Rejecting resolution was right

This Dr. Aniel sounds like a quack.There is more harm from power transmission towers and not to mention loss of property value's.The reason they don't want them is so called destroying of Maine's scenic beauty.

If these wind turrbines cause so many health problems, why haven't we heard about it before? THere are plenty of them operating in Europe and not one report of adverse health effects. Sounds to me like this so-called windturbinesyndrome.com is just a bunch of B - S.
"The democracy will cease to exist when the government takes from those who would work and gives to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson.

jalbrecht1: PLAUSIBLE.....pausible ain't a word.

Dr. Aniel has made public statements on other matters that calls into question his judgement and suggests a thinking process not in conformity with the scientific method. That's the fact, If I come to agree with Dr. Pierpoints' views I would still never agree to support those of Dr. Aniel.
Yes, we are as a public spending huge sums in development of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Both as a stimulous to the economy and to develop energy independence from foreign countries that seems prudent from a national security standpoint.
I've read Dr. Pierpoints web-site and she makes a pausible case for further research. She does not close the case. She presents a pausible mechanism and a number of case studies. I'll guess I have to wait for the book to see the statistics.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Jon Abrecht - for info on the risks you face from turbines nearby I suggest you go to windturbinesyndrome.com If there is any conspiracy at work, it is the conspiracy to steal your tax dollars by the wind industry. 2/3 of the cost of these projects is paid with subsidies which will equal $14,000 per household in Maine by the time the goal established by the Governor's Emergency Wind Law is reached which will put 1800 turbines on 360 miles of Maine's mountain ridges. Think how you could reduce your energy costs if the government gave you $14,000. Wind power is the worst mistake Maine has ever made. Meanwhile we're more concerned about military training flights. Go figure.

This editorial reads like it was written by Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde.

On the one hand you applaud the rejection or a resolution that "would have encouraged government to perform independent studies of possible health effects of turbines, and "refine" energy generation and policy to mitigate them" while on the other you say say this "If the MMA should resolve anything, it should be this: Dismissing possible health effects of turbines would be foolhardy, without examination first, and that studies should be done as soon as possible." Both statements are in agreement. Where is your argument?

Drs. Aniel and Nissenbaum are attempting to get the MMA to do exactly as you suggest - recommend government study the already widely recognized health effects of turbines. If Maine Health Dept director Dora Mills had an ounce of compassion for the people of Mars Hill and Freedom whose lives and health have been severely impacted by turbines and the people in rural Maine that are at risk of the same fate, she would not be advocating for building turbines as fast as possible.

Why do you discredit the doctors who are actually showing care and concern by applauding the MMA's decision to ignore them? One thing is clear. The MMA needs to reconsider their decision and do exactly as you suggest. Study the health effects of turbines as soon as possible because to do otherwise is foolhardy.

A company is planning to build a wind farm across from my house. I will oppose it if there is concrete evidence that the farm would cause health effects which can not be mitigated.
I will support the wind farm if no credibile evidence exists. The MMA and this editorial are pretty clear that the science has not been done to base a decision on.
Dr. Aniel is a conspiracy theorist and political wacko unqualified to perform such research.
An independent scientific committee should be formed and funded through industry contributions but without any contact with the committee (perhaps all contact can be between the companies and the regulators and between the committee and the regulators). If the committee determines that mitigation is not possible, then steps need to be taken to protect the public. For example, people living too close to the wind farm should be moved at company expense.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield