Windfall (2010) Reviews

• Extremely biased & propagandist

  hypersonic89992012-11-11

  A "documentary" on the "perils" of wind energy, as it follows the construction of a wind farm near a small US town. This is by no means a documentary. It's a propaganda film. It's a one-sided presentation. It presents mostly the arguments against wind energy and very few counter-arguments to support it, where in most cases they are made to sound ridiculous or just silly excuses. The few defendants of wind energy presented throughout the film are mostly simple people without the technical or scientific knowledge necessary to qualify them as experts on the subject, whereas the array of "experts" who are against wind energy are presented to be doctors, lawyers, technicians, i.e. more experienced people with how wind energy works. The problem with this is that most of the people on the same educational level as the aforementioned "experts" are pro-wind energy, so in essence the film sells you a minority's opinion as the ultimate truth. Furthermore, as another reviewer mentioned, most of the technical "experts" appearing to be against wind energy are involved in lobbyist commitees that are also pro-fossil fuel and anti-clean energy in general (i.e. they are against any form of clean energy and just want the world to keep on burning oil), which are mostly funded by right-wing groups & businesses, like the Koch Brothers. Likewise, the studies presented are also extremely biased and mostly unsupported by any clear evidence, and wouldn't appear in a scientific journal in a thousand years. One example is the Wind Turbine Syndrome disease that is mentioned. This is a supposed array of symptoms such as sleep deprivation and headaches caused by the noise a wind turbine makes. A little history on this "disease": It was presented by a doctor after receiving calls from 23 anti-wind protesters who wanted a wind farm out of their town, long before it was built. However, most medical scientists do not recognise it as a valid disease, and studies made to investigate it further came up with absolutely no evidence of wind farms producing such symptoms. There were also several court cases in US, Europe and Canada, where the judges rejected the claims that wind farms were causing any health issues. Especially since the loudest windfarm produces about 44 dB (a normal conversation is at 60-80 dB, while a whisper in a quiet library is at about 30 dB), and laws specify that they must be placed at least 550 metres away from any civilian structures. Most scientists & legal counsel suggest that "Wind turbine syndrome" is an urban legend spread by anti-wind activist groups. My suggestion is, you watch a BBC documentary called "Windfarm Wars", which has the same idea as this one (shows the UK town of Devon, split in half by those who are for a wind farm construction and those against it), which is quite unbiased and presents the arguments from both sides on an equal level. SIDE NOTE: A couple reviewers (wco-president & renait1) seem to be bots giving out dishonest reviews to favor the film. Also, another reviewer claims that stuff like "little red lights flashing all night" are harmful to people (have you been living in the middle of the jungle all your life?) and that most vote-downs on the film are made by "wind-turbine advocates who value technology over aesthetics". Also he cites a Stanford 2009 study, which says that to match up the energy output of oil needed by the world today with ONLY wind energy, we'd need 4 million turbines worldwide, however the same study states that the cost and materials needed are quite minimal, and surely other forms of clean energy can be used (solar, wave). According to the study the only constraint to achieving this are the sociological barriers anti-clean energy lobbyists and activist groups put forth, and are mostly only coming from the US.

• Windfall flawed and biased

  mbarnardca2012-05-10

  Windfall gets marks for being a fairly polished attack on wind energy. However, it is deeply one-sided. The primary creator protested against the wind farm from long before it was erected, stirring up anti-wind animosity. The sole technical consultant, Lisa Linowes, is a long-time anti-wind advocate with funding links to the Koch Brothers and the Heartland Institute, large supporters of anti-renewable, pro-fossil fuel propaganda. (Google the Checks and Balances Project entry on Lisa Linowes for full background not this.) No counter-balance was provided to Ms. Linowes inaccurate and biased views. Windfall promotes and supports the health hysteria named Wind Turbine Syndrome. This syndrome, named by Dr. Nina Pierpont after a set of 23 phone interviews in a methodologically flawed and biased study, is a psychogenic illness. A true documentary film-maker could have produced an interesting documentary on the small town, the wind farm that went in and the resulting pros and cons. However, this is not that documentary. Instead, it is an anti-wind advocacy center-piece that local anti-wind groups across the USA are airing to spread disinformation and create more opposition to wind energy.

• Not the best film to watch if you want a clear picture with all sides of the debate presented fairly.

  MartinHafer2013-08-14

  "Windfall" is an extremely frustrating documentary. I honestly wanted to learn more about wind power--it's benefits and shortcomings. Instead, I saw a very one-sided presentation--and one that really didn't seem to care about data or empirical evidence. So, by the time the film was complete, I felt confused and a bit angry, as it wasn't helpful in helping me learn anything other than a particular town didn't want them. This film is set in a rural portion of New York State--farm country. Apparently, some wind power companies thought the location ideal for installing some wind turbines. However, as soon as word got out, the N.I.M.B.Y. (Not in my backyard) phenomenon occurred--with folks arguing vociferously about these eyesores. I understood this aspect of the argument--the structures are unsightly and the direct financial benefit is usually seen by a few individuals, not the entire community (as rents are paid to the landowner, not the neighbors who have to look at them). But then the arguments got very, very strange against the windmills. All sorts of insane arguments were presented as fact--that the turbines cause tinnitus, heart palpitations, itching (!!), will fall on people and squish them and that they are incredibly loud (though NO evidence was submitted regarding this other than anecdotal reports--and reports I've read on my own would clearly contradict this assertion). This is when I noticed that NONE of the many arguments against the towers were based on scientific data but alarmism and emotion. And, this was even true in cases where I WAS sympathetic to the people in the community--why didn't they provide data about how these windmills would cause a drop in property values?! Why? Well, it seems that it's because the people making this film had no interest in having an honest discussion of the problem--just scare the crap out of people and create a climate identical to the arguments against solar, nuclear and fossil fuels!! So what do we use for power...treadmills?! A good documentary should at least give the appearance that it is objective--this one didn't try in the least. Poorly made, poorly constructed and illogical.

• Beautifully Filmed, Well-Balanced Look at the Potential Perils of Wind Energy

  renait12011-07-13

  To start, the art direction, the cinematography, the soundtrack, the editing -- all excellent. So the film is a pleasure to look at and a pleasure to listen to - which is sort of unusual for a first film. And the subject matter couldn't be more topical or more important. Ms. Israel has given us a look at wind energy on the local level -- the pros and cons from an energy standpoint and the effects on a small community when the wind company strategy is obviously to divide and conquer. It clearly achieved at least the divide part of that strategy. The film also makes a great case for doing your homework. There are green energy sources that are productive and actually good for the community. But not every energy technology that touts itself as "green" is either productive or good. The wind company in this film, an Irish outfit called Airtricity, seems to be taking advantage of tax incentives and carpetbagger-style quick profits. They certainly aren't looking to fill even local energy needs by scattering isolated wind turbines in residential rural communities. These turbines use more energy than they create and the air company won't be around 10 years from now when the turbines need repair or replacement (images of a 400-foot turbine burning uncontrollably while tiny firetrucks stand by helplessly on the ground far, far below bring that point home very dramatically) - they'll have sold them to another outfit looking for the same subsidies and quick profits. Ms. Israel provides viewpoints from both sides of the aisle and the science is explained clearly and succinctly. Much of her focus is on the local town council as it debates the potential impact of wind power on this one small community. These are real people, most of them really trying to do the right thing -- but their town is never going to be the same. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I recommend that anyone who has an interest in alternative energy technology - or an inclination to do something to help - see this film. It's really first rate.

• Industrial landscapes are only "green" in a narrow context.

  A.N.2012-06-15

  The low IMDb rating of this documentary was surely weighted by wind turbine advocates who value technology over aesthetics. This film has a clear bias but I'd call it a morally honest bias. Questioning wind turbines is similar to protesting dam-building (aka larger turbines) or mountaintop-removal coal mining. The CO2 aspect alone shouldn't blind people to the tragedy of lost natural scenery and invasive noise. They forget what makes life worth living. This film does a good job of following Meredith New York's local planning decisions and the rancor that results when turbine-pushers come into town and pit neighbors against each other. It also plays as a mystery, since you don't know who will prevail until the end. The technical info was more thorough than expected from a catch-all documentary, but more would have been welcome, like a discussion of flashing red lights all night long. Prior to seeing this, I'd watched a documentary about Tug Hill NY (on YouTube) and this also included a segment on that ravaged town. Good points are made about the number of turbines increasing beyond what was originally claimed. It costs too much to develop a new area without first saturating landscapes they've already invaded. I am baffled by anyone who claims to be pro-nature and downplays the landscape intrusions of 400-foot spinning towers. One needn't be a global warming denier to see both the windfalls and pitfalls. A lot of dishonest environmentalism surrounds this topic. Turbine impacts are impossible to ignore unless you have pitch black sunglasses and earplugs. Were these people ever true environmentalists or just technology buffs? The naivety of people who think large wind turbines won't really affect their quality of life has always seemed odd, but documentaries like this and various websites are exposing industry hype. We need as many documentaries as possible on this topic. It's clear that wind power companies are not very concerned about nature, which puts them in the same league as oil and gas drillers, regardless of the "green" badge. The least they could do is make wind turbines green or brown to try to blend them in, but that would probably result in even more bird kills. I've seen these turbines up close in California and Washington and I've listened to the noise. It's exactly as depicted in this documentary and nobody should remain passive about it. One disappointment was the emphasis on turbines mainly affecting people (with noise and shadow flicker, that is). Surely turbines are affecting land-based animals in remote areas? Those animals have no means of complaining about health until they're autopsied and many probably die unnoticed. Turbines inject unnatural sounds and pressures into landscapes that never evolved in their presence. It can't be a benign effect. According to a 2009 Stanford study, the future scale of wind turbines calls for nearly 4 million LARGE machines across the globe to just partly help replace oil. That should be depressing to anyone who respects what little acreage remains untrammeled by human activity. If even half those turbines end up being built, I doubt there'd be many places where you wouldn't be able to see them or their transmission lines. "Windfall" has some good graphics on that. The end of economic & population growthism (to fuel an insane fiat money scheme) should take precedence over ill-advised forms of "green" energy. Wind on a small scale with much shorter towers seems fine, but not these glaring monsters. I hope that large turbines already in place are someday swapped out for something smaller and better on existing concrete pads, if not torn down altogether. P.S. The 2012 film "Promised Land" was originally going to be about wind turbines before they changed the theme to fracking. Few energy technologies are benign, but solar seems the least disruptive.