↓ Skip to main content

Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
40 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature
Published in
Environmental Health, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-10-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loren D Knopper, Christopher A Ollson

Abstract

Wind power has been harnessed as a source of power around the world. Debate is ongoing with respect to the relationship between reported health effects and wind turbines, specifically in terms of audible and inaudible noise. As a result, minimum setback distances have been established world-wide to reduce or avoid potential complaints from, or potential effects to, people living in proximity to wind turbines. People interested in this debate turn to two sources of information to make informed decisions: scientific peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals and the popular literature and internet.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 342 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 59 17%
Student > Master 57 16%
Researcher 48 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 13%
Other 23 7%
Other 47 13%
Unknown 70 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 66 19%
Engineering 52 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 6%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Other 80 23%
Unknown 85 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 133. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2024.
All research outputs
#311,238
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#98
of 1,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,091
of 137,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 137,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.