i don't think industrial wind belongs in undeveloped wild areas such as the appalachian mountains, were it exists mostly because it is subsidized, and has almost zero impact on electricity generation in the region (from coal, etc.) N Carolina recently apparently ghas banned wind in the mountains; offshore is whwere it likely makes sense there, except possibly small wind generators around developed areas.
see discussions for example on
www.windwatch-org.
www.vawind.org
--- On Mon, 8/3/09, Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Attack on industrial wind puffed with false peer review claims
> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 2:36 PM
> Attack on industrial wind puffed with
> false peer review claims
> Self-published book gained mainstream media attention
> through deception
> http://tinyurl.com/WTSnonsense
>
> by Gar W. Lipow Aug 3 2009
>
> Nina Pierpont is a long-time, self-published advocate of
> the view that
> living within a kilometer or two of industrial scale wind
> farms can
> cause migraines, sleep deprivation, and other serious
> symptoms and
> long term damage. Now she’s gained mainstream attention
> [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/are-wind-farms-a-health-risk-us-scientist-identifies-wind-turbine-syndrome-1766254.html]
> by claiming that her new (self-published) book Wind Turbine
> Syndrome:
> A Natural Experiment [http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/] is
> peer-reviewed.
>
> Note, however, that the imprint publishing this work,
> K-Selected Books
> [http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?page_id=11], has a
> four-person
> editorial board consisting of Pierpont, her husband Calvin
> Luther
> Martin, and two other members. Pierpont’s husband is also
> the book’s
> editor. Her book only can be ordered only from her website.
> The
> “publisher” website is a page on Pierpont’s site.
> This is obviously a
> self-published book.
>
> Valid peer-review is, by nature, independent. While authors
> are
> encouraged (and sometimes required) to suggest possible
> peer
> reviewers, the final selection of reviewers in valid
> refereeing is
> never made by people closely related to the author, or
> hired by the
> author. Pierpont being on the editorial board of a company
> that she
> claims oversaw a peer review process is itself a scandal. I
> would be
> curious to know who the actual editor was who made the
> final selection
> of referees. Was it someone other than her husband?
>
> Here is the sad thing: People make non-peer-reviewed
> arguments every
> day. Non-fiction that is not peer reviewed has been known
> to end up on
> the best-seller list and influence public debate. In
> falsely claiming
> valid peer review, Pierpont has undermined the credibility
> of her
> arguments far more than non-peer reviewed publication would
> have.
> Valid arguments do not need to be shored up by carefully
> planned
> deceit.
>
> Pierpont’s work has been widely disputed in
> peer-reviewed
> publications. This dishonesty does not encourage me to
> believe her
> over her opponents.
>
> Shame on Pierpont for using such deceit to prop up her
> case. Shame on
> the Independent for not even bothering to read the Pierpont
> website
> carefully enough to detect this poorly concealed
> deception.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>