CBC’s The Bridge talks to a Professor Studying IWT’s impact on human beings

 An interesting interview on CBC’s The Bridge discusses studying the impacts of infrasound, and low frequency noise, on people.  Interview lasts 8 minutes

A University of Windsor professor studying the impact of IWT sounds on People – The Bridge – CBC Player:

we continue our series on home grown research. I’ll talk to a university of Windsor professor to find out what he’s studying.

This summer on the Bridge, we’re talking about some of the interesting research being done at the University of Windsor. This afternoon, Colin Novak joins me. Colin teaches Automotive and Material Engineering at the University of Windsor. And He’s in the process of figuring out how Wind Turbines actually affect human beings.


Jane Wilson

This is excellent, a no-nonsense scientific approach to the problem, and the recognition that infrasound is a health hazard.

David Robinson


You’re right.It is nice theater. But how will this change anything?

If they were going to make a difference they would have to overcome all the problems that poked a hole in the U. Waterloo group. Data sharing, confidentiality etc.

Also the Japanese Doctor is not registered here and is not bound by our medical College in the same way as those in the U Waterloo group where Dr. Philp Bigelow has already run into the same roadblocks. In other words people want the problem solved — but wont grant access to the properties where the problem could be measured.

Further we do not really know if they have the equipment to do what they claim. Dr. Bigelow certainly did not and had to have it built — as the technical side of his own research did not cooperate. They are too busy dreaming up schemes to advance the installation agenda.

Now, if people did grant access and it was proved that their house is on one of these nodal points where the house is essentially unusable — then what? Oops — just destroyed the value of their house in the resale market.

Suppose they decide it is worth it. So the cooperate — and act as guinea pigs. Well the sample set is small enough that people familiar with data analysts could quickly exam even a set of final data and extract who is who and what their medical problems happen to be.

So, if they can’t get access to peoples house and they can’t do medical tests — exactly how much will they bring to the table. Critics will claim that the data they gathered is so sparse as to be reduced to anecdotal level.

So yes this is negative. Am I wrong?

I am looking forward to a solution — but I do not see one forthcoming.

Did I miss much?

Leave a comment


email* (not published)