Mike Barnard, the blogger with an unmatched ability to dismantle anti-wind energy spin, has reviewed 50 pieces of evidence often cited in the wind energy/health debate. Barnard has summarised, categorised, and ranked 50 papers to “assist interested laymen, journalists and others trying to understand the knotty problem of wind energy and its health impacts.”
The review is a useful aid when considering the evidence presented by both sides of the wind energy and health debate. As someone who has attended town hall meetings organised by anti-wind farm activists, community forums on wind farm proposals, and VCAT hearings, I know I’ll be taking a printed copy of Barnard’s review to events in the future.
Here’s a table summarising Barnard’s results:
Read, How reliable are they? Studies, reports and papers related to wind and health, for the full analysis.
yes2renewables.org 
A “Systematic Review”? Look carefully and you’ll discover the “systemic” effect of a pseudoscientific guide based on Mike Barnard’s universe. The fact that he’s lauded and then self congratulatory in this context is a telling symptom. This is the unfortunate attribute of smugness that arises from a poor comprehension of “Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts” applied to a post-modern ethic. There’s no epidemiology derived clinical definition as of yet, only the colloquial “greentard” subset.