The Full Nissenbaum

So the Nissenbaum , Aramini, and Hanning paper, that purported to show a connection between proximity to wind turbines and a decline in sleep quality, has been given a working working over by a number of experts in a short report commissioned by (full disclosure) the Canadian and American Wind Energy Associations.  The result is here; the general conclusion:

Overall, in our opinion the authors extend their conclusions and discussion beyond the statistical findings of their study. We believe that they have not demonstrated a statistical link between wind turbines – distance – sleep quality – sleepiness and health. In fact, their own values suggest that although scores may be statistically different between near and far groups for sleep quality and sleepiness, they are no different than those reported in the general population. The claims of causation by the authors (i.e., wind turbine noise) are not supported by their 

This document is referenced heavily in the report.  Its chronicles an appeal by one Katie Brenda Erickson and Chatham-Kent Wind Action Inc.to the Ontario  Ministry of the Environment over a decision to build a series of wind turbines outside of Camden township.  It contains an extensive discussion of a preliminary version of the Nissenbaum paper.  Its particularly interesting in that one of the issues around the paper is whether its authors are  "disinterested scientists" or "anti-wind activists", with detractors and defenders splitting on this issue (for example see Jim Cummings relatively positive assessment of the paper here).   The study involved a survey distributed to Maine residents living around a pair of U.S. wind farms.  In the years leading up to it Nissenbaum visited  a good proportion of the respondents around one of the sites (Mars Hill) and elicited responses using similar but far less rigorously designed surveys.  For this reason, it can be argued that some of the responses he got in his formal study were preconditioned by the earlier visits conducted in a less scientific setting.  So its interesting to find this passage in the Environmental Review Tribunal document:

The Director argues that Drs. Hanning, McMurtry and Nissenbaum conceded that they only became involved and acquired expertise in the issue of noise and wind farms when they thought wind farms would be located near their residences.

"McMurtry", incidentally,  refers to Robert McMurtry, a paediatric surgeon  who is not one of the paper's authors, but who has also been floating around the wind power debate in Ontario for the past few years and has been instrumental in promoting Nissenbaum's research in this province.

In any case, a glance through Nissebaum's original 2009 first study--rendered into a power-point presentation--makes the slant of his sympathies even clearer.  This slide compares the noise generated by wind turbines to the kind of sleep deprivation techniques used to  interrogate prisoners of war:

So I would argue that the paper answers a question that had already been decided in the authors minds.

A Vet, A Radiologist, And An Anaesthetist Walk Into A Scientific Controversy...

A new "peer reviewed" paper, purporting to show that living in proximity to wind turbines has a negative effect on sleeping habits, has received some attention both locally and internationally.  Its crap.  An effective rebuttal has already appeared here.  What follows will reference the piece from Quora heavily with a few of my own notes added.

Firstly, all three authors, Jeffery Aramini, Michael Nissenbaum and Christopher Hanning, are long-time anti-wind activists.  Furthermore, the three reviewers mentioned in the paper are all paid anti-wind 'experts' who have a long history of directly testifying against wind energy in various court cases.  One of them, Carl Phillips, lost his position at the University of Alberta several years ago for taking money from the tobacco industry.

I would further note that Aramini's training is as a veterinarian; Michael Nissenbaum is a radiologist; and Christopher Hanning is an Anaesthetist.  So, really none has any experience that would be relevant doing a study like this with the possible exception of Hanning, who claims to have some knowledge of sleep disorders.  Certainly, designing surveys is not one of their areas of expertise.

The rebuttal continues:

This is not Nissenbaum's first study of the Mars Hill or the Vinalhaven wind farms.  He ran 'studies' there in 2010 and 2011 as well, using a format pioneered by anti-wind folks in the UK and then by Nina Pierpont, creator of Wind Turbine Syndrome. [3], [9] The a-scientific studies are so poorly constructed that they are guaranteed to make people ascribe new symptoms to wind turbines, and to take completely ignored minor symptoms and turn them into major complaints. These studies have pre-loaded the biases of these study groups, making it difficult to accept the the conclusions of this better structured study.  

Indeed, below is the questionnaire Nussbaum used in one of his earlier studies, and perhaps in this newest one as well, because the new work is simply a reiteration of the old.  The survey is available through first link here.

Its easier to read if you click on the image but, speaking generally, it looks like an invitation to bitch, whine, and complain more than an attempt to elicit useful information.  Finally, a recent post to the Climate Sceptic mailing list brings out some of the authors' preconceptions:

I was fortunate to attend a meeting with the two noise acoustic engineers that helped write the paper.  They told me an very interesting story.

They were in a house working on equipment, then on about the third day they began feeling ill.  They had headaches and lose of alertness.  Then on the 4th day they had to travel elsewhere for a week.  They immediately felt better after leaving the house.  When they returned, their symptoms got much worse.  After awhile it dawned on them that a large wind turbine sat not very far from the house.  They theorized that the noise eddies from the turbine was a low frequency noise which humans cannot hear.  The noise eddies enter the house an actually vibrate everything at a low frequency, which they thought caused motion sickness. 

They said that turbines near noisy areas such as cities did not cause this problem, likely due to other noises disrupting the noise eddies.  It took one of the engineers about 3 months to return to normal health, and when I talked to them the other engineer was still having symptoms.

Hard to tell who among  the research team is being referred to in this note, as none of the three main authors come anything close to being acoustic engineers.  Nevertheless, these kinds of sentiment suggests that the results of their study are a product of confirmation bias rather than the measuring of an actual phenomenon.