More noise from Nissenbaum

The following is a post on www.quora.com by Mike Barnard.  It is referring to a recent paper by Nissenbaum, et al in the journal Noise and Health. The question being asked on Quora is  "How reliable is this study?".

Summary:  Its reliability is very low.  This is a flawed and misleadingly titled study by long-time anti-wind lobbyists.

• It mistakes correlation for causation, and overstates correlation
• It downplays or ignores long-understood impacts of both bias and impacts of change in creating annoyance
• There are significant unstated conflicts-of-interest, biases and allegiances to an anti-wind lobbyist group among the six authors and reviewers
• One of the authors has been actively involved in creating anti-wind bias and annoyance in these sites for years
• It should be considered against the 17 major world-wide reviews to date which have found no health impacts from wind generation.

1. The study overstates causation and correlation, and understates the impact of bias of the studied groups.
   
   a.  Nissenbaum et al are overstating the strength of the correlation that their data shows. In contrast to the conclusions, figures 1 and 2 show a very weak dose-response, if there is one at all. The near horizontal 'curve fits' and large amount of data scatter are indications of the weak relationship between sleep quality and turbine distance. The authors seem to use a low p-value as support for the hypothesis that sleep disturbance is related to turbine distance. A better interpretation of the p-value related to a near horizontal line fit would be that it suggests a high probability of a weak dose response. Correlation coefficients are not given but should have been to indicate the quality of the curve fits. Intrinsik points out an additional failing of the report:
   

   Although there was a statistically significant difference between the mean PSQI scores in the near (7.8) and far group (6.0), it is important to remember that both of these average scores are greater than 5, which would qualify both groups as “poor sleepers”. When one examines the reported “% of PSQI score >5” no statistical difference between the near and far groups was found (p=0.0745).

   
   b. As the Intrinsik assessment points out:
   

   Given that the relationship between noise from wind turbines and health concerns is the fundamental premise of the study by Nissenbaum et al., it is surprising that the authors gave such little consideration to collection of actual sound data measurements at the study participant homes. The use of post-hoc sound data, visually obtained from figures in reports, is not scientifically defensible and should not have been used to draw conclusions about the findings of the questionnaires with distance from turbine locations. [16]

   
   c. Intrinsik also points out the misleading title of the study, another case of overstating conclusions available from the data:
   

   We also believe that the title of the paper “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health” is not supported given the nature of the data presented. No evidence with respect to sound level (noise) and its effect on sleep and health has been presented in this paper  [16]

   
   Given that the authors themselves admit that they can't construct a dose-response curve, their conclusion that wind farms affect sleep is surprising:
   

   In their paper Nissenbaum et al. state that noise emitted by IWTs can affect sleep. However, their results do not support this statement. In fact, the authors state that “The data on measured and estimated noise levels were not adequate to construct a dose-response curve...” and no statistical analyses were conducted to assess this supposed relationship. Therefore, we do not believe that Nissenbaum et al. (2012) show any statistical difference in overall “poor” sleep quality or sleepiness between the groups. [16]

   
   d.  The studied communities, via agitators such as Nissenbaum, have developed strong negative attitudes to wind farms.  As this study shows, this is a much better predictor of the effects Nissenbaum is claiming than any actual noise from wind farms. [4]  
   
   Intrinsik goes further and asserts the conclusion that the authors, if unbiased, would have found from the data, that the study groups were annoyed by changes in their environment and self-reported health impacts arose from annoyance with the change:
   
   

   The authors pointed out that visual cue and attitude towards wind turbines“are known to affect the psychological response to environmental noise”.While this may be true, visual cue and attitude by themselves have been shown to be stronger drivers of psychological responses than a wind-turbine specific variable like sound itself (e.g., Pedersen 2004). Therefore, a conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the self-reported health effects of people living near wind turbines can be likely attributable to physical manifestations from an annoyed state, rather than a wind-turbine specific factor like noise. Indeed, the weight of evidence in the wind turbine and human health literature points to a causal relationship between self-reported health effects and annoyance, which is to say annoyance brought on by the change in the local environment(i.e., a decrease in amenity) that wind turbines represent (Knopper and Ollson 2011). [16]

   
   e.  The authors' treatment of bias is poor, stating without evidence that accounting for selection and reporting bias would make their conclusions stronger, not weaker.
   
   f.  The sample size is small as is the control group (many studies have small sample sizes; this makes this less authoritative, not worthless in and of itself.)
   
2. The study group has undisclosed biases influenced by one of the authors.
   
   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.  The data this study is based upon is not new data, but data that was obtained several years ago that has been presented at the ICBEN conference in London (UK) over a year ago and has been presented as part of anti-wind farm submissions, which is not unusual, but the data and the conclusions Nissenbaum et al have been putting forward has been strongly criticized in the past. [10] For example, a 2012 Massachusetts expert panel had this to say about the conclusions:
   

   details of how homes were identified, how many homes/people were approached, and differences between those who did and did not participate are important to know. Without this, attributing any of the observed associations to the wind turbines (either noise from them or the sight of them) is premature. [16]

3. The authors' pre-existing bias is not disclosed or accounted for.
   
   Jeffery Aramini is the person most often interviewed in newspaper reports but the study is co-authored with Michael Nissenbaum and Christopher Hanning.  
   
   a. Aramini has maintained a lower profile than Nissenbaum and Hanning, but is on the Advisory Group of an anti-wind lobbyist group, Wind Vigilance. [11]  
   b. Nissenbaum is a long-time anti-wind activist and also a member of the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance. [1] 
   c. Hanning is a long-time anti-wind activist as well, who has been writing anti-wind papers that have not been able to get into even low-impact, peer-reviewed journals and is also on the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance.[2] [12] 
   
   Fronting with the lower profile Aramini in newspaper interviews appears to be a convenient way to disguise the deep and long-standing bias of the authors.
   
   The authorial bias can easily be detected by the inappropriate use of the emotionally laden "industrial wind turbine", a term which was selected and focussed grouped by anti-wind lobbying organizations associated with the Koch Brothers.[14]  Neutral language includes "wind turbine" and "wind turbine generator". 
   
4. The thanked reviewers have unstated biases and conflicts-of-interest as they are paid anti-wind experts who have a long history of directly testifying against wind energy.
   
   a. Carl Phillips is relatively new to this group, having been asked to leave his post at an Alberta university for taking tobacco industry money and remarkably finding that tobacco products were much less harmful than people thought.[6]  He has found a new source of funds in anti-wind lobbying.  As he says on his blog, Ep-Ology:
   

   I knew what answer I was going to present from the start. So when I wrote my COI [conflict of interest] statement, I did not hesitate to describe, matter-of-fact, that I do work as a testifying expert on behalf of communities fighting the siting of local wind turbines.

   b. Rand not only testifies, his firm gains revenue from measuring sound near wind farms for complainants and to assist litigation. [7]  Rand, in any event, 
   c. James has been testifying for fee against wind farms since 2006.[8]  
   
   Phillips and James are both members of the Advisory Group of Wind Vigilance as well.  The three thanked are bolstering their court room pitches, and cannot be considered credible unbiased assessors. If they are the only peer reviewers, this is grounds for retraction. As their conflicts and pre-existing biases are unstated, this too is grounds for serious concern.
   
5. Noise and Health is a rarely referenced journal of low impact.
   
   The journal, Noise and Health has a very low impact index of 1.2, meaning that few researchers reference their studies; there can be a variety of reasons for this including poor quality or trivial papers. [5]  The journal may not have sought independent reviewers who would have pointed out the flaws in the article, but may have accepted the reviewers that came with the article as suggestions.  If the journal did not gain separate review, this is a reason for retraction in and of itself.
   
6. Wind Vigilance, on whose Advisory Group five of six authors and reviewers sit, has been promoting wind health issues in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence and against 17 major studies' findings for years. 
   
   As Wind Vigilance is a central theme to this, it would be useful to understand their positions and the degree of evidence behind them:
   
   

   Based on a review of the evidence, the Society for Wind Vigilance is satisfied that there is a significant probability of adverse health effects for human subjects living within 2.0 km of land based industrial wind turbines. The Society for Wind Vigilance recognizes the urgent need for further human health research to finalize guidelines for siting and noise levels that will protect human health. In the interim the Society for Wind Vigilance recommends that land based industrial wind turbines be sited a minimum of 2 km from the property line of non participating residents. Distances greater than 2 km will typically be required for special terrain such as turbines on ridges and offshore turbines. [13]

   
   Bolding is mine to indicate statements which require elaboration:
   1. This statement was released April 2012, six months before the first peer-reviewed paper that found any issues with wind energy and health was published.  In the meantime, 17 major reviews by independent and credible organizations worldwide of thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed research found no issue with wind energy and human health.  On what grounds did Wind Vigilance make the assessment that all of the other studies and the vast majority of medical, engineering and acoustic professionals were wrong?  On what grounds did they decide on 2 kilometers?
   2. "Industrial wind turbines" is the preferred emotive phrasing of anti-wind lobbyists.  It is not neutral language in this discussion, just as "wind farms" is the preferred emotive language of pro-wind advocates (including me).  This language was created by lobbying organizations associated with the Koch Brothers and other astroturf funding undiversified fossil fuel organizations.[14]
   3. The reasoning behind greater setbacks on ridges and lakes is not explained, but given the weakness of the rest of their position, it can only be to ensure that wind turbines will never be seen or heard.  Obviously this is an extreme and foolish position.
   
   That five of six authors and reviewers of this paper are so tightly associated with an organization with such a strong and strident opposition to evidence-based siting guidelines and wind energy in general is indicative.  That they do not make clear their association, their long-standing bias and their conflicts-of-interest is also indicative.
   
7. 17 major reviews have found no health impacts from wind energy
   
   This single paper must be contrasted to the 17 (to-date) major reviews world-wide of hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed articles related to wind energy, health and noise which have found no health impacts.  All studies agree that a small subset of people very close to wind farms find the noise annoying. [15]  The best consensus is that the vast majority of health complaints attributed to wind energy are the result of a psychogenic or communicated psychosomatic illness; people are making themselves sick when they are told that they will get sick. [15]

Full disclosure. This assessment was developed with the assistance of:

• Dr. David Perry -- Dr. Perry holds degrees in electrical engineering and neuroscience from The University of Melbourne and a PhD from the Bionics Institute examining how sound stimulation from a cochlear implant is represented in the brain. Dr. Perry is also on the Board of Directors of community-owned wind project Hepburn Wind in Australia.
• Richard Mackie - Mr. Mackie is an Engineer with degrees from the University of Auckland and the Australian Graduate School of Management. He is Managing Director of Advanced Energy Consulting (Australia) which does work related to wind energy projects.
• The Intrinsik professional assessment upon which some of the comments are based was funded by CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association).

References:
[1] Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum - The Society for Wind Vigilance (windvigilance.com)
[2] http://docs.wind-watch.org/Hanni...
[3] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&r...
[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...
[5] Journal and Academic Rankings (sciencegateway.org)
[6] Tobacco researcher leaves U of A (cbc.ca)
[7] Wind Turbines: Published Articles (randacoustics.com)
[8] Mike Barnard's answer to Wind Power: Is Dr. Nina Pierpoint's "Wind Turbine Syndrome" a real medical syndrome caused by wind turbines?
[9] http://www.windaction.org/documents/33057 (wind-watch.org)
[10] http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/files/2...
[11] Jeff Aramini, DVM, MSC, PHD - The Society for Wind Vigilance(windvigilance.com)
[12] Dr Chris Hanning - The Society for Wind Vigilance (windvigilance.com)
[13] News - The Society for Wind Vigilance (windvigilance.com)
[14] Turbine foes try to forge national opposition movement (eenews.net)
[15] Wind Power: What might cause people who live near wind turbines to get sick?
[16] http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/Intrins...

Additional references:
[1] Additional background on the authors and the nature of the preceding studies performed by Mr. Nissenbaum here:  A Vet, A Radiologist, And An Anaesthetist Walk Into A Scientific Controversy... (blogspot.ca)
[3] Nissenbaum paper recycles claims on wind energy and health already found inadequate by courts and expert panel (canwea.ca)

For every appraisal there is an equal and opposite appraisal

In the last few weeks, Ben Lansink released two documents on the Wind Concerns Ontario and Ontario Wind Resistance websites.  Mr. Lansink is an accredited appraiser and declares that his documents have been published without prejudice and that they are fair, impartial analyses. 

Other than his accreditation, nothing could be further from the truth.

We'll expose his bias in three sections:

         1. Motivation

         2. Data manipulation

         3. Omission of Press influence

1. Lansink's motivation

Mr. Lansink's firm specializes in creating evidence for law suits involving perceived losses in property value.  It's called "diminution".  It’s typically used in expropriation cases, where the appellant is attempting to increase the payment for their property. 

According to his website, "Ben specializes in Diminution in Value analyses and the resulting Injurious Affection. His assignments include proximity to airports, hydro power transmission corridors, land fill sites, wind turbines, roads and road works, as well as contaminated land and buildings including urea formaldehyde foam insulation".

So, a logical question might be, “Why would Mr. Lansink choose to perform all this research and then initially publish it on the Ontario Wind Resistance and Wind Concerns Ontario websites?” An impartial expert with solid balanced arguments might have considered developing more traction by using either the mainstream press or reputable academic journals or magazines to present his case.

The answer to this question may come from the relationship between Mr. Lansink and Eric Gillespie, and Mr. Gillespie’s relationship with wind opponents.  Eric Gillespie is the lawyer who has acted for a host of wind opponents and is closely associated with Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO). There have been a number of lawsuits launched recently by Mr. Gillespie against wind developers and their hosting landowners; all of which include property devaluation as part of the argument (e.g. Wiggins v. Fairview, Norfolk Wind Concerns v. UDI Renewables, Parent v. River Canard Energy).

Eric Gillespie and Ben Lansink appear to have assisted a common client in the past (Red Hill Valley Neighbourhood Association) and Mr. Gillespie refers to Lansink’s work in a letter to Canada’s Attorney General.

In addition, at least one source has described Mr. Lansink's presentation to an anti-wind group in which he confirmed his association with Mr. Gillespie.

Given this information it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Lansink’s report is intended to support Mr. Gillespie’s initiatives in the courts and wind opponents’ public position. Whether they are “fair and impartial” is another question that may only be answered in the courts   

2. Lansink's manipulation of data

Mr. Lansink appears to be selective with the limited data he uses in his case studies and presents, as a basis for his conclusions, information from a few isolated home sales.   This would be in contrast with following the most basic notions of random sampling or full transactional analysis from which solid impartial experts typically derive their conclusions.

In Melancthon, for example, he chooses five properties that were bought by a developer (Canadian Hydro Developers - CHD) and then sold after the project was completed. He cloaks those situations as a classic buy-resell case study and attempts to create a valuation based on the following methodology:

1.    Assume that the purchase price was at fair market value.  In truth, CHD purchased all properties at over 50% premium to market values – as represented by MPAC assessment data (Table 1).

Table 1 Sales price vs. assessment value for Lansink’s Melancthon properties (1^st sale)

Property	Sale price	Sale date	Assessment	Assess. Year	Price/Assessment
1	$302,670	17aug2007	$232,000	2007	1.30
2	$299,000	01jun2005	$195,000	2005	1.53
3	$500,000	15nov2007	$293,000	2008	1.71
4	$305,000	29dec2006	$216,000	2006	1.41
5	$350,000	30oct2007	$182,000	2007	1.92
Weighted Average					1.57

Source: Lansink, MPAC

         

2. Assign a price escalator from "comparable" markets - in this case the greater Dufferin area.  However, the greater Dufferin area includes Orangeville, a market that's been on fire as a sleeper for Toronto, as well as Amaranth, a sleeper for Orangeville.  As a result, Lansink’s calculation of the increase of value due to the passage of time may be aggressive.

3. Assume that the properties were also sold at fair market value.  In aggregate, this may be close to the truth.  CHD had used a number of the properties for their project staff for a couple of years, lowering their cost of housing staff and construction workers, versus hotel, motel and travel alternatives.  Once the project was fully commissioned the operator had little on-going use for the properties and sold them.

In three cases, the properties either sold at their asking price or close to their assessed value (Table 2). 

Table 2 Sales prices vs. assessment value for Lansink’s Melancthon properties (2^nd sale)

Property	Sale price	Sale date	Assessment	Assess. Year	Price/Assessment
1	$215,000	27mar2010	$215,000	2010	0.82
2	$250,000	19jun2012	$318,000	2012	0.79
3	$288,400	12nov2009	$293,000	2008*	0.98*
4	$278,000	03aug2009	$228,750	2009	1.22
5	$175,000	16sep2010	$173,334	2010	1.01
Weighted Average					0.95

Source: Lansink, MPAC

* Assessment data not available for 2009

Two properties were likely sold below market value because of their uniquely heightened association with wind turbines.  Wind opponents who used these transactions to create a firestorm of media coverage that detailed their perceived health problems dramatically highlighted that association.  A search of the seller’s name + wind on the Internet yields over 500 citations.  One is actually used in the Lansink document.  Obviously, wind opponents’ actions devalued these properties by their unsupported statements.  Selling that house after such a mauling in the press would be like selling a haunted house.

In contrast, a search of the successful buyers’ names yields no mentions of any such complaints.

One case study "analysis" is highly suspect.  The original landowner was holding up an OMB hearing that was ruling on CHD's project.  In the hearing, CHD had made adjustments to the project in accord with the concerns of the municipalities and other landowners.  For this particular landowner CHD agreed to purchase his property (OMB PL0605653 Minutes of Settlement).  The residence condition was deemed uninhabitable and was subsequently demolished.  This fact was omitted in Lansink's appraisal.  He compares the above market price of the property when originally purchased with the market value price of the raw land when it was subsequently sold.

Of course, there remains the question about the hundred or so other transactions that occurred in the area in that time frame.  Those transactions were conventional single buyer-seller transactions, much like those included in the following analysis, but they were excluded for some reason.   A subsequent blog will explore these transactions in more detail.

So, in summary, the prices paid by CHD for these properties were sufficiently over-market to negate all the claims of devaluation stated by Lansink, and the sample used so small and selective that the conclusions drawn were clearly biased and wrong.

In Clear Creek, Mr. Lansink chooses seven properties that were sold in the area of a project.  In contrast with his previous methodology described above, only two were buy-sell situations.  A number of obvious questions arise:

1. Were these the only properties sold? Were other properties, at similar distances from turbines, sold in the area (e.g. Jacksonburg, Houghton Centre, Hemlock)?

         2. Is the residential price index for the broader county relevant to this group of properties?

         3. Did wind opponents pollute their property values through their hysterical reactions to the media?

If these properties are truly indicative of the nature of sales in the micro-area, then there may be evidence of diminution.  However, this is another area that was ground zero for health effect claims.  A group called "Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines” had extensive press coverage.  A search for the leader of the group ("stephana johnston"+wind) yields over 800 citations.  As one commentator noted, " Also, Stephana Johnston, 81 has now guaranteed no one will buy her house as she's publicly stated that the turbines make it impossible [for her] to sleep there."

We are analyzing the Clear Creek transactions and will publish more conclusions in a further post.

3. The influence of media's amplification of wind opponent hysteria

A number of independent appraisals were performed in the early to middle stages of wind turbine development in Ontario, for example:

         • Stantec for Canadian Hydro Developers [Melancthon], 2006

• Blake, Matlock & Marshal for Windrush Energy [Melancthon, East Luther], 2006

         • S. Rayner for Canadian Hydro Developers [Wolfe Island], 2007

         • University of Guelph Master of Science Thesis [Melancthon], 2009

         • Canning & Simmons for CanWEA [Chatham Kent], 2010

         • Assessment Review Board ruling on Kenney property [Wolfe Island], 2012

Outside of Ontario, a 2009 landmark study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that “Home sales prices are very sensitive to the overall quality of the scenic vista from a property, but a view of a wind energy facility does not demonstrably impact sales prices”.

All of these studies found no significant reduction in property values before and after the project was constructed. 

However, as wind projects were proposed for cottage areas such as Prince Edward County, the Huron coastline and Grey Highlands, opposition began to grow using bogus logic, and biased media intensity increased.  The umbrella organization Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) represented most, if not all, of the wind action groups (WAG's).   WCO had sophisticated members and access to professionals (e.g. PR, medical, legal, engineering, etc.) whose cottages, in many cases, were located near these developments.  Within a few months they had developed a very sophisticated and effective PR campaign.  However, in our opinion, these professionals took license with their credentials by not disclosing their cottage locations and by posting opinions that were frequently outside their training.

As an illustration, a search in Google Trends for Ontario reveals a strong and sustained campaign from early 2009 to the present.

Figure 1: Google Trends search for the term “wind concerns Ontario”

Source: Google Trends

Since these WAG's had no evidence that was specific to projects planned near them, they shone a bright light on existing projects.  Anyone with a complaint was sure to be introduced to newspapers, television and radio; and invited to speak at scores of anti-wind lectures throughout Ontario.  As noted earlier, some of those press mentions added up in the hundreds.  Many of them, and their previously unknown small community names (e.g. Melancthon, Ripley, Clear Creek, etc.) became well known.  It is conceivable that this type of media coverage placed downward pressure on property values in a few places.  In contrast, other projects built in the same time frame, such as Chatham Kent and Prince garnered relatively few complaints and little press coverage.

In subsequent legal challenges and Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) decisions (almost totally represented by Eric Gillespie), not a single case has substantiated any of the claims of adverse health effects.  In fact, health claims seem to have been removed from recent ERT's by the appellants.  Importantly, in cases where residences were sold on the market or purchased by developers and then re-sold, there has always been a willing buyer and no media mentions of complaints of adverse health effects.  Lansink suggests that those buyers have been legally gagged, but no one is able to sign away their rights of redress under common law.  If they were provably suffering, they would still have some form of recourse.

* * *

In summary, Lansink's analysis appears to be significantly biased. While he may turn up some isolated examples of property devaluation, Lansink has failed to show that wind turbines have widespread negative impact on property values.  Moreover, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that those suffering from psychogenic symptoms (I.e. those that originate in the mind) may have inadvertently been the root cause of their loss.  They certainly had lots of help from hundreds of activists who used these people, described as "victims", to keep proposed projects from their back yard.  And, some of the media, sensing a good conflict, fanned the flames.