The author of these pages has no financial connection to either side of the wind power 'debate' and is entirely independent.
On this page...
No problem in Copenhagen
Wind power is effective
Wind power reduces emissions
Most of the links on this page lead to further explanation and supporting evidence.
Bold font in Mr Mitchell's text indicates a point that I have commented on (in the boxes on the right).
A matter of historyIn years to come people will look back on the time when wind farm opponents claimed that wind turbines make people sick with as much amusement as we look back at those who believed that telephones or microwave ovens would cause illness.
This page can serve as a record of statements by an individual labouring under a misaprehension that is, to anyone with an open mind and who is willing to look at the research, simply silly.
Dear Dr Hambleton,
Australian Medical Association Position Statement: Wind Farms and Health – 2014
The Board of the Waubra Foundation is aware that our CEO, Sarah Laurie, has written to the AMA on the subject of your Wind Farms and Health – 2014 Position Statement.
In addition to the detailed comments largely along medical lines made by Sarah Laurie, I have considered it necessary that, as Chairman, I raise some other relevant matters.
For nearly four years the Foundation has been accumulating information on:
2) movement of those energy pulses from the turbine to the point of contact with human bodies;
3) the mode of entry of those pulses into the human body and the physiological and psychological impact on those victims.
It is ultimately important that we understand both the engineering and the science of each of these components and then of the whole process.
I note that medical science is only involved in item 3) and even there the entry and impact involves a number of highly specialised sub-disciplines. It was more than a surprise to see that your position statement is so certain on elements of items 1) and 2).
Unlike the NHMRC literature studies, the Foundation has not recruited a university library service to do a literature study, nor, if we did, would we place very tight academic style limits on which literature qualifies for consideration.
Our approach has therefore been to accumulate information locally and through a world-wide professional network from victims, medical professionals, independent acoustic measurements around wind facilities, and relevant pieces of the all too few studies and measurements that have been completed in the past.
We are collecting as much evidence as possible from all sources, and will continue to do so until a detailed and full understanding of the three step process can be pieced together. In simple terms we are engaged in a patient, multidisciplinary, forensic examination of what is, and is becoming, available. Much of the product of this work is on our extensive website which would appear not to have been visited by your author(s).
Following Sarah Laurie's communication, I wish to restrict my comments to the non-medical statements in the AMA document. These statements fall into two categories: one being praise of wind energy and wind turbines and the second observations regarding noise from turbines.
"wind turbine technology is considered a comparatively inexpensive and effective means of energy production"
and closes with:
"Electricity generation does not involve production of greenhouse gases, other pollutants or waste, all of which can have significant direct and indirect health effects."
The highlighted portions of these assertions establish that within the AMA there exists a profound ignorance of the economics of wind as an energy source, its ineffectiveness as a technically satisfactory component of the power grid and the expensive and greenhouse gas producing methods (balancing with open cycle gas turbines) necessary to convert wind power into grid-useful energy. We would be pleased to introduce the AMA to one or more independent engineers who have mastered the intricacies of these matters and have the mathematical evidence sufficient to convince all but renewable zealots of the real facts.
Those two assertions have not been rephrased much or travelled far from the product defence handbooks of the wind industry and its various acolytes. The assertions are, sadly, naïve, incorrect, uninformed and completely out of the AMA's area of expertise. As opening and closing statements they tragically indicate a clear bias towards planetary care at the expense of human care.
The second matter goes to the construction of the premise of your position being, apart from the opening sentence, the first two introductory paragraphs. Again those paragraphs merely repeat the wind industry's product defence propaganda on noise. Some of these unsourced statements are incorrect and others irrelevant except for disclosing how very little actual work has gone into the preparation of the AMA's position.
We know you have received a number of objections from victims, acousticians, medical practitioners, a psychologist and relevant professional specialists including an otoneurologist (so important in understanding human pathways for energy pulses) as a number of the objectors have sent copies of their complaints to us. These copies are being progressively uploaded to our website www.waubrafoundation.org.au
I can only conclude that a Position Statement was requested, (possibly through public health channels?) and requested at this time, to support concurrent attacks on the Waubra Foundation; and that the AMA was "fed" a draft which it has hurriedly published without a measurable effort at fact checking.
The AMA has a choice: recall the statement and get on top of the technology and science and reissue your position, or hold fast and be forever mocked and abused as a prisoner of this cruel and dangerous industry and sections of what appears to be a seriously compromised public health alliance.
Regardless of the distance between our interpretations of what is happening in rural Australia to real people, the Foundation would be pleased to meet with responsible officers of the AMA to start an information exchange with the sole objective of solving this health problem for the benefit of all Australians, particularly country Australians.
|All the area in pink, including central Copenhagen, is within ten kilometres of wind turbines.|
According to Peter Mitchell, Sarah Laurie, and the 'Waubra Foundation' the
people of Copenhagen should be suffering from Wind Turbine Syndrome and
Of course they are not.
For more see the article by Ketan Joshi.
|South Australian electricity generated by energy source, 2012-13; from the Australian Energy Market Operator, 2014 SA Fuel and Technology Report|
|This graph shows that a very substantial amount of wind power has
been integrated into the South Australian part of the National Electricity
The SA power system is as reliable as ever and, contrary to clames by people like Mr Mitchell, there is no more peaking generation capacity in the system now than before the introduction of wind power.
|Graph credit – CEDEX report by Pitt and Sherry|
|This graphs shows that, contrary to clames by people like Mr
Mitchell, greenhouse emissions from power generation are decreasing.
Much of the decrease is due to wind power. Wind turbines are very effective in reducing emissions.