 29, 2012
This vanity press (self-published) book has never produced a single scientific paper in any respectable peer reviewed journal. Go to PubMed and enter "wind turbine syndrome" in quotation marks. Not a single paper is returned. It is not a concept recognised by medicine. The book is based on interviews with 20 complaining families that the author interviewed on the phone and didn't even examine them. When wind companies come into an area, many people on unsalable land see them as a quick cash ticket out of there. Just like mining companies buy out nearby houses. Except there's a big difference: wind turbines are not dangerous -- they are all over Europe and in places like Denmark & Germany widely embraced by communities who own them and derive income from them. Funny that eh? Money seems to take away "the problem".
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful By Don Ross on January 27, 2014
I would urge you to save your money and spend it more wisely on books that have some credibility and make a reasonable attempt at showing facts over fiction and myths.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful By JEFF on January 27, 2014
Giving one star means “I hate it”. The reason for this is that the book is based on misconceptions, blaming all effects on infrasound from wind turbines. However, although she is a paediatrician, Pierpont forgets about the huge source of infrasound within the body – our heartbeat. This is far more powerful than any infrasound received from wind turbines, and is at similar frequencies. All she shows is that some people are upset if they can hear noise from a source which they object to. The psychological element is not just omitted, but actually rejected by Pierpont, so denying many years of varied research into human response to noise. Pierpont got into this work as a NIMBY when turbines were proposed near her home town. She has developed this into a mission against wind turbines. Beware of those who are on a mission – it distorts their judgement.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful By William M Robertson on January 19, 2014
This book should become the textbook case example of a poor epidemiological study. The methodology used by Pierpoint is marked by systematic errors - the way the respondents were recruited, the leading questions and the extrapolation well beyond its power. It does not follow the scientific logic of a null hypothesis. The painful thing is that this bias driven book has the potential to harm thru misdirection and the nocebo effect.
You will do much better to read the formal reviews and see how a hierarchy of evidence is more robust for making public health decisions than an assortment of anecdotes which confuses annoyance and a strongly held prior belief with causation.
Otherwise do some basic studies in epidemiology and then enjoy highlighting the litany of biases and errors this book contains. It's a doozy.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
21 of 27 people found the following review helpful By Demetrius on August 30, 2012
It's hard to believe that anybody could take this book seriously. I suspect the "natural experiment" is really to find out how many gullible people will buy this propaganda in the mistaken belief they might learn something.

It's a truly atrocious bit of scribbling. Given its unscientific basis and muddleheaded conclusions, it should belong to the fiction section. Wind turbine syndrome does not exist, it isn't recognised by any medical or scientific body.

As other reviewers have pointed out, there was no genuine scientific investigation conducted, just some anecdotes collected and likely "enhanced" by the author to obtain the desired outcome.

If you are thinking of buying this book, don't. Save some trees.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful By Dave Clarke on January 27, 2014
This book has no credibility. There have been many reviews of the scientific literature and all have concluded that there is no evidence that wind turbines cause illness. How could they? Turbines do not produce anything that can harm anybody. Or are we to believe in something like Diabolical Wind Turbine Rays? ([...])
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
40 of 54 people found the following review helpful By Mike Barnard on April 21, 2012
Dr. Pierpont's pamphlet, Wind Turbine Syndrome, is a deeply flawed and vastly over-inflated work that causes much more harm than any good it might be attempting to achieve.

The weaknesses and flaws:
Dr. Pierpont asked people who specifically blamed wind turbines for their various complaints to contact her. This is selection bias and fundamentally makes her work deeply flawed.

Dr. Pierpont directly interviewed 23 people. She accepted anecdotal evidence about a further 15 people. She directly talked to no children. From this she generated 68 pages of charts, graphs and tables including statements of direct medical impacts on children. The sample size is far too small to generate any statistics from, or to subdivide and articulate separate impacts except in the vaguest of ways, and the acceptance of anecdotal evidence from obviously biased sources is medically unacceptable. Yet Dr. Pierpoint does this. This too makes her work deeply flawed.

Dr. Pierpont's original 'peer reviewers' are relatives and friends with no expertise in acoustics, epidemiology or medicine. Her work is not peer reviewed, and has never been submitted or accepted for peer review by any credible journal. Any work that does not gain solid peer review by accredited, broadly accepted and cited medical journals, especially years after initial publication, must be considered on par with snake oil salesmen. Post-publication, she has gained additional supporters whom she terms 'peer reviewers' in direct contradiction of the accepted meaning of that term, all of whom have a significant history of attacking wind turbines with any means available.

The studies which prove Dr.
Read more ›
4 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again