Update June-30-2011, 10:57 AM
Additional response following Munks letter
In an Oct. 9, 2008 letter to the Watertown Daily Times, I presented an article from the European Heart Journal authored by Dr. Stefan Willich et al. that suggested low-frequency noise may be related to heart attacks and that women seemed disproportionately at risk.
Dawn M. Munk of Three Mile Bay responded to my letter by bringing to our attention a critique by Dr. Wolfgang Babish (Oct. 25). Dr. Babish found fault with the way Dr. Willich's group had managed their data and took issue with the suggestion that noise affected women to a greater extent than men. In the meantime, Dr. Babish published a study suggesting men are at greater risk of heart attacks related to noise than women (Epidemiology, volume 16, 33-44, 2005).
So the respective research teams agree that there is evidence linking low-frequency noise and heart attacks. Dr. Babish concludes his critical letter (cited by Ms. Munk) with: "This supports the hypothesis that chronic exposure to traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular disorder, particularly myocardial infarction (heart attack)." So the important message is: They quibbled about some details, but largely agree with one another that low-frequency noise may have implications for our health.
Dr. Babish also participated in the World Health Organization conference in Stuttgart, Germany, June 23-24, 2005. Quoting from the Cardiovascular Section which Dr. Babish led, page 21: "There is sufficient evidence of an association between road traffic noise and ischemic heart diseases."
Ms. Munk furthermore criticizes my letter with, "There has never been a single peer-reviewed study linking wind turbines to ill health effects in those living nearby." This statement is at odds with our National Institutes of Health (NIH), since its representatives have stated, "Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which increases stress, which in turn increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer." (Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 116, pages A237-238, 2008.) The NIH is not known to make strong statements without sufficient evidence.
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the WHO and our NIH. But we need to keep an open mind. And the complexity and importance of the issues before us underscore the need for a comprehensive review by an impartial medical consulting firm. The last word on this issue should not be a few letters to the editor of the WDT, mine included.
Dr. Ralph H. Janicki
Cape Vincent
Dr. Janicki, M.D., Ph.D., is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dawn Munks Letter
Wind turbines not hazardous to health
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2008
In a recent letter to this paper, Cape Vincent resident Dr. Ralph Janicki attempts to scare the citizens of this community by inferring that wind turbines somehow pose a risk to public health by drawing a comparison to a German study examining whether proximity to automobile traffic increases the incidence of heart attacks.
What Dr. Janicki conveniently omits from his letter is the fact that the study's conclusions have been seriously questioned by the scientists who actually carried out the sound assessments. In a letter to the European Heart Journal dated 1/31/06 in response to publication of the study referenced by Dr. Janicki, Wolfgang Babisch, et al., wrote:
"All noise assessments of the NaRoMI study were carried out by experienced acoustical engineers from our two institutions. The authors of the article have seriously mistreated our noise data, which results in false interpretation of the findings." The letter further goes on to state, "The funding institutions disapprove the way our noise data were treated in the statistical analyses and how they were interpreted by Willich et al."
What's more, despite Dr. Janicki trying to make people believe so, there has never been a single peer-reviewed study linking wind turbines to ill health effects in those living nearby. Conversely, there is a significant body of evidence linking coal and other fossil-fuel based electricity generation to health problems in humans, particularly in infants.
We need to get serious about changing the way we get our energy. Our economic and environmental health is at risk, and the situation is growing worse. Misrepresentation of the facts does us all a disservice. We need to begin embracing wind energy and other renewables before it is too late.
Dawn M. Munk
Three Mile Bay
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally, I found this response to Dawn Munks Letter in my mail box dated
October 27, 2008
Regarding Ms. Dawn Munk’s 10/25/08 letter, “Wind turbines not hazardous to health”: May I suggest she read the peer-reviewed report soon-to-be-published as a book by Dr. Nina Pierpont. “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books).
A large portion of the report is available on www.windturbinesyndrome.com. The five peer reviewers are:
1. Lord Sir Robert May, PhD, past Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Head of the UK Office of Science and Technology, past President of the Royal Society, Professor at Oxford University
2. Jerome Haller, MD, Professor of Neurology & Pediatrics, Albany Medical College
3. Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ
4. Ralph V. Katz, DMD, MPH, PhD (Epidemiology), Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, NYU College of Dentistry
5. Henry S. Horn, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Associate of the Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University
Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
19 Clay
Malone, NY
2 comments:
I remember this series of letters. It was my first exposure to Dawn Munk. At the time I thought, wow here's a local resident who's knowledgeable about the German research. Then I did a Google search of Dawn Munk and a link showed up to GEOS Global, BP and Acciona's community relations consultant. There in black in white was Munk's testimonial thanking GEOS for all the help writing letters etc.
I quickly changed my view of Munk and her green shirt group as a FRAUD. She as well as her entire movement are deceitful and fraudulent. You can't believe a single word they say or write.
All the crap they spew are corporate lies designed to minimize local opposition. One thing for sure, Dr. Janicki didn't need a ghost writer and didn't try to deceive us.
I would take Mrs. Munk more serious if she and her husband didn't have wind contracts with BP.
She is just another "vitally concerned with the environment" born again Voter for Wind. Probably even got rid of her outdoor burning barrel after signing the leases.
Post a Comment