A "documentary" on the "perils" of wind energy, as it follows the construction of a wind farm near a small US town.
This is by no means a documentary. It's a propaganda film. It's a one-sided presentation. It presents mostly the arguments against wind energy and very few counter-arguments to support it, where in most cases they are made to sound ridiculous or just silly excuses. The few defendants of wind energy presented throughout the film are mostly simple people without the technical or scientific knowledge necessary to qualify them as experts on the subject, whereas the array of "experts" who are against wind energy are presented to be doctors, lawyers, technicians, i.e. more experienced people with how wind energy works. The problem with this is that most of the people on the same educational level as the aforementioned "experts" are pro-wind energy, so in essence the film sells you a minority's opinion as the ultimate truth.
Furthermore, as another reviewer mentioned, most of the technical "experts" appearing to be against wind energy are involved in lobbyist commitees that are also pro-fossil fuel and anti-clean energy in general (i.e. they are against any form of clean energy and just want the world to keep on burning oil), which are mostly funded by right-wing groups & businesses, like the Koch Brothers.
Likewise, the studies presented are also extremely biased and mostly unsupported by any clear evidence, and wouldn't appear in a scientific journal in a thousand years. One example is the Wind Turbine Syndrome disease that is mentioned. This is a supposed array of symptoms such as sleep deprivation and headaches caused by the noise a wind turbine makes. A little history on this "disease": It was presented by a doctor after receiving calls from 23 anti-wind protesters who wanted a wind farm out of their town, long before it was built. However, most medical scientists do not recognise it as a valid disease, and studies made to investigate it further came up with absolutely no evidence of wind farms producing such symptoms. There were also several court cases in US, Europe and Canada, where the judges rejected the claims that wind farms were causing any health issues. Especially since the loudest windfarm produces about 44 dB (a normal conversation is at 60-80 dB, while a whisper in a quiet library is at about 30 dB), and laws specify that they must be placed at least 550 metres away from any civilian structures. Most scientists & legal counsel suggest that "Wind turbine syndrome" is an urban legend spread by anti-wind activist groups.
My suggestion is, you watch a BBC documentary called "Windfarm Wars", which has the same idea as this one (shows the UK town of Devon, split in half by those who are for a wind farm construction and those against it), which is quite unbiased and presents the arguments from both sides on an equal level.
SIDE NOTE: A couple reviewers (wco-president & renait1) seem to be bots giving out dishonest reviews to favor the film. Also, another reviewer claims that stuff like "little red lights flashing all night" are harmful to people (have you been living in the middle of the jungle all your life?) and that most vote-downs on the film are made by "wind-turbine advocates who value technology over aesthetics". Also he cites a Stanford 2009 study, which says that to match up the energy output of oil needed by the world today with ONLY wind energy, we'd need 4 million turbines worldwide, however the same study states that the cost and materials needed are quite minimal, and surely other forms of clean energy can be used (solar, wave). According to the study the only constraint to achieving this are the sociological barriers anti-clean energy lobbyists and activist groups put forth, and are mostly only coming from the US.
This is by no means a documentary. It's a propaganda film. It's a one-sided presentation. It presents mostly the arguments against wind energy and very few counter-arguments to support it, where in most cases they are made to sound ridiculous or just silly excuses. The few defendants of wind energy presented throughout the film are mostly simple people without the technical or scientific knowledge necessary to qualify them as experts on the subject, whereas the array of "experts" who are against wind energy are presented to be doctors, lawyers, technicians, i.e. more experienced people with how wind energy works. The problem with this is that most of the people on the same educational level as the aforementioned "experts" are pro-wind energy, so in essence the film sells you a minority's opinion as the ultimate truth.
Furthermore, as another reviewer mentioned, most of the technical "experts" appearing to be against wind energy are involved in lobbyist commitees that are also pro-fossil fuel and anti-clean energy in general (i.e. they are against any form of clean energy and just want the world to keep on burning oil), which are mostly funded by right-wing groups & businesses, like the Koch Brothers.
Likewise, the studies presented are also extremely biased and mostly unsupported by any clear evidence, and wouldn't appear in a scientific journal in a thousand years. One example is the Wind Turbine Syndrome disease that is mentioned. This is a supposed array of symptoms such as sleep deprivation and headaches caused by the noise a wind turbine makes. A little history on this "disease": It was presented by a doctor after receiving calls from 23 anti-wind protesters who wanted a wind farm out of their town, long before it was built. However, most medical scientists do not recognise it as a valid disease, and studies made to investigate it further came up with absolutely no evidence of wind farms producing such symptoms. There were also several court cases in US, Europe and Canada, where the judges rejected the claims that wind farms were causing any health issues. Especially since the loudest windfarm produces about 44 dB (a normal conversation is at 60-80 dB, while a whisper in a quiet library is at about 30 dB), and laws specify that they must be placed at least 550 metres away from any civilian structures. Most scientists & legal counsel suggest that "Wind turbine syndrome" is an urban legend spread by anti-wind activist groups.
My suggestion is, you watch a BBC documentary called "Windfarm Wars", which has the same idea as this one (shows the UK town of Devon, split in half by those who are for a wind farm construction and those against it), which is quite unbiased and presents the arguments from both sides on an equal level.
SIDE NOTE: A couple reviewers (wco-president & renait1) seem to be bots giving out dishonest reviews to favor the film. Also, another reviewer claims that stuff like "little red lights flashing all night" are harmful to people (have you been living in the middle of the jungle all your life?) and that most vote-downs on the film are made by "wind-turbine advocates who value technology over aesthetics". Also he cites a Stanford 2009 study, which says that to match up the energy output of oil needed by the world today with ONLY wind energy, we'd need 4 million turbines worldwide, however the same study states that the cost and materials needed are quite minimal, and surely other forms of clean energy can be used (solar, wave). According to the study the only constraint to achieving this are the sociological barriers anti-clean energy lobbyists and activist groups put forth, and are mostly only coming from the US.