3 ms·

Which is which, though? I mainly wanted to do a dB comparison so there's a reference to how this 'torture' compares to other, normal experiences. If they had m

Which is which, though? I mainly wanted to do a dB comparison so there's a reference to how this 'torture' compares to other, normal experiences. If they had made this point of fact explicit in the article, then maybe they would have went on to explain how the particular sound profile of the wind turbines was somehow worse (hopefully with evidence!) than it seems at first blush. Since they didn't, it's pretty clear to me that the writer or editor has either woeful research practices, deficient intellect, or a private interest. My money is on the last one: lots of wealthy, well-connected people own holiday homes that lose value when people build turbines near them.

mdp2021 5y ago
> it's pretty clear to me ... deficient intellect What?!?!?!? I clearly stated it: sound amplitude has nothing to do with it - that can be a source of torture, or may not: it is the shape and duration of the sound. If you thought that this 'torture' can be compared to other experiences through a dB value, you are not entitled to write about deficiency. Be informed: certain noise is a nuisance with one wearing white noise inside earmuffs over earpugs. That abates decibels, yet can make the effect even worse. They have not «went on to explain how the particular sound profile of the wind turbines» because it's not needed at all, you do not normally need to convince the public: if you yourself do not believe that those things are a nuisance, go listen to one! And even if someone played "bearable", you know: that's your feeling, go live or just stay near one if you want; others have passed by them, remained in shock, and now avoid them, with some relative difficulty, because there are territories around the world that do not offer that much space left, which increases the fear as "deficient intellects" are all around and many voices has raised lately "let us multiply those turbines", which translates to some as "let us adopt silver bullet solutions which are popular: let us give the public what they want", "careful what you wish for" for "deficient intellects". If a speaker is naive in thinking that the public can receive a message, that is not even 'intellect' at fault - it's 'outellect'. The inside may work very well, it's the outside that does not duly reflect expectations.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Sure: they're not very loud. That's the whole point. They are about half as loud as a road. I don't know what people find particularly terrible about the timbre, but personally, it seems OK. Another nice thing about quiet noises is that you very quickly can't hear them at all, so whatever magical properties they have, less people are effected by them than loud noises. Moreover, it's obviously important to include, in an article about noise 'torture', that these noises are by no means loud noises, just so your audience get an actual picture of what's going on. PS: I just realised, you thought my post was talking about you, and not the writer of the article! Apologies for offense caused: I was being rude about the journalist, not about you. Unless you are the journalist, in which case, offense absolutely meant.

mdp2021 5y ago

> it's pretty clear to me ... deficient intellect What?!?!?!? I clearly stated it: sound amplitude has nothing to do with it - that can be a source of torture, or may not: it is the shape and duration of the sound. If you thought that this 'torture' can be compared to other experiences through a dB value, you are not entitled to write about deficiency. Be informed: certain noise is a nuisance with one wearing white noise inside earmuffs over earpugs. That abates decibels, yet can make the effect even worse. They have not «went on to explain how the particular sound profile of the wind turbines» because it's not needed at all, you do not normally need to convince the public: if you yourself do not believe that those things are a nuisance, go listen to one! And even if someone played "bearable", you know: that's your feeling, go live or just stay near one if you want; others have passed by them, remained in shock, and now avoid them, with some relative difficulty, because there are territories around the world that do not offer that much space left, which increases the fear as "deficient intellects" are all around and many voices has raised lately "let us multiply those turbines", which translates to some as "let us adopt silver bullet solutions which are popular: let us give the public what they want", "careful what you wish for" for "deficient intellects". If a speaker is naive in thinking that the public can receive a message, that is not even 'intellect' at fault - it's 'outellect'. The inside may work very well, it's the outside that does not duly reflect expectations.

pasabagi 5y ago
Sure: they're not very loud. That's the whole point. They are about half as loud as a road. I don't know what people find particularly terrible about the timbre, but personally, it seems OK. Another nice thing about quiet noises is that you very quickly can't hear them at all, so whatever magical properties they have, less people are effected by them than loud noises. Moreover, it's obviously important to include, in an article about noise 'torture', that these noises are by no means loud noises, just so your audience get an actual picture of what's going on. PS: I just realised, you thought my post was talking about you, and not the writer of the article! Apologies for offense caused: I was being rude about the journalist, not about you. Unless you are the journalist, in which case, offense absolutely meant.