↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, ‘Communicated Disease’ Hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
60 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, ‘Communicated Disease’ Hypothesis
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0076584
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Chapman, Alexis St. George, Karen Waller, Vince Cakic

Abstract

With often florid allegations about health problems arising from wind turbine exposure now widespread, nocebo effects potentially confound any future investigation of turbine health impact. Historical audits of health complaints are therefore important. We test 4 hypotheses relevant to psychogenic explanations of the variable timing and distribution of health and noise complaints about wind farms in Australia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Environmental Science 10 12%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Arts and Humanities 6 7%
Other 24 29%
Unknown 18 22%