Wind Turbines and health

It seems that complaints regarding nearby wind farms, regarding illness or simply annoyance, are often related to negative feelings about the wind farms. A feeling that a wind farm has somehow violated a person's space can be very important.

Finally, we must consider the health problems that we will face if we do not build wind farms.

Introduction

Why I don't believe that wind turbines cause illness There are several reasons why I do not believe that wind turbines cause illness beyond some annoyance, noise problems, and anxiety (which may lead on to psychosomatic disorders): Science: There is nothing in the published scientific literature indicating a direct link between wind turbines and ill-health; Cause: There is no known mechanism by which turbines could make people ill; Selectivity: The great majority of people are unaffected and the alleged cases of illness are almost all in people who get no financial benefit from the wind turbines and in those who started with negative opinions about turbines; farmers who are receiving lease payments and wind farm workers hardly ever claim a problem with turbines; the problems are almost entirely confined to English speaking countries; Symptoms: While I have no expertise in the field, I believe that the symptoms associated with wind turbines are those of anxiety-related disorders (see Opinion from a clinical psychologist); My own experience: I have visited many wind farms on many occasions and have even slept beneath operating wind turbines twice. I have never heard sounds from the turbines loud enough to be unpleasant. I have never felt any ill-effects that might be ascribed to infrasound or any other emanations from the turbines. Human propensity for false beliefs There are well proven common causes for ill-health that humans manage to ignore, the high level of salt in prepared foods is one of these; and there are other things that many people believe make them ill, but for which evidence is lacking. At various times and places people have believed that they have been made sick by sorcery, the evil eye, curses and witches; more recently and controversially, by high tension power lines, vaccinations and mobile telephone transmissions. Evidence has been lacking. People are very prone to believe things for which there is no convincing evidence, water divining, for example. Google 'alien abduction' and you get three-quarters of a million hits. Recently there has been a lot of publicity of supposedly recovered memories of sexual molestation in childhood that have turned out to actually be induced false memories. Then there's religion, at most only one of the Worlds innumerable religions or branches of religions can be right. Psychosomatic disorder Defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica as "A condition in which psychological stresses adversely affect physiological (somatic) functioning to the point of distress." In relation to wind turbines, psychosomatic – and its near synonym, 'psychogenic' – apply to illnesses brought about by anxiety or stress relating to the turbines. While these illnesses might cause very real symptoms, they are due to the anxiety, not directly to the turbines. People can become stressed by almost anything. I could become stressed by a magpie that regularly swoops on me, for example. The stress then could cause me to become ill. Would reasonable people then say that the magpie made me ill, or rather would they say that it was a disproportional emotional response to the swooping magpie that brought about my illness?

"To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects." (Loren D. Knopper and Christoper A. Ollson in 'Health Effects and Wind Turbines: A Review of the Literature'; Environmental Health, 2011/09/14; see Links.)

In their submission to the Senate inquiry into 'The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms' the CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) make the point that members of their union have not had any problems with illnesses caused by wind turbines in spite of working at very close quarters with them.

Most of the people who report illness that they blame on the wind turbines had negative opinions on the turbines before the wind farm involved was built and receive no direct financial benefit from it. Wind turbines are tall and are often built on the tops of ridges, so they are conspicuous. People living near turbines and having negative views about them are continually reminded of their presence, quite possibly leading to a feeling of being threatened.

Some, or even many, of those who claim that turbines cause sickness would have us believe that there is something coming from wind turbines, other than the sounds that everyone who visits a wind farm can hear, and beyond the low levels of infrasound that acousticians can detect, that makes people sick; and yet they seem unable to tell us what that thing is. This seems to me to be the greatest weakness in the argument that turbines cause illness.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released a report in July 2010 stating that "there is no published scientific evidence to support adverse effects of wind turbines on health." The Victorian Department of Health (DH) (WorkSafe, 2010) has examined both the peer-reviewed and validated scientific research and concluded that "the weight of evidence indicated that there are no direct health effects from noise (audible and inaudible) at the levels generated by modern wind turbines."

Humans are notoriously inclined to believe things without supporting evidence, in particular they have wrongly blamed illness on innumerable supposed causes throughout history. This should make us very wary about carefully looking at the evidence.

Due to the lack of convincing evidence, my own opinion has varied between thinking that it is unbelievable that wind turbines could make people sick to accepting that they might, under some circumstances, make some people sick. (There is nothing wrong with being undecided. I have written elsewhere of the importance of doubt. In fact when the evidence one way or the other is inconclusive we should be particularly careful to not make up our minds. As Bertrand Russell said, "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction.")

The illnesses claimed to be caused by wind turbines have been grouped together by Dr Nina Pierpont under the name 'wind turbine syndrome'. A report commissioned by the Canadian and American wind industry associations pointed out that the symptoms of wind turbine syndrome are the same as those seen in the general population due to the stresses of daily life.

In his Paper "Wind Turbine Syndrome – An appraisal" dated 26 August 2009, Dr Leventhall critiques the work of Dr Nina Pierpont but does agree with Dr Pierpont concerning the symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome. "I am happy to accept these symptoms, as they have been known to me for many years as the symptoms of extreme psychological stress from environmental noise, particularly low frequency noise. The symptoms have been published before".

In his testimony to the Australian Senate Inquiry into the Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms Mr Ken Andrew McAlpine (Director; Policy and Government Relations, Asia-Pacific Region, Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd) pointed out that health concerns about wind turbines are confined to those areas where there are significant lobbies telling people that turbines are making them ill: Australia, in the north-eastern US (where Nina Pierpont comes from), some regions of Canada, and in the UK where the Country Guardians group publicises the claims. He said that "In the other countries in which [Vestas] operates this is a very rare thing."

Sound (or noise) seems to be the main concern

1. The main, but not the only, health concerns are related to sound from wind turbines: that sound may be audible or infrasound;
2. Sound levels from turbines are much too low to cause the physical damage to hearing associated with loud sounds such as jack-hammers, rock bands, etc.;
3. The sound problems are greatest when the air is calm at low levels (around houses), but moving at higher levels (at turbine height); this situation happens most often at night – the night is quite, but the turbines are working and making sound.

Pedersen and Persson Waye surveyed 725 people in the Netherlands (2009) regarding the level of annoyance they perceived from various sources. Their results indicated that the sound from wind turbines was more annoying than similar levels of sound from road, rail and air traffic.

It has been claimed that domestic animals have also been negatively affected by wind turbines: it has been claimed that lambing rates and milk production declined, dogs were made nervous, that the health of honey bees has been adversely affected, but there is no convincing evidence for these claims.

There is no known mechanism by which wind turbines might cause the health problems claimed by wind farm opponents. There is a lack of evidence that sound, audible or infrasound, at low levels is harmful. The lack of a mechanism is a major flaw in the case for wind turbine syndrome. Of course it is quite possible that some people become anxious about the wind turbines and then the anxiety leads to illness (see psychosomatic disorder).

There is reason to believe that some people claim intolerable noise in order to justify compensation for a home that they had previously been unable to sell for a price sufficient to buy in a more attractive area.

Health problems without wind farms

The proven health problems relating to the burning of fossil fuels (especially coal, bunkering oil used for shipping, and diesel oil) are far worse than any that are claimed to be caused by wind turbines. For example, Wikipedia, Environmental effects of coal burning, states that "Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24 000 lives a year in the United States, including 2 800 from lung cancer".

Proven harmful substances released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels include: particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and mercury; among others.

Factors other than sound that have been claimed to cause ill-health

Shadow flicker

Shadow flicker from turbines can only fall on a house a kilometre or more from a turbine for a few minutes in any one day; and because the sun moves north or south with the seasons the house will probably be subject to flicker from that turbine for no more than a few days in each year.

The regular blocking and unblocking of the direct sun-light by the rotating turbine blades could well be annoying, but has not been shown to cause ill-health. For shadow flicker to pose a potential risk of inducing photosensitive seizures the frequency must be greater than 3 Hz; utility class wind turbines such as those in Australia have a frequency around 1 Hz.

The Australian Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) in their National Wind Farm Development Guidelines draft of July 2010 stated that:

"The main risk associated with shadow flicker is the potential to disturb residents in the immediate vicinity. Investigations undertaken when developing these Guidelines determined that the potential risk for epileptic seizures and distraction of drivers is negligible to people living, visiting or driving near a wind farm."

The UK Centre for Sustainable Energy published a document Common concerns about wind power which stated that "Due to the size and speed of modern commercial wind turbines, there is no risk of shadow flicker causing photo-epileptic seizures in vulnerable persons".

Wind Turbine Syndrome
Symptoms claimed to be associated with wind turbines

1. Sleep disturbance, with a special kind of awakening in a state of high alarm. This applies to both adults and children. Severe sleep deprivation.
2. Headaches. Exacerbations of migraines, brought on by either noise or by light flicker. This refers to the strobe-like effect in rooms when turbine blade shadows repetitively pass over a window. People without a history of migraine also got severe headaches from turbine exposure.
3. Pressure and pain in ears and eyes. Tinnitus or ringing in the ears. Distortions of hearing. Buzzing inside the head.
4. Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness, and nausea, essentially seasickness on land.
5. Sensations of internal pulsation or movement, in the chest or abdomen, associated with panic-like episodes, in people who had no previous episodes of panic. These episodes occurred while awake or asleep, awakening the affected people from sleep.
6. Problems with memory and concentration. Irritability and loss of energy and motivation. School and behaviour problems in children. Increased aggression in both adults and children.

Elevated blood pressure has been claimed to be associated with wind turbine noise in Australia; this is measurable, but it is also strongly associated with anxiety.

Nina Pierpont's research into the health effects of wind turbine noise

The author's net page is at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/. The National Health Service of the UK produced a Net page that discussed Pierpont's research. Quoting from their page:

"This study provides no conclusive evidence that wind turbines have an effect on health or are causing the set of symptoms described here as 'wind turbine syndrome'. The study design was weak, the study was small and there was no comparison group."

"However, it is physically and biologically plausible that low frequency noise generated by wind turbines can affect people, and the author puts forward several possible theories regarding this."

Valid questions have been raised about the claim that Pierpont's book was properly peer-reviewed and there are valid criticisms of her methodology; in particular Pierpont's subjects were few (38 people from ten families), apparently selected because they claimed to have health problems that they ascribed to wind turbines, and there was no control group. This is not to say that she is necessarily wrong.

Pierpont: Wind Turbine Syndrome and the Brain

This document discusses a mechanism that could explain how sub-audible infrasound could cause responses in the brain. Pierpont seems to believe this sufficient to prove her case that wind turbines are making people ill (in regard to this document, by causing tinnitus), but it seems to me to fall far short of achieving that. (I do, however, hold that quality research into any possible link between wind turbines and ill health is well justified.)

There are several particular points about Pierpont's latest paper that make me cautious about placing much credence in it.

1   On page 2 Pierpont states:

"58% of the adults and older teens in my sample of affected families had tinnitus. In the general population, it's 4%."

"Three thousand six hundred randomly selected adults in the city of Gothenburg (425,000 inhabitants) stratified by age and gender, were questioned by mail concerning tinnitus. We received 66% useful answers, 14.2% suffered from tinnitus 'often' or 'always'."

2   Pierpont uses the name 'The New England Journal of Medicine' (in large print) and their logo (page 4), apparently to lend credibility to her document. The quote from NEJM apparently regards structural changes in the brain relating to tinnitus and in no way confirms Pierpont's thesis that wind turbines cause tinnitus.

The case against turbines is unconvincing and/or incomplete

The need for primary research
Independent quality research into wind turbines and health is lacking

The journal Environmental Health published a paper by Loren D Knopper and Christopher A Ollson on 2011/09/14, Health Effects and Wind Turbines: A Review of the Literature, which suggests no direct causal link between wind turbines and ill-health. And recent research done by Professor Garry Wittert of University of Adelaide (no increase in medication use for people living near wind farms) is useful.

However, there are still questions about wind turbines and health or annoyance that are difficult for the general public to find unbiased answers for; for example:

• If a wind turbine is going to be built x metres from my home, how often am I likely to hear it?
• Is it likely to be loud enough to be annoying or keep me awake at night?
• Is noise from wind turbines more annoying than other noises of similar intensities?
• Do wind turbines harm some people's health by any mechanisms beyond noise, annoyance, anxiety or fear?

Thorough primary scientific research (not simply studies of exiting research) into human and animal heath and annoyance due to sound and infrasound from wind turbines should be carried out, and it should be done on behalf of government, the wind industry, and the general public so that the research can be seen to be unbiased. A single two or three megawatt wind turbine costs around four million dollars to erect and connect into the power grid. There are at present about a thousand such turbines in Australia. Surely several hundred thousand dollars spent on independent quality research would be well justified.

In my opinion the research would have to be multidisciplinary. It would require researchers with experience in acoustics (particularly, but not exclusively in infrasound), psychology, animal health, and human physical health (particularly hearing) at least. The aspects that should be researched would include (these points would need to be refined):

• An examination of the existing primary research published in respectable peer-reviewed journals in the last 15 years (Confined to the last 15 years because there were no large wind turbines before that. There is very little such research.)
• A survey of those people who live near wind turbines, their health problems, and whether those problems are related to the turbines.
• A psychological study of the perceived health problems and their causes (are the health concerns psychosomatic?).
• A survey of the number of people who have moved away from wind turbines for health or other reasons, and research or investigation into their reasons and motives.
• Research into the health of animals that graze near wind turbines. (Things like breeding rates and growth rates can be readily measured. If turbines make humans ill we should expect similar illness in domestic animals.)
• Research into the mechanisms, if any, by which wind turbines cause ill-health in animals and humans (sound and infrasound are most often cited).

Research by Professor Gary Wittert This research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but was mentioned on ABC TV's Four Corners of 2011/07/25. Professor Wittert, who is head of the School of Medicine at Adelaide University, looked at the medical prescriptions dispensed to people living within ten kilometres of several wind farms and compared this with a control group. He found that "There is no hint of any effect on a population basis for an increased use of sleeping pills or blood pressure or cardiovascular medications whatsoever" in the people living close to wind farms. This suggests that wind turbines have no effect on health at all, not even a psychosomatic effect (except perhaps in numbers of people so small as to be statistically insignificant). Interestingly it would also suggest that the efforts of organisations like The Waubra Foundation and Dr Sarah Laurie, with their foretelling of a health catastrophe brought about by wind turbines, are having no adverse effect on health (or again, only in a few people). The study involved ten to twelve thousand people and four wind farms, Waubra and Yambuk in Victoria and Hallett Hill and Snowtown in SA. It would be interesting to know how Professor Wittert's team found out exactly, or approximately, where all the people in the study lived. I will update this section when the research is published or as I get more information. Clinical psychologist Dr Sarah Edelman commented on Prof. Wittert's research results, and anxiety related symptoms, elswhere on this page.

The NHMRC report

The NHMRC report references very little recent primary research into human and animal health published in respectable science journals; the research must be recent because large turbines (>1MW) have only been in common use since the early years of this century. (There has been very little recent primary research.) The NHMRC report is, itself, not peer-reviewed science.

The NHMRC report mentioned the nocebo effect...

"Noise can be defined as any undesirable or unwanted sound. The perception of the noise is also influenced by the attitude of the hearer towards the sound source. This is sometimes called the nocebo effect, which is the opposite of the better known placebo effect. If people have been preconditioned to hold negative opinions about a noise source, they are more likely to be affected by it (AusWEA, 2004)."

Mechanism: how could turbines make people ill?

Analogy to motor car Wind turbines are just machines, big and sophisticated machines, but machines all the same. They have three main parts, a fan, a gearbox and a generator. All these parts are found in many other machines. Wind turbines produce sound and some small amount of electromagnetic radiation, just as most other machines do; they don't produce any rays or waves or emanations that are unique. A motor car has all three of the main components of a wind turbine. How many people are concerned that their car might be making them ill?

My opinion I have visited many wind farms and listened to many turbines. I am unable to imagine how they could make people ill. It could be said that when nuclear radiation was discovered no-one was able to imagine how it could make people ill; but science has come a long way since then. What possible harmful emanations could be coming from wind turbines that don't come from other machines or from nature?

Wind turbines are machines that have mechanical, electrical and aerodynamic parts and functions. They are incapable of producing any rays or emanations that are not produced by many other machines. Diesel-electric locomotives are similar large electro-mechanical machines.

If turbines could possibly make anybody ill the main possible cause would seem to be the sounds that turbines make, but sounds, either audible or infrasound, have not been shown to be harmful unless they are far louder than those produced by wind turbines. Road vehicles produce similar sounds and at higher intensities.

The sounds from turbines have been said to have 'special audible characteristics' (SACs) that cause health problems. How the SACs cause their harm has not been explained. A report commissioned by the Canadian and American wind industry associations found that low frequency and very low-frequency infrasound produced by wind turbines are the same as those produced by vehicular traffic and home appliances.

Home Wind home Top Index

Health effects relating to noise

"Excessive noise may cause annoyance, disturbance of activities such as watching TV, or sleep disturbance when received at a noise-sensitive location such as a dwelling. At higher levels, environmental noise has been linked to long term health issues such as raised blood pressure and cardiovascular disease."

An expert panel review of Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects conducted for the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association is available from the American Wind Energy Association;

"Together AWEA and CanWEA proposed to a number of independent groups that they examine the scientific validity of recent reports on the adverse health effects of wind turbine proximity. Such reports have raised public concern about wind turbine exposure. In the absence of declared commitment to such an effort from independent groups, the wind industry decided to be proactive and address the issue itself."

• There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.
• The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.
• The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel's experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, that the sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences.

(Also see Noise and wind turbines.)

Home Wind home Top Index

Infrasound

The Wikipedia article on infrasound also gave many natural sources: including severe weather, surf and waterfalls; man-made infrasound sources can include machinery including "older designs of down tower wind turbines" (turbines with the tower up-wind from the blades). I have noticed that an unpleasant level of infrasound can be produced by the resonance that can be set up inside a car with one or more window (especially rear window) partly open.

I have been unable to find any research that has been published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals that link infrasound from wind turbines to health problems.

One reference, "Infrasound Toxicological Summary November 2001, Infrasound, Brief Review of Toxicological Literature" (see Links), cited many studies into infrasound and health; most suggested that there were no ill-effects at levels below about 110dB, higher than levels detected from wind turbines. This document did not specifically mention wind turbines.

There have been some suggestions that levels of infrasound greater than 110dB – not 110dB(A) – can be produced by some wind turbines in some circumstances.

The consultancy Sonus produced a report on wind farm "Environmental Noise" for the Australian Clean Energy Council dated November 2010. In regard to infrasound it stated:

"Whilst the aerodynamic noise from a rotating turbine blade produces energy in the infrasound range, measurements of infrasound noise emissions from modern upwind turbines indicates that at distances of 200 metres, infrasound is in the order of 25 dB below the recognised perception threshold of 85 dB(G) and other similar recognised perception thresholds (Hayes Mckenzie Partnership Ltd, 2006). A 25 dB difference is significant and represents at least a 100 fold difference in energy content. Infrasound also reduces in level when moving away from the source, and separation distances between wind farms and dwellings are generally well in excess of 200m. "

While there seems to be no convincing evidence that low levels of infrasound can cause illness, if they are strong enough to be audible they may well cause annoyance and anxiety.

The UK Centre for Sustainable Energy published a document Common concerns about wind power that includes a discussion of infrasound in this context.

I believe that most turbines of the Mid-North South Australian wind farms are at least 1km from occupied homes.

The minimum distance that a wind turbine should be from an occupied house is partly a matter of opinion and, since the sound level varies depending on topography and the direction of the wind, is very difficult to place a definite figure on. My own feeling is that turbines should not be permitted within less than a kilometre of a home without the informed consent of the owner.

The present (early 2011, Liberal) government of Victoria, while in opposition, promised to not allow turbines to be built within two kilometres of a house not financially connected with any wind farm. The wind industry has stated, quite credibly, that if this rule is enforced, then the 13 square kilometre exclusion zones around all houses will effectively put a stop to wind power development in that state. To make a wind farm viable the turbines have to be reasonably close together, if there must be large exclusion zones around any houses then the small and isolated bits of land remaining available for turbine construction may well not be enough to make a wind farm a workable proposition.

There has even been a call for not allowing wind turbines within three kilometres from homes, creating 28 square kilometre exclusion zones; this would probably make wind farms unviable anywhere except the largely uninhabited pastoral districts, the deserts, and off-shore. Wind farms can generally not profitably be built in the Outback because of the lack of power transmission lines and the cost of building them off-shore is about twice that of building on-shore.

It is understandable that people, who do not have direct monetary gain from wind turbines, object to having to occasionally hear them. However the urgent need to move away from fossil-fuelled power generation toward sustainable power generation, so minimising climate change, seems to me to quite justify some annoyance to a small proportion of the population.

Anecdotal evidence

There seems no doubt that many people believe they have been made ill by wind turbines. There are claims that people have moved away from some wind farms (Cape Bridgewater, Waubra, Toora) because of illness.

Confusion with infrasound This report has been quoted as if the vibrations studied by the VIRGO group were infrasound – carried by the air – rather than seismic – carried by the soil and rock. (Even in the Senate report on Rural Wind Farms, see section 2.11.) Seismometers are far more sensitive to vibrations transmitted through the ground than are humans. As evidence for this interpretation, note the section "direct surface waves and body waves refracted at a deep ({approx}800 m) interface between the Plio-Pleistocenic marine, fluvial, and lacustrine sediments and the Miocene carbonate basement". Unmistakably seismic rather than air-born acoustics.

A document titled "Seismic Noise by Wind Farms: A Case Study from the VIRGO Gravitational Wave Observatory, Italy" (written by Gilberto Saccorotti, David Piccinini, Lena Cauchie and Irene Fiori) states that

"Among the different spectral peaks thus discriminated, the one at frequency 1.7 Hz has associated the greatest power, and under particular conditions it can be observed at distances as large as 11 km from the wind park."

Seismometers are exquisitely sensitive instruments; they respond to earthquakes on the other side of the earth. If the strongest vibrations from wind turbines are, at best, detectable at a distance of 11km then they must be quite undetectable by human senses at distances of hundreds of metres or more from the turbines.

The above paper further stated that studies had detected seismic waves from wind turbines that were above background levels to distances up to 18km. Seismic background is the vibration of the earth that is happening all the time. The earth is constantly quivering at levels that are quite unnoticeable by humans, but detectable by seismometers.

The stance taken by DEA, and the professional standing of the members of the DEA Scientific Committee members (see the box on the right), should be compared to the stance taken by the Waubra Foundation and lack of any research standing of Dr Sarah Laurie.

DEA made a submission (No. 829) to the Senate inquiry into wind power (2011) which included this summary:

• "Fossil fuels are responsible for a significant disease burden in our community
• Fossil fuels contribute to climate change, which is a major health threat
• Wind power and other renewable energies have the potential to reduce threats to health through reduction in air pollution and mitigation of climate change
• A number of allegations have been made in relation to adverse health effects of living near wind turbines which do not appear to be supported by scientific evidence
• Noise is the predominant concern of people living near turbines, leading to annoyance in a small proportion of exposed people, particularly in association with negative visual impacts or lack of perceived personal benefit. This may have implications for the health and well-being of these individuals.
• However there is no convincing evidence in the scientific literature of direct physiological effects occurring at sound levels commonly associated with modern wind turbines
• There is a need to actively engage people who may be living near wind farms in their development at an early stage, provide accurate health advice, and track and manage complaints appropriately."

Recently the leading medical journal, the Lancet, described the health impacts of climate change as "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century". According to the World Health Organization, climate change is one of the greatest threats to public health and it will affect, in profoundly adverse ways, some of the most fundamental pre-requisites for good health: clean air and water, sufficient food, adequate shelter and freedom from disease.

Extreme weather events such as those which have recently devastated parts of Australia – heatwaves, floods and fires- are predicted to become more frequent and severe. We can expect more threats to food and water security, sea level rises, changes in vector-borne, food and water borne disease, exacerbation of air pollution, increases in aeroallergens, mental health and refugee health impacts. The elderly, the very young, the chronically ill and disadvantaged are likely to suffer most with climate change.

DEA has explored the current literature [regarding the health impacts of living close to wind farms] in order to reach a conclusion as to whether there is evidence to support health concerns. DEA notes that a number of reviews have recently been conducted including the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia (NHMRC 2010), the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Ontario (CMOH 2010) and the Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit (CKPHU 2008). These 5 major reviews have all come to the conclusion that evidence does not support any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and pathological effects in humans.

On the available evidence, DEA considers that the risks of continuing reliance on fossil fuels for the health of Australians and other people on the planet are considerably greater than those posed by any adverse health effects of wind power development and implementation. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that some noise and sound aspects of wind turbines can cause annoyance in a small proportion of sensitive people, and that these should be minimised where ever possible in planning and design. Community engagement and clear information about sound issues are needed from the beginning of the development process.

The CAHA released a Position Statement on Health and wind turbines on 2012/01/24. In part the CAHA said:

"To date, there is no credible peer reviewed scientific evidence that demonstrates a direct causal link between wind turbines and adverse health impacts in people living in proximity to them. There is no evidence for any adverse health effects from wind turbine shadow flicker or electromagnetic frequency. There is no evidence in the peer reviewed published scientific literature that suggests that there are any adverse health effects from 'infrasound' (a component of low frequency sound) at the low levels that may be emitted by wind turbines.

There is some evidence to suggest that audible noise from wind turbines at elevated sound pressure levels may be associated with disturbed sleep and negative emotions. Annoyance levels may be expressed more about wind turbines than for comparable industrial noise, in particular when people hold pre-existing negative attitudes towards turbines. Annoyance may also be related to visual cues.

Fear and anxious anticipation of potential negative impacts of wind farms can also contribute to stress responses, and result in physical and psychological stress symptoms.

In addition, some people experience distress when they perceive a threat to the place that they live in the form of changes to the landscape, like a wind farm, but also other industrial developments, such as new housing estates, coal mines, or supermarkets.

Local concerns about wind farms can be related to perceived threats from changes to their place and can be considered a form of 'place-protection action', recognised in psychological research about the importance of 'place' and people's sense of identity. The literature has previously identified the upsetting nature of place change, leading to feelings of grief or loss. However it is important not to presume that energy projects specifically, and proposals for place change more generally, will necessarily disrupt place attachments. How changes to places are interpreted, rather than the form of change per se, is critical in determining whether the pattern of association between place attachment and acceptance is positive or negative.

Economic reward can also affect attitudes to wind turbines, with people economically involved with wind farms more likely to show a more positive attitude to wind power than those who are not."

The CAHA also submitted a statement to the Senate inquiry into 'The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms' (Submission number 605).

As of 2012/01/24 CAHA's Committee of Management was comprised of:

• Fiona Armstrong (CAHA Convenor and President)
• Erica Bell (Australian Rural Health Education Network)
• Lance Emerson (Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth)
• Bret Hart (Alliance for Future Health)
• Liz Hanna (Royal Collge of Nursing Australia)
• Michael Moore (Public Health Association of Australia)
• Julia Stewart (CRANAplus)
• Kristine Olaris (North Yarra Community Health)
• Elizabeth Reale (Australian Nursing Federation)

• Associate Professor Erica Bell, University Department of Rural Health, University of Tasmania
• Associate Professor Grant Blashki, Nossal Institute for Global Health
• Dr Susie Burke, Senior Psychologist, Public Interest, Environment & Disaster Response, Australian Psychological Society
• Dr Marion Carey, Public Health Research Fellow, Monash Sustainability Institute
• Professor Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Jane Carthey, Director, Centre for Health Assets Australasia, University of NSW
• Professor Anthony Capon, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University
• Professor David Karoly, Federation Fellow in the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
• Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia
• Dr Peter Tait, RACGP General Practitioner of the Year 2007, Alice Springs

CAHA's membership is a highly credible coalition of organisations:

• Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW)
• Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM)
• Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
• Australian Hospitals and Healthcare Association (AHHA)
• Australian Health Promotion Association (AHPA)
• Australian Institute of Health Innovation (AIHI)
• Australian Research Alliance of Children and Youth (ARACY)
• Australian Women's Health Network (AWHN)
• Australian Nursing Federation (ANF)
• Australian Psychological Society (APS)
• Australian Rural Health Education Network (ARHEN)
• CRANAplus
• Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA)
• Doctors Reform Society
• Health Consumers' Network (Qld)
• Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA)
• Royal College of Nursing Australia (RCNA)
• North Yarra Community Health (NYCH)
• Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health (SARRAH)
• Women's Health in the North
• World Vision

On 2011/10/13 the Waubra Foundation net site was claiming on their Our Organisation page that Dr Sarah Laurie (Medical Director of the WF) had an MD degree (a higher research degree). Professor Simon Chapman wrote a piece that was published on Crikey exposing the links that the Waubra Foundation has with anti-wind power groups and mentioning that Dr Laurie did not have an MD degree. I saw on 2011/10/16 that the claim had gone from the Waubra Foundation page.

The 'independence' of the Waubra Foundation I have pointed out the errors in the arguments of those who claim that wind turbines cause ill-health elsewhere on this page. While attacking the credibility of a person or organisation is not a legitimate form of argument, I believe that it is relevant to show that the Waubra Foundation's claim to be an independent body is at least questionable. An interesting and revealing exposé by Sandi Keane can be read on the Independent Australia site (as of August 2011). The Waubra Foundation's claim to be independent is questionable considering that, according to Sandi Keane and other sources: Peter Mitchell, Founder and Chair of the Waubra Foundation helped set up and fund the Australian Landscape Guardians (ALG) and actively opposed Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. He has a number of connections to mining interests, including fossil fuels and uranium; Kathy Russell, another director of the WF, is Vice President of the ALG and was active in opposing the Winchelsea Wind Farm; Another director, Tony Hodgson, helped fund the anti Collector Wind Farm campaign and is involved with the Booroowa Landscape Guardians; Another director, Michael Wooldridge, actively opposed the Bald Hills Wind Farm. The address of the Waubra Foundation is PO Box 1136, South Melbourne 3205, apparently the same as that of the Australian Landscape Guardians and Peter Mitchell. There are no pro-wind-farm members of the Waubra Foundation to balance the anti wind farm members. Some of the above was denied by Dr Laurie. I have not independently tried to see where the truth lies, however no person who was not strongly anti-wind-power would willingly be associated with any organisation whose Medical Director produced statements and demands as outrageous as those made by Dr Laurie. The Australian Landscape Guardians are a vociferous anti-wind-power group that seem to take very little other action to protect landscapes. Peter Mitchell said on the ABC's Four Corners of 2011/07/25 "We are trying to bring to people's attention – developers, bureaucrats, government ministers, that wind turbines are dangerous to residents' health. And that's what I'm on about". This is far more negative than the neutral statements of the official Foundation objectives. The article by Sandi Keane says that "Mitchell certainly has interests in the fossil fuel industry. These include founding Chairman of the Moonie Oil Company Ltd. and Chairman or a Director of related companies including Clyde Petroleum plc, Avalon Energy Inc, North Flinders Mines Ltd, Paringa Mining & Exploration plc (most now delisted on the ASX)." Of course the fossil fuel industry does not want to see sustainable energy taking over from fossil fuels. In their turn the ALG are linked to the so-called Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), an off-shoot of the right-wing think tank the pro-nuclear Institute of Public Affairs. Both the ALG and IPA have climate-change scepticism leanings. Randall Bell, President of the ALG, has said that "claims the Earth is warming are scientifically unreliable" and that only 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by Man.

I believe that the Waubra Foundation have not made public the source of their funding.

Notes on the claims and demands of Dr Sarah Laurie, Medical Director of the Waubra Foundation, are on a separate page.

Dr Laurie provided data on blood pressure and wind turbine operation to the SA Environment Resources and Development Court to justify this claim. The blood pressures were recorded first thing in the morning of a number of days by each of three people living within 5km of the Waubra Wind Farm and related to mean overnight wind turbine generation. The three people involved had clearly elevated blood pressure.

If Dr Laurie's claims were factual, there would be a mathematical correlation between higher levels of wind turbine operation and elevated blood pressure recordings.

Professor Gary Wittert of the University of Adelaide, who gave evidence in the same ERD Court hearing, analysed the data and found that there was no significant correlation between the blood pressures and the wind turbine activity. That is, there was nothing in the record of blood presures and turbine operation that was provided by Dr Laurie to indicate that the blood pressure problem was increased when the turbines were operating.

Dr Sarah Edelman is a clinical psychologist, author and trainer. She worked for many years as a research psychologist and lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney. These days, in addition to her private practice Sarah conducts training programs for psychologists, medical practitioners, industry groups and the general public. She is a frequent guest on 702 ABC radio, and has contributed many articles in professional journals and in the mainstream media. Her book, "Change Your Thinking" (ABC Books) is a best seller in the self-help genre.

Author: Dr Sarah Edelman
Date/Time: 29 Jul 2011 3:31:16pm
Subject: Anxiety is the key

"For any psychologist who specialises in anxiety disorders it is totally unsurprising to see individuals who are stressed and fearful of the wind turbines also experiencing a range of physical symptoms. Our brain is designed to focus on threat. Once we perceive that something bad, dangerous or threatening is in our lives (or in our immediate environment) we become hypervigilant and aroused. People who are in an anxious state typically experience high startle reflex, insomnia, headaches, nausea, twitches, electrical sensations and various other symptoms. I see them every day. The symptoms described by the affected individuals in the [Four Corners] program are very typical somatic symptoms associated with hypervigilance. Some, like the man who described "a sensation of his heart wanting to leap out of his chest, and just feeling as if he was going to – about to die", are experiencing panic attacks.

While some people suggest that these individuals are just noticing random symptoms that we all experience, and attributing them to the wind turbines, in my view the individuals interviewed on the 4 Corners were clearly anxious and distressed, and were experiencing genuine physical symptoms. Anxiety related symptoms are not imagined – they are real. When these individuals leave the area they feel better because they feel safe – hypervigilance drops and nervous arousal subsides. However this is not the same thing as the biological pathways that are being proposed by those who claim a direct causal link between turbines and ill-health.

While somatic (anxiety-related) symptoms are associated with nervous arousal and lots of unpleasant symptoms they are rarely associated with serious medical illness, which is why Prof. Wittert's study found no increase in the prescription of medications for people living in the area. However in vulnerable individuals ongoing anxiety may lead to depression, which is a medical illness, and may be seen in future studies of this population. Further, even if not dangerous, the symptoms are unpleasant and distressing, particularly when individuals believe they reflect serious dangers to their health. Unsurprisingly, insomnia is one of the commonly reported symptoms.

I don't have a strong view about the politics of wind farms, however I do think the scare mongering that is occurring (and especially involving children in the scare campaign) is unhelpful. It perpetuates the problem by feeding the fear that gives rise to anxiety and somatisation in susceptible individuals. I can guarantee that if you can remove threat perceptions, the symptoms will disappear. However banishing fear is a tall order, especially when beliefs are so strong and emotions are hot."

Dr Susie Burke (Senior Psychologist, Public Interest, Environment and Disaster Response, Aust. Psychological Soc. Nat. Office) told me that she agrees with Dr Edelman's comments and that "stress and anxiety are a huge part of the health complaint picture".

The fact is that, so far as I know, nobody has any convincing, scientifically valid, evidence that there is a link between wind turbines and ill-health beyond annoyance, some loss of sleep in a small minority of people, and anxiety.

The purpose of this section is to show that there have been some valid health concerns associated with substances or industries and some concerns that seem, from all the evidence, to be illusory. The valid concerns were shown to be valid by research at an early stage.

If any reader has information showing that I am wrong on any of the points below I'd be pleased to hear about it (references please); my email address is near the top of every one of these pages.

Alleged cause	Mechanism	Scientific literature
Asbestos	Asbestos fibres lodge in the lungs, irritate the tissue, and eventually bring about disease including cancer.	There was ample evidence for the link between asbestos and disease in the scientific literature long before the industry admitted to there being a problem.
Combustion products from the burning of fossil fuels	Particles of partly burned fuel, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and other substances harmful to health are released following the burning of fossil fuels.	This is well documented in the scientific literature.
Electromagnetic radiation from power transmission lines	The low frequency electromagnetic radiation from transmission lines could produce a very little heat in animals, but has far too little power to cause harm.	So far as I know, the scientific literature does not support there being a link between transmission lines and disease.
Mobile phones; mobile phone towers	Similarly to power transmission lines, there is no known mechanism by which phone towers could cause illness. Mobile phones, as they are held very close to the head, could produce warming in the brain.	I know of nothing convincing in the scientific literature linking either mobile phones or mobile phone towers with illness.
Alleged cause	Mechanism	Scientific literature
Salt/sodium	The high level of salt (common salt is sodium chloride) in the modern diet produces an imbalance between sodium and potassium in the body; the sodium/potassium balance is very important to many physiological processes in the body.	There is ample evidence in the scientific literature to show that a high level of salt in diet is linked to a number of illnesses and thousands of additional deaths each year in Australia alone, yet remarkably few people are concerned about it.
Tobacco	There are a number of carcinogens in tobacco smoke, and it can produce many other health problems as well.	There was plenty of evidence for the link between tobacco and disease in the scientific literature long before the industry admitted to there being a problem. The tobacco industry funded research and publicity for many years with the aim of obscuring the facts.
TV screens/computer monitors	Similarly to power transmission lines and mobile phones, there is no known mechanism by which cathode ray tubes could cause illness.	I know of nothing convincing in the scientific literature linking either TVs and computer monitors with physical illness.
Wind turbines	There is no known mechanism by which wind turbines could cause illness.	So far as I know, there is nothing in the scientific literature directly linking wind turbines and illness.

The alleged illnesses associated with wind turbines have been compared to the illnesses cause by tobacco and people in the wind industry have been accused of covering up the evidence as did the people in the tobacco industry. A rational consideration of the evidence seems to show that the two have nothing in common.

Comment by Professor Simon Chapman, Public Health, University of Sydney

Comment by Dr Kenneth Clarke, University of Adelaide

Professor Chapman had also attempted to find out about peer review of these articles; with equally little success.

The British Acoustics Bulletin has just published what is now the 10th independent review of the evidence on wind farms causing annoyance and ill health in people. And for the 10th time it has emphasised that annoyance has far more to do with social and psychological factors in those complaining than any direct effect from sound or inaudible infrasound emanating from wind turbines.

A few extracts give the flavour: "the degree of annoyance is only slightly related to noise level"; "the fact that someone was complaining was mainly determined by the personality of the individual"; "fear of the noise source can increase annoyance"; and "adverse feelings ... were influenced by feelings of lacking control, being subjected to injustice, lacking influence, and not being believed".

The results of an informal poll was published in the Brisbane Times below the letter: the question was "Should state governments embrace wind farm technology?" Of the 2508 votes, 75% were yes, 25% no. Take note SA Liberals.

Simon Chapman, Professor of public health at the Uni. of Sydnew wrote "I've collected blank contract forms from Australian companies and none that I've seen contains such clauses."

There are confidentiality clauses in contracts between land owners and wind farmers involving money. Is is standard practice and reasonable that wind farmers do not want the details of exactly how much they are paying particular farmers to become common knowledge.

Wind power and health: links

• "Climate and Health Alliance is an alliance of stakeholders in the health sector who wish to see the threat of climate change addressed through prompt policy action."
• The peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health (impact factor given as 2.45). Health Effects and Wind Turbines: A Review of the Literature, by Loren D Knopper and Christopher A Ollson, 2011/09/14. Suggests no direct causal link between wind turbines and health.
• The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released a report on Wind Turbines and Health in July 2010.
• The National Health Service of the UK produced a Net page titled 'Are wind farms a health risk?' that discussed Nina Pierpont's research.
• Evaluation of the Scientific Literature on the Health Effects Associated with Wind Turbines and Low Frequency Sound prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
• Wikipedia has an extensive page on the Environmental effects of wind power and a page on Infrasound.
• An expert panel review of Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects conducted for the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association is available from the American Wind Energy Association;
• Doctors for the Environment Australia are a group of medical doctors who have pointed out that the health effects of alternatives to wind power are far worse than any from wind turbines.
• The UK Centre for Sustainable Energy published a document Common concerns about wind power in May 2011.
• Massachusetts (USA) Dept. of Public Health wind turbine impact study; report by an impressive expert panel, January 2012. Difficult to summarise in a few words, but suggests no direct adverse health effects from turbines.
• ABC radio interview between Angela Owens and Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of Sydney, on wind turbines and health.
• Senate inquiry into The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms.
• Independent Australia's The ugly landscape of the Guardians is an exposé by Sandi Keane on the less than shiny-white links between the Waubra Foundation, the Australian Landscape Guardians, the Institute of Public Affairs, the fossil fuel industry and others.
• Strategic Health Impact Assessment On Wind Energy Development In Oregon. A 106 page review of the literature. No direct links found between wind turbines and health apart from anxiety related matters.

• A paper by Kawano, A., H. Yamaguchi, and S. Funasaka; 1991; stated... "Drivers of long distance transport trucks exposed to infrasound at about 115 dBA had no statistically significant incidence of fatigue, yawning, sleepiness, vertigo, tinnitus, headache, subdued sensation, hearing impairment, abdominal symptoms, or hypertension when analysed with respect to exposure, work hours, driving hours, and rest hours. 'Exposure to about 115 dBA of infrasound has no effect on humans.'"

  Infrasound: Brief Review of Toxicological Literature, published by the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Deals with the effects of infrasound on human health, not specifically with infrasound from wind turbines. Most papers referred to state that harmful effects of infrasound do not occur below around 110dB, well above the levels recorded from wind turbines (for example, in the Executive summary, it is stated that "short periods of continuous exposures to infrasound below 150 dB are safe and that continuous exposures up to 24 hours are safe if the levels are below 118 dB.") The paper noted in the box on the right is significant.

Information suggesting annoyance or adverse health effects from wind turbines

Peer-reviewed

Pedersen E, Waye KP, Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose-response relationship. Journal Acoustic Soc. Am. 2004. Science Watch rates Journal Acoustic Soc. Am. at an impact factor of 2.98 (2004-2008).

"Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines" Alec N. Salt, Timothy E. Hullar (Elsevier, Hearing Research (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.06.007). Elsevier claim an impact factor of 2.177 for the Hearing Research journal.

Not peer reviewed, but interesting

The Society for Wind Vigilance, Analysis of the NHMRC Rapid Review and Low frequency noise and wind turbines.

Dr Christopher Hanning:
"Sleep disturbance and wind turbine noise" on behalf of the Stop Swinford Wind Farm Action Group, dated June 2009. This document can be downloaded from Industrial Wind Action Group.

Carl V. Phillips:
"An Analysis of the Epidemiology and Related Evidence on the Health Effects of Wind Turbines on Local Residents" Wind Action

Richard D. Horonjeff:
"Siting of Wind Turbines With Respect to Noise Emissions and their Health and Welfare Effects on Humans" Wind Action

Jerry Punch, Richard James, and Dan Pabst:
An article in Audiology Today, Jul-Aug 2010, stated that "the low-frequency noise and vibration emitted by wind turbines may have adverse health effects on humans". In late July 2010 this was available here. (This article is flawed from a scientific point of view, and it is questionable whether the journal is peer-reviewed. It has no impact factor that I could find, which makes its standing in the field questionable.)

Index