Peer Review Devalued
Handling the response to the noise report for the Kingston Board of Health (released on April 16, 2015), the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) issued a “Summary of Public Input on Draft Kingston Wind Independence Turbine Acoustical Monitoring Study – Technical Report.” Rather than take advantage of a technical peer review by Stephen Ambrose, a Board Certified acoustician, the CBI merged comments of many parties into a single list. Ambrose responded with a pointed email to the CBI, MassCEC, MassDEP and HMMH, protesting the way that his analyses were presented:
Letter to Nils Bolgen MassCEC, Stacie Smith Consensus Building Institute, Douglas Fine MassDEP, Christopher Menge HMMH from Stephen Ambrose
I submitted six letters addressing critical KWI study “errors and omissions”.
I object to having my analysis letters destroyed by selective edits and chart removals.
The acoustic study has potential merit; so far, the review process is a scientific charade, a mockery of acoustic expertise, and a travesty of professional ethics.
An acoustic study that dismisses substantive peer-review analysis is unacceptable.
Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE Board Certified
Ambrose’s commentaries can be found in posts on June 6 and June 13, 2015.
Wind Wise ~ Massachusetts 
How long can the Mass CEC, DEP, and DOH continue to suppress the evidence that IWTs are detrimental to human health? Their devaluation of Stephen Ambrose’s review of the Kingston Noise Report is the latest in their outright unethical and wrong dealings to coverup anything that might point to problems for wind developers. The failings of the WNTAG committee to suggest a new noise ordinance also shows the severe inclinations of our State agencies to make any progress towards protecting the health, welfare, and rights of WT neighbors.