> You think that people speak of torture lightly?

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).

You tried living next to a wind turbine? I guess it beats living next to coal plant but both are pretty horrible. Go rent an Airbnb next to a windturbine for a week and see how your concerns are; we accidentally did this (they didn’t advertise this little tidbit) and it was absolutely amazing how much noise that thing made; it was over a kilometer away but up on a ridge and when the wind was in the direction of the bnb it was impossible to do much of anything. Probably some of it you will get used to, but should you have to? Your house dropped significantly in value in the best case and in the worst case you will have very little sleep and health issues from it.

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-...

That some people just shout that "that is a torture", does not mean that some other do not mean it - in fact, it's easier that those who just shout it (without suffering it the same way) speak of a general fact that may be differently impactful to different individuals.

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.

> That some people just shout that "that is a torture", does not mean that some other do not mean it

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.

You are apparently seeing the matter on the point of view of "dispute" and "views". You can have a dispute about administrative policies, but torture is not a view.

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"?!