Honestly if you're that concerned, download the invidious codebase and host a local copy yourself. It's open source and free to use by anyone.
The other part (and I'm speculating here) could be because the noise from wind turbines is non-constant - the noise of a highway can largely fade into the background, while a turbine makes periodic *whoosh* noises that are harder to get used to.
Assuming this is an honest question, both the frequency profile and decibel level are dramatically different. Frequency profile is the main factor of concern. People have considerable ability to adjust to white noise, but not noise dominated by certain harmonics. I'm too lazy to look up references right now, but you can search on effects of low-frequency noise. By the way, I'm not referring to infrasound, which is frequency below the hearing threshold, and whose health effects are less well established or studied.
The thing is wind turbines are not installed in towns and cities; they go in the countryside. And in Greece with its climate, add into the mix a significant tourism economy and many homes that are both single-glazed and with no a/c. Is it really so hard to believe that their grievance might not be justified?
I submitted weeks ago the study and divulgation "Exposure to Traffic Noise Linked to Higher Dementia Risk", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29686233
The results of the studies can be quite surprising.
All make noise, are eyesores or both. All also have benefits.
The residents have judged the benefits of highways and utility poles festooned with cables running everywhere outweigh the cost. They've also judged that the benefits of the turbines do not outweigh the costs.
who? when?
You think that people speak of torture lightly?
> What is the difference between wind turbines and ... utility poles festooned with cables
If you turn, you do not see the poles, but you hear the turbines.
> What is the difference between wind turbines and highways
1) Not many people seem to have called highways "unbearable".
2) Some linear segments of highways run into the wilderness, spoiling an area according to the distance to a line. Some clusters of wind turbines are placed in the wilderness as a cloud of broadcasters, spoiling an area according to the distance to an area.
3) There are little alternatives to highways.
Edit:
and:
> There's a lot surrounding us in modern life that if you step back, you might see a problem
So let us encourage the public to see evident problems immediately, instead of "discovering" them later, post facto.
Yes. It’s easy to find people who claim, for example, that’s it’s torture to wear a mask during the pandemic. This is especially common with NIMBYs who are trying to make their case sound more persuasive than “I don’t like change”.
That’s not to say that there aren’t valid complaints here but it’s important to remember the selection bias: people who don’t mind don’t seek out reporters to tell their story. There’s a long history of this — I’m reminded of the various “electro-sensitivity” hoaxes involving complaints about cell towers starting months before they were even powered on — so the first thing you’d want to ask is how broadly shared these concerns are, followed by the trade offs (living next to a windmill beats living next to a coal power plant, for example), and putting it in perspective (windmills kill birds, but so do windows and fossil fuel plants - both at much greater rates).
The answer is; put these on platforms in the sea (see here the dutch projects [0]; countries like Portugal would seem perfect for this; biggest cities are on the sea, the country is thin and has sea the entire stretch and yet they throw this stuff next to nature parks in the mountains and Greece… these are islands we are talking about…) and put solar on desert/farmland. Or buy out people who live in the blast radius but I like the other options better.
[0] https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/duurzaam-ondernemen/duurzame-...
The idea expressed as «“I don’t like change”» seems quite an understatement, mixing acceptable change and intolerable conditions. It is as if saying "John is unhappy about the neighbour playing the drums in the night: he does not like change".
Why would the "breadth of sharing of the concerns" be an important factor? If something is intrinsically faulty that is not determined by the number of those who notice it. I am used to seeing people living in absolutely indecent conditions and them being just contented - this makes those conditions acceptable to them, but not good or acceptable in general.
Yes, note that I wrote an entire paragraph on that point. It’s simply that with this kind of dispute you cannot assume that everyone involved is an objective observer. That means things like seeing whether everyone in the area shared these views or if you’re only hearing from a minority.
I’m not familiar with this part of Greece but with US wind farms I’ve heard a notable generational divide: you’ll hear a complaint from someone older but their kids don’t mind because they don’t have 50 years of memories and are far more likely to think that a different view is a cheap cost compared to the impact of climate change on their future.
When some credible people, caveats aside - even a single one - tell you that "it is a torture", it probably is - the phenomenon rightfully takes the label of 'torture', as the state of things. Objectively. That some people do not perceive it as such, means little - especially in territories where people are used to dumb themselves down; it just means that some or many people can be masters in disregard. You may not mind about all sort of unhealthy situations: this does not mean they are good for you. And if some (e.g. among said «kids») «don’t mind», «because they don’t have 50 years of memories», this should be worrisome as it means that some have no idea of what is proper, never could gain such experience. And asking the majority about what is good or not makes little sense in today's world: what «you’re only hearing from a minority» is, if anything, more probable, not less (already in general, you would not ask in a plebiscite about the validity a medical diagnosis or an engineering detail; today the hiatus between "good sense" and "common sense" is staggering).
But: if with that «kids are likely to think that /a different view/ is a cheap cost», it is meant that "kids may be convinced that the issue with wind turbines is the visual modification of the landscape" - this is absolute insanity. The issue is with pollution, with the noise: if they do not know, they must be informed. See how little your "majority vs minority" matters? You'd rely on the judgement of people that could link "wind turbines" to "I preferred different details in the panorama"?!
It seems to me that the key thing is that the latter were installed a long time ago and acceptance is baked into life. But if you think about it, utility poles with cables running everywhere are a more invasive eye sore. And listing all the problems with highways here would certainly hit the character limit.
There's a lot surrounding us in modern life that if you step back, you might see a problem. Wind turbines are new so they're under the microscope. But if they've enabled Greece to cut its coal power substantially, they're certainly worth it.