Wind Turbines and health: a page of Wind in the Bush

Most importantly, apart from the sound that turbines make, which is not loud, how could turbines make people ill; what could be the mechanism? Some people do find the sound of wind turbines annoying and this causes some people sleeping problems.

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.

Using this page: some hints

We can chose one of two theories that seek to explain this:

Theory 1 The symptoms are caused by the nocebo effect, often combined with fear and anxiety (as discussed in the opinion of a clinical psychologist);

Theory 2 The symptoms are caused by something coming from the wind turbines; in which case we must also accept that: Something unknown to science is coming from the wind turbines – or there is some quality in the sound of wind turbines unexplained by science – to cause the symptoms, because we know that the sound (including infrasound) is not loud enough to be harming anyone; There is a huge range in people's susceptability to whatever it is that is coming from the turbines; for example wind farm workers who have thousands of times the exposure of 'affected people' are almost always unaffected. We must suspend the inverse square law of physics as it would normally apply to anything coming from wind turbines; The dose-response relationship, that applies to all other environmental diseases, does not apply to 'wind turbine syndrome', or is even reversed; There is something different happening around wind turbines in the English speaking world, because very few people in non-English-speaking countries develop these symptoms.

Which theory sounds the more plausible?

The principal of Ockham's Razor tells us that if more than one hypothesis fits the available evidence then the simplest one is to be preferred. One is also reminded of the Sagan Standard in which exceptional claims call for exceptional evidence to support them. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence supporting the 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' claim.

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.

"Health economists have evaluated the health benefits associated with emissions reductions in Europe, China, India and Britain, and the findings suggest improvements for health are available immediately – and can amount to billions of dollars saved annually from avoided ill health and productivity gains. For example, in 2010 it was predicted that cleaner air from an emissions reduction target of 30 per cent by 2020 in the European Union would deliver savings worth 80 billion euros a year due to reductions in the incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (associated with air pollution from burning fossil fuels)."

Also see impact factor of science publications.

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

Nina Pierpont, the paediatrician and PhD who coined the phrase 'wind turbine syndrome' (and wrote a book on it), listed the following symptoms when addressing the Hammond (New York) Wind Committee on July 5th 2010:

Letter published in Goulburn Post, 2012/10/17 "I feel I must put my position as a practising GP in the Bungendore community where a large number of wind turbines have been operating since 2009. I have not seen anyone with wind turbine syndrome and not even anyone who attributes any symptoms to wind turbine syndrome. There are some people who attribute their annoyance to the turbines, because they are there and sometimes because of the turbines noise as they hear it. The research throughout the world does not support wind turbine syndrome and nor does it (research) give credibility to the phenomenon of infrasound's ill effects: on this last matter there would be a range of credible data. I write this in an attempt to encourage some balance. Dr Marjorie Cross MBBS, FRACGP" I must express my appreciation to Dr Cross for writing this. (I have not had any contact with her.) Most doctors are reluctant to publicly state their opinions on this sort of matter, but it needs to be done if the truth is to be got out to the general public.

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.

Neither Pierpont nor anyone else has been able to say what it is about turbines that could be making people ill. Also, the dose-response relationship that you would expect, with the people having the most exposure being the most affected, is not found in "Wind turbine syndrome".

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

Waterloo Wind Farm I have slept beneath wind turbines several times and never felt any ill-effects. My swag can be seen behind the car

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

Low cloud streaming through turbines Snowtown Wind Farm, SA

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 falls far short of achieving that.

There are two points about Pierpont's latest paper that are particularly suspect:

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%."

   Axelsson, A and Ringdahl, A published an paper in the British Journal of Audiology, Feb. 1989.

   "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'."

   (The Axelsson and Ringdahl article had 255 citations according to Google scholar, 2010/11/26.) Wikipedia states that "tinnitus is common". Did Pierpont understate the prevalence of tinnitus to artificially strengthen her case?
   
   
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

There was a time when I believed that there was a real need for research into possible direct adverse health effects from wind turbines. The more I have looked into it and thought about it the more unreasonable it has seemed to me that there could be any such effect and the less credible the 'evidence' of any such effect seems to be. (All the main components of a wind turbine are in our cars, and no-one claims our cars are making us sick.) Without there being credible evidence for some real effect few responsible researchers would see this as a field of research that they would want to get involved in.

Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health and Teresa Simonetti, Sydney University Medical School, compiled an extensive list of the main conclusions reached in 17 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health. The current link is http://tinyurl.com/78bglh4, but this is temporary. Please inform me if the link no longer works.

However, there are 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?

While there seems very little prospect of research finding any causal link between wind turbines and sickness, many people have been primed to believe that such a link does exist – due to extensive coverage in the popular media and the work of several people who either honestly believe that such health effects exist, or find alleged health effects to be a way of discrediting sustainable energy and thus supporting the fossil fuel industry.

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 could 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. Several hundred thousand dollars spent on independent quality research could well be justified.

What research should and could be done?

• Examinations of the existing primary research on wind turbines and health published in respectable peer-reviewed journals has already been done.
• Laboratory research involving subjecting people to reproduced wind turbine sound and infrasound, perhaps mixed with other sounds, and measuring (where possible) and recording responses.
• Large surveys examining the dose-response relationship between wind turbines and perceived health impacts.
• A survey of those people who live near wind turbines, their health problems, and trying to establish whether those problems are related to the turbines.
• Research into differences in the rate of complaints of illness in areas where the claims of ill-health connected with wind turbines has been highly publicised compared with areas where there has been little such publicity. (For example, my impression is that there have been few complaints of 'turbine illness' in WA and little publicity of it. Dr Sarah Laurie has not done speaking tours of WA?)
• A psychological study of the perceived health problems and their causes (are the health concerns psychosomatic?).
• The relationship between sleep problems and wind turbine noise.
• A study of the relationship between people's perceptions of wind turbines, whether favorable or not, and their perceived health problems. A related point would be the link between receiving a benifit from turbines and perceived health problems.
• 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. (Difficult to do objectively.)
• 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 any possible mechanisms by which wind turbines might cause ill-health in animals and humans (sound and infrasound are most often cited).
• Research into land value trends in relation to wind farms.
• Research into fraudulent claims of illness or financial hardship with the aim of receiving financial gain.

The influence of negative oriented personality traits on the effects of wind turbine noise By Jennifer Taylora, Carol Eastwick, Robin Wilson, Claire Lawrence, University of Nottingham, UK, March 2013. Abstract Concern about invisible environmental agents from new technologies, such as radiation, radio-waves, and odours, have been shown to act as a trigger for reports of ill health. However, recently, it has been suggested that wind turbines – an archetypal green technology, are a new culprit in explanations of medically unexplained non-specific symptoms (NSS): the so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (Pierpont, 2009). The current study assesses the effect of negative orientated personality (NOP) traits (Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity and Frustration Intolerance) on the relationship between both actual and perceived noise on NSS. All households near ten small and micro wind turbines in two UK cities completed measures of perceived turbine noise, Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity, Frustration Intolerance, attitude to wind turbines, and NSS (response N = 138). Actual turbine noise level for each household was also calculated. There was no evidence for the effect of calculated actual noise on NSS. The relationship between perceived noise and NSS was only found for individuals high in NOP traits the key role of individual differences in the link between perceived (but not actual) environmental characteristics and symptom reporting. This is the first study to show this effect in relation to a so called 'green technology'.

History of health and noise complaints Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, "communicated disease" hypothesis. By Chapman, Simon; St.Gerge, Alexis; Waller, Karen; and Cakic, Vince; March 2013. The paper can be accessed via the Sydney eScholarship Repository. Chapman et. al. studied the history of wind farm construction and complaints about ill-health from wind turbines in Australia. They concluded that "complaints are consistent with psychogenic hypotheses that health problems arising are "communicated diseases" with nocebo effects likely to play an important role in the aetiology of complaints."

Research into infrasound perception Published in Health Psychology; "Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?"; Fiona Crichton, George Dodd, Gian Schmid, Greg Gamble, and Keith J. Petrie; March 2013 (I will try to condense the results of this research into a few words that lay people can understand; People who are under the impression that they will become ill due to infrasound, and are then told that they are being subjected to infrasound, are likely to experience adverse symptoms.) Abstract Objective: The development of new wind farms in many parts of the world has been thwarted by public concern that subaudible sound (infrasound) generated by wind turbines causes adverse health effects. Although the scientific evidence does not support a direct pathophysiological link between infrasound and health complaints, there is a body of lay information suggesting a link between infrasound exposure and health effects. This study tested the potential for such information to create symptom expectations, thereby providing a possible pathway for symptom reporting.   Wind home Top Index Method: A sham-controlled double-blind provocation study, in which participants were exposed to 10 min of infrasound and 10 min of sham infrasound, was conducted. Fifty-four participants were randomized to high- or low-expectancy groups and presented audiovisual information, integrating material from the Internet, designed to invoke either high or low expectations that exposure to infrasound causes specified symptoms. Results: High expectancy participants reported significant increases, from preexposure assessment, in the number and intensity of symptoms experienced during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. There wereno symptomatic changes in the low-expectancy group. Conclusions: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms that aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the Internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints.

Research on infrasound by Associate Professor Con Doolan; 2013/02/06 Associate Professor Con Doolan gave a presentation to a meeting of wind farm opponents, the Waterloo Concerned Citizens Group. The meeting was not advertised to the general public. (Professor Doolan had earlier told me by email that he would keep me informed on the progress of his research. He has given me nothing and did not inform me about the meeting.) For a scientist, attached to a major Australian university (Uni. of Adelaide), who one would hope was independent, unbiased and objective, to release his findings only to a group that is on one side of the controversy over wind farm noise, before publishing, and not giving supporters of wind power a chance to attend is questionable ethical behaviour. I have emailed Professor Doolan on this point (2013/02/06). It seems that Professor Doolan did not make any very specific statements about the noise levels from the wind farm. He is reported as saying: "further research would need to be undertaken to determine whether or not the noise experienced by residents was a result of the wind turbines, and to do this researchers would need the cooperation of the wind farm operator, Energy Australia." Professor Doolan said that Energy Australia (EA) had declined to cooperate with his research. I put this to Steve Brown of EA and was told that the reasons for this were that "EA had problems with Doolan's methodology" and the cooperation that Doolan was wanting involved economic loss of production to the wind farm. As of 2013/03/31 I had not received any response from Professor Doolan.

Research by Professor Gary Wittert; 2011/07/25 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. Clinical psychologist Dr Sarah Edelman commented on Prof. Wittert's research results, and anxiety related symptoms, elswhere on this page.

Turbines and animal health

Young cattle grazing peacefully beneath wind turbines Toora Wind Farm

Oddly, while it is claimed that only a minority of people are adversely affected by wind turbines this claim of selectivity seems not to be used in the animal case.

I think these photographs shows that stock become accustomed to wind turbines and behave quite normally in their near vicinity. (I have also seen kangaroos grazing quietly near turbines.)

Whether there is a period during which animals get used to the turbines I don't know.

Having been a dairy farmer for eight years, and having had sheep grazing on my property at Clare for the last 15 years, my own feeling is that neither cattle nor sheep would be much concerned by wind turbines.

Sheep sheltering in the shade of a working turbine Clements Gap Wind Farm

Low lambing rates at Waubra had been attributed to wind turbines (Aug. 2010). When the sheep owner called a vet, the vet said that low lambing rates had been a problem in much of the area recently, whether or not turbines were nearby.

I discussed this with a farmer who has a stud sheep business as well as turbines on his property near the Clements Gap Wind Farm; he told me that the sheep like the turbines, resting in their shade in summer, and that he had no problem with falling lambing rates since the turbines were built.

I have often seen sheep sheltering in the shade cast by wind turbine towers, as in the photo at the right.

Wind home Top Index

Nichols Poultry have their own 225kW wind turbine, one of the biggest in Australia in private hands, on their free-range poultry farm in Tasmania. Nichols have a Net site on which they provide information about their operation. Would Nichols do this if wind turbines harmed animals?

Also see health research on farm animals.

The NHMRC report

Turbine blades Tubine blades in storage, operating turbines in the background: Brown Hill Range Wind Farm

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?

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, even ordinary cars have all the main components of a wind turbine.

If turbines could possibly make anybody ill the main credible 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.

Wind home Top Index

What can harm you from a distance?

• Some wavelenghts of electro-magnetic radiation: ultra-violet, X-rays, gamma rays; very intense micro-wave radiation;
• Particulate nuclear radiation.

There's nothing else I can think of.

It is quite impossible for wind turbines to produce particulate nuclear radiation, ultra-violet, X-rays or gamma rays; it is just as impossible that they could produce enough micro-wave radiation to be harmful.

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.)

Wind home Top Index

Infrasound – in relation to health

Infrasound is sound of such a low frequency as to be inaudible to humans; although at high volumes it can be felt. Wikipedia defines it as "sound that is lower in frequency than 20Hz". A fuller definition is given in the glossary.

Report from SA EPA The South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced a report titled "Infrasound levels near windfarms and in other environments" in January 2013. Extracts from the Executive Summary: "Infrasound levels at houses adjacent to wind farms ... are no higher than those at houses located a considerable distance from wind farms." "... there did not appear to be any noticeable contribution from the wind farm to the G-weighted infrasound level ..." German study: wind farm infrasound no health threat An article on the European Wind Energy Association Blog, dated 2012/05/24 discusses a new study by the Bavarian Environment Agency in Germany. It also mentions other studies that show the same thing.

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). Low speed fans, such as ceiling fans, produce infrasound. In an article on the Michgan Land Use Institute Net site Dr Kai Ming Li said "In a Finnish survey, infrasound levels exceeding 120dB were found in cars and railway engines. The usual range in vehicles with closed windows was 90 to 110 dB." Dr Li also said that washing machines on the spin cycle produce quite high levels (around 80dB) of infrasound. I have noticed that an unpleasant level of infrasound can be produced by the resonance that can be set up inside a moving 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.

An Australian Senate Committee, looking into alleged health effects from wind turbines, concluded the following in November 2012:

"The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating health problems. In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases."

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.

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 cause annoyance and anxiety. However, there seems to be no convincing evidence that infrasound from wind turbines is problematic.

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

	Wind turbines and houses in the tulip fields of North Holland Photo credit Normann Szkop Note how close the turbine is to the house The original photograph can be seen on Flickr
	Photo credit Normann Szkop Four houses and two turbines close together The original photo can be seen on Flickr

I believe that most turbines of the Mid-North South Australian wind farms are at least 1km from occupied homes. In Europe they are often much closer, as can be seen in the photos on the right.

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.

In Denmark, the country with the most wind power per capita, the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a house must be four times the total height of the turbine (including blades). A typical maximum height is around 125m (in 2012), so under this rule turbines would not be allowed closer than 500m to a house.

The present (early 2012, Liberal) government of Victoria does 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 the 13 square kilometre exclusion zones around all houses (16 times that required in Denmark) 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.

Distance and physics

For example, the hamlet of Waterloo is 3.5km from the turbines of the Waterloo Wind Farm. I slept beneath Waterloo turbines on two nights (without any health effects at all, I had a good night's sleep, I measured a sound level of 55dB from the turbines). My distance from the tubines was about 80m. Even neglecting attenuation, the inverse square law tells us that anything radiating from a turbine would be 1900 times as intense at the distance I was compared to in Waterloo. (3500 / 80 = 43.75, 43.75² = 1914)

Yet we are told that people have been driven from their homes in Waterloo by noise and/or health problems!

On both nights I slept at Waterloo Wind Farm I visited Waterloo and listened for turbine noise both in the evening and again in the morning. Only on the first morning did I suspect that I might have been able to hear the turbines; I couldn't be sure. There was a moderate breeze on the ridge where the turbines were, but only a light air in Waterloo; ideal conditions for hearing them.

Study of setbacks internationally

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).

Wind turbines through mist Wattle Point Wind Farm, Yorke Peninsula, SA

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

Friends of the Earth media release, 2012/01/24 Friends of the Earth, by a Freedom of Information request directed to NSW public health authority, NSW Health, obtained documents that cast considerable doubts over the credibility of the Waubra Foundation (WF). NSW Health carried out an assessment of the WF's claims that wind turbines cause health problems. The assessment found that the claims of the WF were of the 'lowest category of scientific evidence', and had major methodological flaws. Mike Barnard has written an extensive piece titled Seven things you must know about the Waubra Foundation and Sarah Laurie. His main points: They have no relevant expertise and reject independent expertise and peer reviewed science They misrepresent themselves as well as the work of others They were formed by a coalition of wealthy, NIMBY landowners They are consistently unethical in their operations They are global warming deniers They have close ties to fossil fuel and mining interests opposed to wind energy They live nowhere near Waubra and the town is outraged at them He provided detailed justifications for his statements. Improper use of tax-free status? Climate Spectator, 2012/08/08, published an article titled Should taxpayers be funding anti-wind farm legal action? Among other things, the article made a good case that the Waubra Foundation was not entitled to 'tax free charity' status. Foundation? Wikipedia definition: "A foundation is a legal categorization of nonprofit organizations that will typically either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the source of funding for its own charitable purposes." The Waubra Foundation is not a foundation in this sense; it consists of a few people who don't like wind turbines and Dr Sarah Laurie, who mistakenly believes that wind turbines make people ill. It seems that the word 'foundation' has been used simply to try to give the group more credibility. Dr Laurie, who calls herself the Medical Director, and more recently the Chief Executive Officer, of the Waubra Foundation seems to be the main spokesperson for the group.

It seems that many of the people of Waubra are upset that the 'Waubra Foundation' have stollen the name of their town and used it in a way that they don't like. Perhaps Dr Laurie, the main mover in the Waubra Foundation, has seen the writing on the wall and is getting ready to abondon the WF; she has some involvement in a Net site named sWINDle (the name is very appropriate because the site is full of lies and exaggerations).

There is a Waubra Foundation Net site and a page about the Waubra Foundation on Source Watch.

The first stated objective of the Waubra Foundation (WF) is to: "Gather, investigate and review complaints of health problems that have been perceived by the complainants as being associated with living or working close to wind turbines or such other industrial sources that may be considered as relevant." This gives the impression of a neutral group who are looking for facts. This impression is emphasised by objective number eleven that states: "At all times to establish and maintain complete independence from government, industry and advocacy groups for or against wind turbines." That this impression is false can be seen by the very one-sided view of wind power taken by the Waubra Foundation – so far as I know the Waubra Foundation has never made any positive statements about wind power; see too " The 'independence' of the Waubra Foundation" below.

The Waubra Foundation has no physical link to the township of Waubra. It's registered address is Level 1, 183 Bank Street, SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205, the same as that of Lowell Pty. Ltd. (Peter Mitchell is a director of Lowell Pty. Ltd.)

On 2011/10/13 the Waubra Foundation net site was claiming on their Our Organisation page that Dr Sarah Laurie (Medical Director and more recently Chief Executive Officer 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. (Dr Laurie informed me that as far as she was concerned this was all a misunderstanding, and I accept that; but whether the person who put the 'MD' on the Net site was intending to deceive is unknown.)

I noticed from Dr Laurie's submission to the NSW Government on their wind farm guidelines (dated 2012/03/14) that she has been promoted from Medical Director to Chief Executive Officer. The use of terms like Medical Director and CEO give the impression of a large organisation; in fact it is quite a small group of people who are all opposed to wind power. The only name on the contact line on the bottom of the pages of the Waubra Foundation Net site is Dr Laurie's; the only email address is Dr Laurie's.

The 'independence' of the Waubra Foundation There are very good reasons to believe that the Waubra Foundation's claims to be an independent and impartial body are false. An interesting and revealing exposé by Sandi Keane can be read on the Independent Australia site (as of August 2011). 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 (now CEO) 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; they seem to be unconcerned about coal mining and coal-seam gas exploitation for example. 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. ABC TV's Media Watch did a segment on the IPA and AEF on 2012/03/19, linking them to another astroturfer, the so-called Australian Climate Science Coalition, which is actually an anti-climate science group. Significantly, Ian Plimer is a member of the 'Scientific Advisory Panel' of the ACSC. (Mr Plimer used to be Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, where, I believe, he became something of an embarrasment due to his unscientific stance on climate change. He recently left the University to devote himself more fully to his considerable mining interests.)

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.

What has been found?

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".

Boss wrote of an "anxiety variant [of epidemic hysteria], in which abdominal pain, headaches, dizziness, fainting, nausea and hyperventilation are the most common symptoms". These sound similar to the symptoms of "wind turbine syndrome". Boss continues: "In some epidemics, actual clinical illness in some group members may spread as epidemic hysteria by the transmission of anxiety to groups observing those who were initially ill"; this sounds similar to the spreading of hysteria about wind turbines by people like Dr Nina Pierpont and Dr Sarah Laurie, who condition people to expect to feel ill if they go anywhere near a wind farm.

Boss writes that the characteristics of such illnesses include, among other things, "symptom complex suggesting organic illness but without identifiable cause, no illness among other groups sharing the same environment, illness not related to physical proximity to exposure ...". There is no known mechanism by which wind turbines could make people ill. Very few workers on wind farms, who have much higher exposure to turbines than householders who complain of symtoms, have any problems. Those who would have us believe that wind turbines make people ill often make statements to the effect that the problems are worse at greater distances (against the inverse square law of physics) than close.

"Wind Turbine Syndrome" occurs almost exclusively in English speaking countries. This is to be expected if the cause is some sort of epidemic hysteria because English speaking people hear and read the statements of people like Nina Pierpont and Dr Laurie. There seems to be no counterparts of these rumour-mongers in non-English speaking countries; people don't hear of the alleged illnesses and so don't 'suffer from them'.

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.
Potatoes	Potatoes are, of course, harmless and a valuable stapple food to millions of people. But, like wind power potatoes went through periods when people quite irrationally resisted eating them.	Like the case of wind turbines, there was never any scientific evidence that potatoes were harmfull
Smart meters	Electromagnetic radiation (EMR)	There is no reason to believe that there is any uneque EMR from smart meters, nor that EMR, in anything but extremely high doses, is harmful.
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.
Vaccinations	Among other things it has been claimed that the minute amount of mercury in some vaccinations are harmful.	All the scientifically acceptable evidence is that vaccinations cause far more good than harm.
Wind turbines	There is no known mechanism by which wind turbines could cause illness.	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.

I will give just one example of a false statement in one of the papers published in the journal. In the paper "Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill", by Magda Havas and David Colling – the abstract starts with "People who live near wind turbines complain of symptoms...". This is not true: it would be true if it stated "Some people who live near wind turbines complain of symptoms...". Most people who live near wind turbines do not complain of adverse symptoms.

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

Nonetheless, anti-windfarm websites have described the journal as a "leading scientific peer reviewed journal" and the issue as "groundbreaking". In summary, this is a journal which cannot be described as low ranking in scientific research publishing. It is more accurately described as "unranking".

Just to give you some perspective on the above citation rates: in my career, I have published 5 papers which have each been cited more than 100 times; 24 cited between 50-100 times; 36 cited 20-49 times; and 69 cited 10-19 times. This WHOLE JOURNAL (ie all authors) has only 7 papers cited 7 or more times (max 15). It is really the saddest of sad little journals.

The editor and four authors didn't bother to respond. The authors who did respond either simply avoided answering the question, referred further communication to the editor, or launched ad homonym attacks against me.

I recently discovered four additional articles by the BSTS relating to wind turbines that were not published in the special issue, and currently only appear online. These authors will be contacted with the same request as the authors in the special issue and given three weeks to respond.

Given the lack of meaningful response we can only speculate about the peer review process conducted by the BSTS for this special issue. However, for a journal claiming to be peer reviewed the editor and authors show little interest in either transparency or additional peer review.

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.

Wind turbines at Canunda, SA

Simon Chapman, Professor of public health at the Uni. of Sydney 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.

Suspension of a long standing law of physics in the case of wind turbines On 2012/03/21 Dr Laurie wrote to me: "I think your assumption that the inverse square law applies is incorrect, especially for people living in homes near wind turbines and chronically exposed."

It is basically a matter of geometry. As something moves out from a point source it can be thought of as passing through imaginary spheres; the surface area of the sphere at 200m will be four times that of the sphere at 100m, the area of the sphere at 300m will be nine times the area of the one at 100m.

The inverse square law applies to anything that radiates from a distinct source.

Many of the stories that we hear about the alleged problems caused by wind turbines at considerable distances go entirely counter to the inverse square law.

Does the inverse square law of attraction apply between dogs and trees??

Illnesses and injuries that have environmental causes, such as: nuclear radiation poisoning, microwave exposure from radar installations, ultra-violet exposure, heavy metal poisoning, exposure to carcinogens, snake and spider bite, hearing damage caused by loud noises, and poisoning in general show a dose-response relationship. The greater the dose or exposure, the more serious you can expect will be the illness or damage.

The dosage of anything radiating from a wind turbine would obey the inverse square law of physics. Put simply, if you are twice as far away as someone else, you would receive a quarter the dose that he or she would, and if you were three times as far away you would receive a ninth the dose, in any given period of time.

Those who say that wind turbines make people ill claim that there is a lot that is unkown in exactly how much exposure people are receiving. Exactly what the dose is is not important; we know that workers are receiving thousands of times the exposure to sound and infrasound that householders are receiving, yet are entirely unaffected.

For example, a person working on wind turbines would often go within 80 metres of them (the foot of the towers). The vociferous advocate of a link between ill-health and wind turbines, Dr Sarah Laurie, claims that illness can be caused by turbines up to ten kilometres away. It can easily be calculated, from the inverse square law, that the intensity of anything (hypothetically) being radiated by a turbine and received by the person at 80m will be more than 15 000 times greater than anyone will receive at 10km. Yet the wind farm worker, in almost all cases, is quite unaffected, but Dr Laurie expects us to believe that someone receiving one fifteen-thousandth of the dose might become ill!

	The dose-response relationship, if we believe those who say that wind turbines are making people ill The workers (right plots) receive much higher doses, but show no ill-effects!
	The dose-response relationship we would expect if wind turbines really were making people ill We would expect the workers (right plots) to show more symptoms because they receive the highest doses. It doesn't happen! For calculations see 'technical' section, below

When a workman goes up into the nacelle of a turbine he will be 5 to 50m from different parts of the blades. If we say 30m for the sake of calculation, then the dose that he would receive of anything coming from the blades would be 10 000 times that of someone at 3km. The same worker would be within 1m of the machinery inside the nacelle, so that the dose he would receive of anything being radiated by the machinery would be 1 000 000 times that of a person at 1km, and 25 000 000 time what a person at 5km would receive. The worker is entirely unharmed, yet Dr Laurie would have us believe that people are made sick at 5, 10, even 15km.

The graphs on the right are based on simulated, not real, data. Each plot on the graphs represents one person's dose and response. The doses are on the X scale at the bottom. The higher numbers on the 'Level of symptoms' (Y) scale on the left correspond to more severe inconvenience or illness. An explanation of these is given in the 'technical' section below.

The upper graph shows what we observe (wind farm workers close to wind turbines having no symptoms of illness – right plots) and are told by people like Dr Laurie (moderate to severe symptoms in householders at distances up to five or even 10km – left plots).

I have calculated the relative doses that science tells us we could expect at the various distances. The upper graph shows quite the reverse of what we would expect in real life; the workers, who receive the highest 'doses' are unaffected, while the people living further away have, we are told, illnesses caused by the turbines.

The lower graph shows what we would expect if wind turbines really did cause illness. The workers, who receive the greatest 'doses' of whatever might be causing the illnesses (corresponding to the plots at the upper right), would show the most severe symptoms, while those living at greater and greater distances, and receiving lower and lower doses (the plots on the lower left), would show steadily less symptoms.

Wind home Top Index

We are told that different people have different susceptibility to "wind turbine syndrome", but are we to believe that susceptibility can vary so enormously? Can we think of any real cause of illness that is so variable in its potency for one person or another? I don't know of any.

Technical – rules and data used to create the graphs

Response: symptoms
I have used 'levels of problems'.
1. Minor annoyance;
2. Minor or major annoyance plus some loss of sleep;
3. Severe symptoms; those of level 2 plus nausea or headache or elevated blood pressure.

Assumptions:
1. The inverse square law relating anything radiating out from a discrete source will apply;
2. Dosage will accumulate with time a person is exposed;
3. Dosage will be proportional to the size of the turbine;
4. Dosage will increase in proportion to the number of turbines involved.

The simulated data
For the calculations I have assumed that all the turbines are 3MW.

Hours exposed Distance (m) No. of turbines Dose Response Worker 1 4 80 1 1875 0 Worker 2 6 200 1 450 0 Householder 1 24 1000 4 288 1 Householder 2 24 3000 12 96 3 Householder 3 24 2000 8 144 2 Householder 4 24 4000 16 72 3 Householder 5 24 1500 6 192 1

The dose is calculated by multiplying the number of hours of exposure by the square of the inverse of the distance in kilometres, by the number of turbines and then by 3 (the MW power of the turbines).

The number of turbines used in the calculation is to allow for the fact that as one gets further away from an individual turbine there are more turbines at a similar distance to the nearest one. For example, the householder at 1000m from the nearest turbine is assumed to be roughly equally distant from three other turbines; while, because of the inverse square law, the workers much higher (hypothetical) dose would predominantly come from the turbine they happen to be close to.

Hours exposed Distance (m) No. of turbines Dose Response Worker 1 4 80 1 1875 3 Worker 2 6 200 1 450 2 Householder 1 24 1000 4 288 2 Householder 2 24 3000 12 96 0 Householder 3 24 2000 8 144 1 Householder 4 24 4000 16 72 0 Householder 5 24 1500 6 192 1

All the data in the table here are identical to the earlier table, except the level of response is proportional to the dose; as would be expected in the real world.

Turbines and trees at Waterloo Wind Farm This photo was taken before I slept under one of the Waterloo turbines.

Environmental psychologist Roger Ulrich published an article in Science in 1984. "Ulrich and his team reviewed the medical records of people recovering from gallbladder surgery at a suburban Pennsylvania hospital. All other things being equal, patients with bedside windows looking out on leafy trees healed, on average, a day faster, needed significantly less pain medication and had fewer postsurgical complications than patients who instead saw a brick wall."

The Scientific American article went on to discuss other cases where patients' ability to view or visit gardens improved their medical outcomes.

Being able to view a garden through a window could not have any physical effect on a person's health, but it could make them more cheerful, more optimistic, more relaxed, and then their psychological state could go on an have a physical effect.

People's attitude toward wind turbines is very important in determining how they react to the proposed or actual construction of a nearby wind farm. Most of the people who complain of sicknesses caused by the turbines started with negative attitudes to turbines.

Surely we are seeing a psychological state producing a physical outcome in the wind turbine case, just as seen by Ulrich's team and the other researchers discussed in the Scientific American article.

If a person sees a wind turbine (as I do) as graceful, elegant, an optimistic symbol of a cleaner and better future and finds the sounds that turbines make pleasant and restful (as I do), they are very unlikely to develop any ill-effects from being near turbines. Another person, who has been made fearful of turbines by people like Pierpont and Laurie, or who sees turbines as ugly and industrial impositions into their landscape, is more likely to become anxious and develop physical symptoms from their psychological state.

Feldheim, Germany Photo credit: The Independent, UK Feldheim, and many other German, Danish and Spanish villages, has turbines but no sickness.

This is all strong evidence that so called 'wind turbine syndrome' is largely psychosomatic.

Western Australia

So I contacted Craig Carter of Verve Energy, the company that runs most of the wind farms in WA. Craig informed my by email on 2012/04/10 that

"From my knowledge, supposed adverse health effects due to infrasound from wind farms have not been raised for our wind farm projects and proposals."

Europe

Germany Hans Josef Fell, the energy spokesman for the Greens Party wrote: "The claims of the Waubra Foundation about health effects in a distance up to 10 kilometers are of course totally ridiculous. We have millions of people in Germany living within a distance of 10 kilometers to the next turbine. And tens of thousands who have lived near turbines for up to 25 years without health problems which anybody links to wind power." Denmark Dr Poul Ostergaard is an expert in energy planning in Denmark: I am not sure which health effects you are referring to – so I guess you can take that as an indication of a lack of debate here... There is a small debate on infra sound – but it is not a very active debate. A brief visit to the website of the Danish anti-wind power organisation "Neighbours to wind turbines" ("Naboer til Vindmøller") didn't reveal health effects being promoted as a cause of concern." On Europe generally Paul Gipe, the US-based author of Wind Power: Renewable Energy for Home, Farm and Business and five other books on wind power, wrote creatively of his own 'illness': "Yes, anti-wind hysteria has made me sick. I got queasy in my stomach when I think of the 150,000 wind turbines operating worldwide and still no epidemic of death and disease had yet broken out despite the sickening anti-wind hype in the English-speaking world. I worried myself sick that a new Black Death would strike Germany and Spain who together have one-third of the world's wind turbines. I fretted even more that Europe would collapse in panic and mayhem from its 100,000 wind turbines, many now operating for decades. Why then are Germans, Danes, and Spaniards not falling by the thousands to dementia and disease? Are they made of sterner stuff? Or is it simply that they don't speak English and can't read all the propaganda fostered by the anti-renewables lobby. It is the anti-renewables lobby–it's not just anti-wind anymore, they're after solar too–that makes me sick."

Wind home Top Index

More on Europe by Neil Barrett

"Another type of evidence is provided by the websites of windpower opposition groups. Although there is no nationwide organisation of windpower groups in Germany, there is a web portal to which 78 groups have been linked. After putting aside the large number of sites that have lapsed, a total of 44 were left. Almost all of these sites are dominated by concerns about landscape and nature protection. As for health effects, about 40 per cent of sites devote only 1 to 2 lines to the subject and only three sites actually treat the subject seriously with more than a paragraph. Almost one-third of the 44 sites made no mention of health effects at all."

AEF confirms the link between English and WTS

It is important to note that it was wind farm opponents who made up the list, not Ketan Joshi.

Ketan, who is a wind power supporter, then took the 484 organisations and assigned the official spoken language of each country "into the categories 'English' and 'Non-English', and then listed each country by the number of anti-wind groups."

The very low rate of sick leave in wind farm workers would be very difficult to explain if wind turbines truly made people sick.

The major components of wind turbines are also in cars

If there is something coming from one or another of the main components of a wind turbine making people ill, then why isn't the same part of a car having the same effect?

It is quite possible to calculate the level of effect we should be suffering from our cars, compared to from wind turbines.

Based on the assumption that the components of a car are 1.5m from the person involved, and the wind turbine is one kilometre away, it can be calculated that any effect from the car's fan should be nine times that from the wind turbine fan, any effect coming from the car's generator should be over a hundred times that from the wind turbine generator and any effect coming from the car's gearbox should be more than 20 000 times anything coming from a wind turbine's gearbox.

Both audible sound and infrasound are louder in cars than near wind turbines

Infrasound levels too are much higher in a car than near a wind turbine. In an article on the Michgan Land Use Institute Net site Dr. Kai Ming Li said "In a Finnish survey, infrasound levels exceeding 120dB were found in cars and railway engines. The usual range in vehicles with closed windows was 90 to 110 dB." In the Sonus report on infrasound and wind turbines conducted for Pacific Hydro infrasound levels of 67dB(G) and 63dB(G) were recorded at Clements Gap wind farm 185m downwind of the closest operating turbine and at Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm 200m downwind of the closest operating turbine, respectively.

On 2012/09/05 one of the opponents of the Waterloo Wind farm circulated the following email to other wind turbine opponents...

While the majority of those opposed to wind power blame infrasound for numerous illnesses, here is someone who holds that infrasound will do you no end of good! Remarkable.

August 4, 2010 in Health and Fitness [prMac.com] Buenos Aires, Argentina – Announcing that AppTouch, the developers of Sonic Relax, has released their latest update. The Sonic Relax application allows for self give massage and combines vibration with the wonderful benefits of Infrasound. Each session has a routine vibration accompanied with soft, but effective, infrasound frequency that caresses the relaxation zone. That is the Infrasound?, Is a sound frequency below the audible sound by humans (below 20 Hz). The infrasound therapy is very popular in many countries and produces very good effects on the human body: Increase Local Circulation Relieve Minor Aches and Pains Relax Body Muscles. Rejuvenation on Cells Promotes Body Self Healing Helps Move Toxins From Cells Raises temperature In the Tissue Improvement In Lymphatic System Expansion In The Capillary Vessels

In fact, the little infrasound that comes from wind turbines is harmless, and I'd be very surprised if the iPhone ap did any good. Unless, of course, it was placibo effect in the latter and nocibo effect in the former.

There are a huge number of references to be found on the Net, I've concentrated on a few of the more interesting and relevant ones here.

Links: No adverse health effects – peer reviewed

• The 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. No definite connection between wind turbines and ill-health found.
• The Lancet Electricity generation and health; discusses major health problems from fossil fuel electricity, no mention of health problems from wind power.
• Evaluation of the Scientific Literature on the Health Effects Associated with Wind Turbines and Low Frequency Sound prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
• Assessing Sound Emissions from Proposed Wind Farms and Measuring the Performance of Completed Projects for the US National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 2011. Download.
• 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.

  Wind home Top Index

• 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.")

Psychology

• Research into infrasound perception: Fiona Crichton et. al.; People who are under the impression that they will become ill due to infrasound, and are then told that they are being subjected to infrasound, are likely to experience adverse symptoms.
• The influence of negative oriented personality (NOP) traits on the effects of wind turbine noise Jennifer Taylor, Carol Eastwick, Robin Wilson, Claire Lawrence; University of Nottingham, UK, March 2013. The study suggested that NOP traits were a far bigger influence on medically unexplained non-specific symtpoms than nearby wind turbines.
• Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling?; An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF); Michael Witthoftemail and G. James Rubin.
  While this paper deals with the psychological responses attributed to electro-magnetic fields, the same principals apply to so called Wind Turbine Syndrome.
• Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Factors associated with prospective development of environmental annoyance; Frida Eekemail, Bjorn Karlson, Kai Osterberg, Per-Olof Ostergren

Links: No adverse health effects – not peer reviewed

• The sickening truth about wind farm syndrome; an excellent article in New Scientist by Prof. Simon Chapman (Wind Turbine Syndrome, WTS).
• Barrett, Neil Getting the Wind Up; on the facts about ill-health 'caused by wind turbines';

  Compilation of conclusions Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health and Teresa Simonetti, Sydney University Medical School, compiled an extensive list of the main conclusions reached in 17 reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health; all showed no direct link between ill-health and wind turbines. Wind turbines cause any sickness you might care to name? Professor Chapman and Ms Simonetti also compiled an impressive list of all the ailments claimed to have been caused by wind turbines. Feldheim: A hamlet swept by the winds of change A story about a small village in Germany that has lots of wind turbines on its door-step. The locals are happy with the turbines, but are fed up with all the visitors. UK hospitals to have wind turbines An article in The Independent announces that UK hospitals are to be encouraged to install wind power to help reduce emissions. Plainly the UK government is not concerned that the turbines will negatively impact on health.

• The South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced a report titled "Infrasound levels near windfarms and in other environments" in January 2013.
• "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 National Health Service of the UK produced a Net page titled 'Are wind farms a health risk?' that discussed Nina Pierpont's research.
• 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 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.
• A satirical view of epidemic hysterias like 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' on U Tube.
• A disease in search of a cause: a study of self-citation and press release pronouncement in the factoid of wind farms causing vibroacoustic disease.
• Mike Barnard; "Wind farms don't make people sick, so why the complaints". Rational explanations and well argued points. Not likely to convince hard-case believers like Laurie and Pierpont, but a good read for those with open minds. Lots of references.
• History of health and noise complaints; Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, "communicated disease" hypothesis. By Chapman, Simon; St.Gerge, Alexis; Waller, Karen; and Cakic, Vince; March 2013.

Information suggesting annoyance or adverse health effects from wind turbines

Several papers suggesting adverse health effects from wind turbines have been published in a journal called the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, but that journal is of very dubious credibility.

Links: Adverse health effects – peer reviewed

• It should be said that there was a very large overlap in the responses of the participants in the Noise and Health study; many subjects living near wind farms had better sleep than many who lived further away. The study's statistical significance seems questionable.

  Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health by Nissenbaum, Michael A.; Aramini, Jeffery J.; Hanning, Christopher D.; published in Noise and Health. The authors stated that study subjects living closer to wind turbines generally had poorer sleep than those living further away. (Also see the box on the right.)
• Christopher Hanning, British Medical Journal, March 2012 (BMJ 2012;344:e1527). Hanning discused turbine noise, sleep disturbance, and consequent health effects.
• 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.

Links: Adverse health effects – not peer reviewed

• Nina Pierpont's research into wind turbine syndrome. Pierpont did have a few of her peers review her work, then published the favourable reviews; this is not proper peer review.
• 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.)

Not specifically relating to wind turbines

Index

Key word index