Home
Wind home
Index

Home
Wind home
Index

This section added 2021/10/17

Flinders University sleep study

Flinders University carried out a study into wind turbine noise and its possible impact on sleep over about a five year period up to late 2021.

A telling paragraph from the Flinders University news release was:

"Of all residents living within 10 km of a wind farm who responded to the survey, only 0.3 percent attributed sleep disturbance to wind farm noise, which was no higher than the rate of sleep disturbance attributed to road traffic or other noise sources (2.2%) and less than sleep disturbance attributed to any other cause (16.1%), such as insomnia."

I've written at greater length on the study elsewhere on these pages.

---

This section added 2015/02/14

World Health Organisation report of late 2018

Waterloo turbines and campsite Mark Parnell (a member of the SA Legislative Council), a few friends and I slept underneath these turbines on the evening of 2013/05/28. A good night's sleep was had by all, in spite of Mark's tent blowing down at one time.

The WHO report was titled 'Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region'. Sections of it dealt with wind turbine noise and the maximum noise levels recommended were in line with those mandated in Australia.

I have summarised the sections of the WHO report that related to wind turbines and health below. In some cases, when the WHO report made a simple statement, I've quoted direct from the report, in other cases I've interpreted the rather technical and long-winded report into short summaries to the best of my ability.

Section 3.4 Wind turbine noise

Table 36 (page 77 of the report) indicated that (to the best of my understanding):

• No studies were available to link ischaemic heart disease (heart attack) with wind turbine noise;
• No studies were available to link hypertension with wind turbine noise;
• Low quality evidence was available linking annoyance with wind turbine noise;
• No studies were available to link permanent hearing impairment with wind turbine noise;
• No studies were available to link problems with reading skills and oral comprehension in children with wind turbine noise.

Table 37 (p78) 'Night-time exposure levels for priority health outcomes from wind turbine noise"
On sleep disturbance; the evidence was deemed to be of low quality. "Six studies were available; they did not reveal consistent results about effects of wind turbine noise on sleep."

A fair interpretation of the WHO conclusions

Member of parliament lies about WHO report South Australian Member of the Legislative Council, Connie Bonaros, completely misrepresented the WHO report in a speech to parliament on 2018/10/11, and so far as I know, has never been held accountable (apart from by me) for her shameful performance.

• There was no statistically significant evidence in the studies that had been done on the association between exposure to wind turbine noise and the prevalence of hypertension (high blood pressure) (p78);
• No association was found between wind turbine noise and self-reported cardiovascular disease (p80);
• "There is evidence rated low quality for an association between wind turbine noise and annoyance, but this mainly applies to the association between wind turbine noise and annoyance and not to the shape of the quantitative relationship." (p81)
• "No studies were found, and therefore no evidence was available on the relationship between wind turbine noise and measures of cognitive impairment; hearing impairment and tinnitus; and adverse birth outcomes." (P82);
• The quality of the evidence linking wind turbine noise to sleep disturbance was low, the risk of bias was high; no conclusion could be made based on the data available (p83).

Updated 2011/11/28

How close should turbines be to houses?

The expert panel review discussed above (from the American and Canadian wind energy associations) did not make definite conclusions about how far turbines should be built from houses, but did say that setbacks of as much as a mile (approx. 1.6km) were not warranted.

	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

The inverse square law of physics tells us that sound (and anything else that radiates out from a descreet source) drops off rapidly with distance. This being so, it is very difficult to believe many of the claims made about health effects from turbines at distance. Sound also attenuates at about 5dBA per kilometre due to absorption of the energy by the atmosphere. (See also notes on the dose - response relationship.)

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

A study of Wind Turbine Setbacks from Residences for the Minnesota Department of Commerce by Katheryn M. B. Haugen showed that in most parts of the world mandated setbacks between wind turbines and homes is 500m or 1km. A figure in this study (Figure 2, page 26) showed no jurisdiction that mandated a setback as great as the 2kms mandated by several Australian State governments. (Scotland mandates a distance of 2km from towns.)

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal (relating to stories told) evidence is notoriously unreliable. If we simply accepted anecdotal evidence we would accept that many people have been abducted by aliens, many others are witches, etc. etc. However, with the lack of scientifically acceptable evidence (that published in respected peer-reviewed journals), we seem to have little choice but to look at the anecdotal evidence (see The need for primary research into turbines and health).

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.

---

Altered 2011/07/03

Seismic waves from wind turbines

It has been suggested that some of the vibrations that cause ill-health might be transmitted to people from the turbines through the earth.

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."

(The abstract of this paper can be accessed at Geosienceworld.)

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.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Head of a wind turbine at Snowtown, SA

This section written 2011/07/24

Doctors for the Environment Australia

About Doctors for the Environment Australia Quoting from their submission to the Senate inquiry... "Doctors for the Environment Australia is a voluntary organisation of medical doctors in all Australian states and territories. We work to address the diseases – local, national and global – caused by damage to the earth's environment." DEA Scientific Committee members In alphabetical order... Prof. Stephen Boyden AM; Prof. Peter Doherty AC; Prof. Bob Douglas AO; Prof. Michael Kidd AM; Prof. Stephen Leeder AO; Prof. Ian Lowe AO; Prof Robyn McDermott; Prof. Tony McMichael; Prof. Peter Newman; Prof. Emeritus Sir Gustav Nossal AC; Prof. Hugh Possingham; Prof. Lawrie Powell AC; Prof. Fiona Stanley AC; Dr Norman Swan; Professor David Yencken AO. Sir Gustav Nossal's qualifications and awards are too numerous to mention here, look at Wikipedia. Fiona Stanley is a professor at the School of Paediatrics and Child Health at University of Western Australia, and the UNICEF Australian Ambassador for Early Childhood Development; she was Australian of the year, 2003. Dr Norman Swan is the well known health presenter on the ABC radio.

Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) have pointed out that the health effects of alternatives to wind power are far worse than any from wind turbines.

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 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."

Their submission also included the following paragraphs:

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.

DEA finished their submission to the Senate inquiry with:

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.

Interested readers should access the whole submission from DEA at the Senate inquiry Net site referred to near the top of this section.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Updated 2012/01/24

Climate and Health Alliance

The 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 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)

At the same date their Expert Advisory Committee included:

• 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

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Edited 2014/07/05

Waubra Foundation

Sound, infrasound or 'pressure pulses' It is interesting that the so called "Waubra Foundation" first were not clear on how wind turbines were making people sick – it just happened. Later they blamed sound. When this was found to not be very convincing they changed to infrasound. I see that in Chairman Peter Mitchell's letter to the AMA he was talking about 'pressure pulses'; perhaps in response to the SA EPA's report that infrasound levels were no higher near wind farms than elsewhere? I blame Diabolical Wind Turbine Rays!

As of December 2013 the Waubra Foundation now has a dedicated page on this site.

The Waubra Foundation is a misleadingly named group of wind farm opponents with very little connection to the township of Waubra and a very dubious right to call themselves a foundation. (Also see notes on the so-called Waubra disease, on this page.)

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Added 2011/10/20

A link between blood pressure and turbine operation?

Sarah Laurie (and others) have claimed that turbine operation causes an increase in the blood pressure of susceptible people. In her evidence given at Melbourne to the Senate Inquiry into Wind Farms Ms Laurie said, regarding symptoms that included elevated blood pressure, that: "Yes, it can be absolutely linked to the turbines." and "... these symptoms are occurring when the turbines are turning. There are periods of time when, for example, the wind is not blowing or the turbines are turned off for maintenance, and people feel well and they are not getting the symptoms. There is a very direct correlation between symptoms experienced and the turbines turning."

Ms 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?

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

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

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Wind turbine line-up, Waterloo, SA

Added 2011/08/10

An opinion from a clinical psychologist

The following was extracted from the Four Corners comment board following the controversial "Against the Wind" program of 2011/07/25. It was written by Dr Sarah Edelman, who kindly made some minor edits to the piece to suit the context of this Net page; her email address is "sedelman1@gmail.com".

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."

Doctor Edelman's candid view, as a practicing clinical psychologist, is a very valuable addition to the debate on the causes of the so-called "wind turbine syndrome".

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".

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Altered 2014/05/09

Epidemic hysteria

	Chronology The earliest claim of a link between wind turbines and ill health that I know of was made by Dr David Iser in mid 2004. This was followed by Dr Nina Pierpont who published her book in 2009 and Sarah Laurie who became active in 2010. These people are responsible for a huge amount of unnecessary suffering.
	Psychology Medicine in general, and psychology in particular, are well outside of any expertise I might have. All the credible evidence that I have come across points to there being no physiological cause for the symptoms of the so-called "wind turbine syndrome", so I am forced to look for a psychological cause.

Leslie P. Boss published a paper in Epidemiologic Reviews (Vol. 19, No. 2) entitled "Epidemic Hysteria: A Review of the Published Literature".

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 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 Ms 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'.

I can recommend the book Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Communicated Disease by Professor Simon Chapman and Doctor Fiona Crichton to anyone wanting to learn the facts. It is available in full at no charge from the Internet.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Edited 2011/11/26

Some environmental causes of illness that have been controversial

Some people claim that the people involved in the wind industry know that their turbines are making people ill, but they are covering it up. In the past the asbestos and tobacco industries did just this; they knew that their products were killing people, but they did their best to obscure the facts and cast doubt on the science.

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.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Updated 2015/02/24

Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society

On 2015/02/24 ResearchGate gave the BSTS an impact factor of 0.00.

Update As of July 2014 this journal was under new editorship with a Florida Professor trying to rebuild it. It seems she took it over in early 2013 when it had no backlog, no editorial board and no list of reviewers. The special issue featuring anti-wind papers was a last gasp of that journal's previous incarnation apparently. The new editor... Susan Carol Losh, PhD Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems Florida State University Tallahassee FL 32306-4453 http://bst.sagepub.com/ Thanks to Mike Barnard for the above information.

In August 2011 this journal published an issue concentrating entirely on possible health effects of wind turbines. As mentioned elsewhere on these pages, there has been virtually nothing published in the respectable peer-reviewed scientific literature suggesting a direct link between ill-health and wind turbines. So the question of the standing of this journal and the papers in this particular issue of this journal required investigation.

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

More recent statement by Prof. Chapman Prof. Chapman has updated his statement here; Sept. 2012.

The Bulletin is a journal which has appeared erratically over the past few years. The journal was indexed between 1981-1995 by the Web of Science, the international scientific indexing platform which "covers over 10,000 of the highest impact journals worldwide, including Open Access journals and over 110,000 conference proceedings." But after 1995 it was dropped from the list of journals being indexed, generally a sign that indexing services regard a journal as having fallen below an acceptable scientific standard. In the 14 years it was indexed, a citation search conduced on 10 October 2011 showed that it published 961 papers, with a total of just 345 citations – an average of 0.36 per paper – almost a homeopathic strength citation rate. As of today, Web of Science shows it has published only seven papers which have been cited 7 or more times, with the most cited paper in its history having been cited just 15 times. PubMed, the indexing service of the US National Library of Medicine also does not index the journal.

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.

Comment by Dr Kenneth Clarke, University of Adelaide

In an attempt to gauge the quality of the peer review process in the special issue of the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, the corresponding author of each articles, and the editor were contacted by email. All authors were asked politely if they would be willing to release the reviewer comments for their article. The editor was asked if he would be willing to release the reviewer comments, or any details about the peer review process for the special issue. 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.

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

Top Home Wind home Index

---

This section added 2011/12/26

British Acoustics Bulletin

Quoting from a letter written by Professor Simon Chapman and published in the Brisbane Times...

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 full letter from Prof. Chapman, who discussed many aspects of the psychology behind wind farm opposition, can be read here. The publications page of the publishers of the British Acoustics Bulletin, the british Institute of Acoustics, is here; I would like to have gone to the particular issue of the Bulletin myself, but it is apparently available only by subscription.

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.

Top Home Wind home Index

This section added 2011/12/26

---

Gag clauses in contracts

Wind turbines at Canunda, SA

Wind farmers do not place 'gag clauses' in the contracts they make with land holders to stop the landholders speaking out if they get sick. So far as I know, such an action would have no standing in law; a contract cannot take away a person's civil rights. In spite of this, wind farm opponents regularly claim 'gag clauses', (also see Secret deals).

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.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Inverse square law

This physical law has been known since the seventeenth century and applies to things like gravitation, electrostatics, light and sound. It describes how the strength of something like sound decreases with the distance from the source; putting it simply, doubling the distance from the source causes the strength (loudness) to decrease to a quarter, trebling the distance reduces the strength to a ninth, four times the distance a sixteenth the strength, etc.

Suspension of a long standing law of physics in the case of wind turbines On 2012/03/21 Ms 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??

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Altered 2012/02/28

Dose-response and the relationship between distance and symptoms

The claimed cases of illnesses 'caused by' wind turbines bare little, if any, relationship to the distance that those people are from the turbines – and therefore to the dose they receive of whatever could possibly cause any illness. The technical term for this is the dose-response relationship or the exposure-response relationship.

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.

Workers immune? Those who say that wind turbines make people ill claim that there is a lot that is unknown 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, 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 Ms 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 Ms 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.

Top Home Wind home 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

Definitions
Unit of dose:
A Unit is the amount of the mysterious and malevolent force said to be coming from turbines. I have defined one unit as the amount 'received' by a person at 1km from a 1MW turbine in 1 hour.

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.

For the 'If we believe the opponents' case; top graph

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.

For the 'expected' case; lower graph

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.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

This section added 2012/03/07

Attitude

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

An article titled Nature That Nurtures in the March 2012 Scientific American discussed several studies that link state of mind with medical outcomes. Nature That Nurtures was about the effect of gardens on hospital patients, but there are interesting links to the wind turbine-health controversy.

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.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Altered 2015/02/12

No sickness from wind turbines in WA, Tasmania or Europe
Irresponsible and lazy journalists spread the expectation of illness in SE Australia

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

It seems that irresponsible media and other rumour-mongers have not been telling Western Australians, Tasmanians and Europeans that if they live anywhere near a wind turbine they should be sick. Hence they are not sick. On the SE Australian mainland journalists either don't bother looking into the facts (wind turbines don't cause illness) or they are happy to spread the impression that turbines have been making people ill because it adds impact to their stories. They are helping to make people sick!

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

Western Australia

I first wondered whether there may have been no concern about the (unsubstantiated) wind turbine-sickness link in WA when I read in two Mandurah newspapers about a proposed wind farm at Clifton, around 30km south of Mandurah. Neither newspaper mentioned health concerns. Then I read an article in WA Today about wind power in WA on 2012/04/04; again, no mention of health concerns.

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."

So far as I know, there are no branches of the Australian Landscape Guardians in WA, and Sarah Laurie has never spread her message there.

The lack of complaints in WA was confirmed in work done by Professor Simon Chapman, Alexis St. George, Karen Waller and Vince Cakic. Chapman et al's paper, "The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, 'Communicated Disease' Hypothesis" may be read on Plos One.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Tasmania

Professor Simon Chapman writing on The Conversation, 2015/02/11; reported that he had found that there had been no complaints about Tasmanian wind farms causing health problems. The original paper by Simon Chapman, Alexis St. George, Karen Waller and Vince Cakic, "The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, 'Communicated Disease' Hypothesis" may be read on Plos One.

---

Europe

The following extracts were taken from Neil Barrett's excellent document "Getting the Wind Up" on the facts about ill-health 'caused by wind turbines'.

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   All the area in pink, including central Copenhagen, is within ten kilometres of wind turbines. According to Sarah Laurie and the 'Waubra Foundation' the people of Copenhagen should be suffering from Wind Turbine Syndrome and 'Pressure Pulses'. Of course they are not. For more see the article by Ketan Joshi. 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."

Top Home Wind home Index

More on Europe by Neil Barrett

In an article published on line in Independent Australia, 2012/04/16, Neil wrote:

"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."

So, why should we have people becoming ill in the English speaking world and not the rest, unless we are dealing with epidemic hysteria rather than with any illness caused by the wind turbines?

---

This section written 2012/10/08

AEF confirms the link between English and WTS

Max Rheese, head of the anti-renewables astroturf organisation, Australian Environment Foundation, produced a metric that demonstrates the link between English speaking countries and anti-wind farm activism – and by implication, the belief in 'wind turbine syndrome'. Max listed 484 anti-wind organisations by the countries in which they were based in an attempt to show that concern about a link between wind turbines and illness was not confined to English speaking countries.

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."

Ketan points out that 91% of al the anti-wind groups listed are in English speaking countries. The top seven countries in the numbers of opposition groups all have English as their primary language.

Max Rheese and the Australian Environment Foundation seem to have confirmed the link between epidemic hysteria and wind turbine 'illnesses'!

Wind home Top Index

---

Added 2014/09/08

A survey in Midwest USA

A survey of 2 477 voters was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and FM3 on behalf of RE-AMP, which publishes Midwestern Energy News in which the results were published. 14% of respondents reported that they believed wind turbines could harm human health.

Perhaps more interesting was the result in Iowa, the state that leads the USA in the proportion of its energy it gets from wind farms, where only 7% of people accepted that turbines could harm health. The highest proportion believing the claims (21%) was in Wisconsin, "a state which has far fewer wind farms and where some political leaders have in recent years been hostile to renewable and distributed energy".

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Added 2013/03/22

Windfarm workers sick leave

Vestas Australia Wind Technology reported 1.4% absence due to illness among their blue collar workers in the period from the beginning of 2012 to the end of February 2013 (mostly wind farm workers, a few warehouse people). Note that a 1.4% absentee rate equals one day in 71 or about three and a half working days a year. The Australian Financial Review mentioned an average of 9.4 days a year (2012/02/07) for Australian workers.

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

Wind home Top Index

---

Altered 2012/06/11

Is your car making you ill?

There are two ways of looking at this analogy; the major components of turbines are also in cars and sound levels (including infrasound) in cars are much higher than near wind turbines.

The major components of wind turbines are also in cars

My calculations I have assumed that all effects would obey the inverse square law, which is a fundamental law of physics. I have assumed that the effect from the fan would be proportional to the 'swept area' of the fan: 0.4m2 for the car and 90m2 for the wind turbine. The effect of the generator (or alternator in the car case) would be proportional to the electrical power being generated: 0.5kW for the car, 2000kW for the wind turbine. The effect of the gearbox would be proportional to the power passing through the gearbox: 100kW for the car, 2000kW for the turbine.

Wind turbines consist of three main parts: a fan, a gearbox and a generator. Our cars have fans, gearboxes and generators and we are much closer to those, much more often, than we are to wind turbines. How many of us believe that our cars are making us ill?

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

Sound levels are far higher in a car than at any distance from a wind turbine. Even at 100m from a turbine the sound level is typically around 55dB, at one kilometre it could be expected to be around 32dB. In a car travelling at highway speed the sound level will probably be from 70 to 80dB(A). In my car I measured 73dB(A).

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.

Wind turbines at sunrise

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Invitation to lie?

While there may be some people who honestly believe that they have been made ill by wind turbines, some of the claims are simply lies.

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

"From: Mary Morris Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012 12:44 PM Subject: URGENT AND IMPORTANT - SEND NOISE /HEALTH COMPLAINTS TO CLARE AND GOYDER COUNCIL GOYDER COUNCIL SAYS IT HAS RECEIVED NO WRITTEN NOISE OR HEALTH COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE WATERLOO WIND FARM. They have the power to shut the wind farm down and get the noise nuisance investigated. LETS DO IT!!! Please send in a written complaint to both the Goyder Council and Clare Council All it has to be is a simple letter stating that the noise and vibration is causing a serious disturbance to sleep and rest, and/or that people are becoming sick – mention elderly and frail people AND children as well especially if this applies to you. If you have already sent in a letter, send again with a cover note that you wish your submission to be considered as a formal complaint about the effects of the Waterloo wind farm. Goyder council@goyder.sa.gov.au Clare and Gilbert Valley admin@cgvc.sa.gov.au Need help?? Let me know"

I have removed the phone number of the sender; originally I had also removed her name, but after it was published in Adelaide Now I saw no reason to not include it here.

How many of the 'health' complaints are actually fabrications by people who simply do not like wind turbines? We'll never know.

Wind farm businesses spend a lot of time and money in investigating complaints. It is a disgrace that at least one person is encouraging others to make noise and health complaints, apparently without genuine cause.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Waubra disease

Waubra Disease Foundation On the Waubra Foundation Net site, about/history page (2013/11/07) was the following: The name "Waubra Disease" Foundation was initially chosen ... the local media were referring to the symptoms as "the Waubra Disease". The name was subsequently shortened to just "The Waubra Foundation".

The following was written by Marsha Gallagher, who lives at Waubra and has wind turbines on her property. It was published on Weekly Times Now.

It should be pointed out at the beginning that there is no condition called wind turbine syndrome recognised by the medical profession and there is no valid scientific evidence for the claim that wind turbines make people sick. What has been called Wind Turbine Syndrome is actually a form of epidemic hysteria. (Also see Waubra Foundation, on another page.)

The community of Waubra deserves an apology, writes MARSHA GALLAGHER I recently met people from all parts of our country and was annoyed at the number of times I was asked about Waubra disease. Waubra disease does not exist. In my view it is a name dreamt up by the Australian Landscape Guardians group for what has always been known as wind turbine syndrome. Others followed suit for their own ends, such as gaining publicity for the so-called Waubra Foundation. This group of people owes the community of Waubra an apology for the damage they have done to the town's reputation. More important, they owe our schoolchildren a heartfelt and public apology for the psychological pain inflicted on them when they and their parents saw full-page ads claiming Waubra disease could make them ill. Some children panicked every time they had a cold or any other normal childhood illness. It was a cruel hoax and someone needs to be accountable. Yes, Waubra does have a wind farm, but in a community of more than 500 people only about 1.3 per cent are vehemently opposed to it. The rest are in favour of it or don't mind either way. Life goes on as it has for more than 100 years in a great community. We still produce award-winning potatoes, crops, wool and fat lambs. Waubra Primary School is thriving, full of happy, healthy, carefree students. Yes, local groups such as the CFA, school, kinder, sports clubs, Landcare groups and others receive financial assistance from the wind farm, but that happens any time a large company moves into a local neighbourhood. It is not "buying" those in it. It is showing appreciation to people for allowing their company to grow and prosper there. I don't have a problem with Landscape Guardians or individuals who have complaints of ill health or depression that they attribute to the wind farm. I do, however, have a problem with those who have never lived in Waubra who perpetrated an outrageous lie, tarnished the reputation of the community which, far from being divided and fractured, is a united one full of mutual support. I believe Waubra is owed an apology and statements that use the name Waubra disease should be retracted. Call it what it is – wind turbine syndrome – and let Waubra be known for what is it, one of the best farming areas in the country with property prices increasing. Visit our town and our wind farm. Only then will you know the truth.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

Good and bad infrasound?

The following is an advertisement for an 'ap' for iPhones; "Sonic Relax 1.0 for iPhone – Infrasound in your hand" See prMac.

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 nocebo effect in the former.

Top Home Wind home Index

---

The end of the delusion

Interest in the term "Wind turbine syndrome" Graph source: Google Trends, 2017/09/19

By mid 2017 the vast majority of people seemed to have lost interest in the delusion that wind turbines cause illness.

As shown on the graph on the right interest had dropped from a relative value of around 20 between 2009 and 2014 to five in 2016 and 2017.

(The spike in interest in November 2012 coincided with the release of an Australian Senate report on wind turbines.)

First Dog On The Moon's self diagnosis Windfarm syndrome check list Image credit: First Dog on the Moon

The delusion that had been created by a very few people, notably Nina Pierpont in the USA and Sarah Laurie in Australia, exploited by several foolish Australian Senators, and given entirely unjustified publicity by lazy and sensation-seeking journalists seemed, like so many similar technophobic delusions, to have run its pathetic course.

A great deal of harm was done on the way. People who lived anywhere near a wind farm were lead to believe that the turbines would cause unpleasant symptoms (a self-fulfilling prophecy by the nocebo effect) and the urgently needed introduction of renewable energy was delayed.

This section added 2020/09/20

How things change!

As was recorded in the First Dog on the Moon cartoon on the right (click on it to view it full size), back in around 2010 more than 150 symptoms or problems had been attributed to wind turbines.

By 2020 there was very little of this nonsense remaining. One remnant was a Flinders University study financed by the Abbott government (using poor long-suffering taxpayers' money of course) in a last desperate attempt to find some problems with wind turbines.

The Flinders University study was not trying to find any medical ailment in man, animal or plant, but was using five million dollars provided by the strongly pro-fossil-fuel Abbott government in an effort to find some loss of sleep quality in a few people who lived near wind farms, due to the sounds coming from the turbines.

As I have written in my page on the Flinders University study, after having taken part as a subject in the study, that there is good evidence that the study is seriously flawed.

There seems no limit to the lengths that wind power opponents will go to in an effort to slow the introduction of wind turbines and other forms of sustainable energy generation.

Opposing the development of all forms of renewable energy is, in effect, to support the fossil fuel industries and the enormous harm that they are doing to our shared planet.

In this section...
General wind power links;
links relating to turbine noise; and
links relating to other alleged wind power problems.

Many links are scattered through the text on this page.

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.

General informative links

Wind Farms and Health from the Australian Medical Association. "The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infrasound or low frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they are currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity."

Wind and Health from the Public Health Association of Australia.

Rational Wiki on Wind Turbine Syndrome. Discusses claims made by Pierpont and Laurie.

From 1998 to 2014 there were 49 legal cases against wind power on health grounds; 48 were decided in favour of wind power. Energy Policy Institute; written by Mike Barnard.

Links: No adverse health effects – peer reviewed

Also see Peer reviewed psychology links, below.

• I can recommend the book Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Communicated Disease by Professor Simon Chapman and Doctor Fiona Crichton to anyone wanting to learn the facts. It is available in full at no charge from the Internet.
• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) "Statement and Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health", February 2015.

  "After careful consideration and deliberation of the body of evidence, NHMRC concludes that there is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans."

  Also see Reviews of the health literature

• "The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, 'Communicated Disease' Hypothesis"; Simon Chapman, Alexis St. George, Karen Waller and Vince Cakic – Plos One, 2014.
• Health Canada, November 2014; Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results – health and quality of life were found to be unaffected by nearby wind turbines, some annoyance was found. (See section elsewhere on this page.)
• NHMRC report of 2014; "There is no reliable or consistent evidence that wind farms directly cause adverse health effects in humans."
  
• Wind Turbines and Health: A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature; McCunney, Mundt, Colby, Dobie, Kaliski and Blais; published November 2014 in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
  Found no link between wind turbines and health problems, minor annoyance.
• 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.
• The Victorian (Australia) Department of Health produced a study titled Wind farms, sound and health and concluded: "There is no evidence that sound which is at inaudible levels can have a physiological effect on the human body. This is the case for sound at any frequency, including infrasound."
• The Western Australian Department of Health produced a brochure on wind farms and health. It mentioned noise and annoyance, but not any direct link between wind turbines and health problems.
• 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.

  Top Home Wind home 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.")
• The effect of infrasound and negative expectations to adverse pathological symptoms from wind farms; Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control; Renzo Tonin, James Brett, Ben Colgiuri.
  "It was found, at least for the short-term exposure times conducted here-in, that the simulated infrasound has no statistically significant effect on the symptoms reported by volunteers, but the prior concern volunteers had about the effect of infrasound has a statistically significant influence on the symptoms reported. This supports the nocebo effect hypothesis."

Psychology – peer reviewed

Fiona Crichton discussed her research on Australia's Science Show 2016/07/23.

• The link between health complaints and wind turbines: support for the nocebo expectations hypothesis; Fiona Crichton, Simon Chapman, Tim Cundy, Keith J. Petrie; 2014/11/11.
  "The worldwide expansion of wind energy has met with opposition based on concerns that the infrasound generated by wind turbines causes health problems in nearby residents. In this paper, we argue that health complaints are more likely to be explained by the nocebo response, whereby adverse effects are generated by negative expectations."
• Research into infrasound perception: Fiona Crichton et. al.; People who are under the impression that they will become ill if exposed to infrasound, and are then told that they are being exposed to infrasound, are likely to experience adverse symptoms.
• The Power of Positive and Negative Expectations to Influence Reported Symptoms and Mood During Exposure to Wind Farm Sound; Fiona Crichton, George Dodd, Gian Schmid, Greg Gamble, Tim Cundy, Keith J. Petrie; 2013/11/25. Fiona wrote about the study in The Conversation.
• 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
• Rubin G J, Burns M, Wessely S. Possible psychological mechanisms for "wind turbine syndrome". On the windmills of your mind. Noise Health [serial online] 2014 [cited 2014 May 7];16:116-22. Available from: Noise and Health ('A Bimonthly Inter-disciplinary International Journal' with a claimed impact factor of 1.6 in 2012). (Professor Simon Wessley was elected at President of The Royal College of Phychiatrists in January 2014.)

Top Home Wind home Index

Links: No adverse health effects – not peer reviewed

• ERD Court decision: On 2014/11/09 it was announced that the Environment, Resources and Development Court of South Australia had approved Stony Gap Wind Farm. No grounds on noise, health, visual amenity or anything else were found to justify stopping the project. The judgement is interesting in what it says about the credibility of witnesses such as Sarah Laurie.
• The sickening truth about wind farm syndrome; an excellent article in New Scientist by Prof. Simon Chapman (Wind Turbine Syndrome, WTS).
• Position statement from the Australian Medical Association (AMA)
• Wind Facts, Dr. David Colby on wind turbines and human health.
• Barrett, Neil: Getting the Wind Up; on the facts about ill-health 'caused by wind turbines';
  A series of short videos by Neil on how the locals feel about the Waubra Wind Farm; some of them also give their opinions of the Waubra Foundation.

  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.
• Youth of the Year quest speech by Anita Butcher, who lives 3km from wind turbines.
• 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 (DEA) 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 Canadian equivalent of the DEA is CAPE; Canadian Association of Phisicians for the Environment.
• 6 Problems with Wind Turbine Syndrome, Skeptoid.com
• 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.

Top Home Wind home Index

Health risks from fossil fuels

Air pollution from the burning of coal kills millions of people each year.

The Climate and Health Alliance got together with the Public Health Association of Australia to produce a short video on the very real health risks of mining and burning coal and unconventional gas.

---

Information suggesting annoyance or adverse health effects from wind turbines

Most of the documents below have been prepared at the request of groups opposing wind farm developments. The case for serious adverse health effects (beyond sleep deprivation in a small minority and anxiety) caused by wind turbines is not proven. As mentioned elsewhere, there is a lack of research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; the references below seem to me to be among the more credible of those available. I thank Sarah Laurie for bringing some of the below to my notice.

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

To be acceptable to scientists research generally has to be published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

• The Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society published a group of papers claiming a link between wind turbines and health in 2011. At the time it was failing as a peer-reviewed journal.

  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 is questionable and has been criticised in the scientific literature.

• 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.)

• The mass media Several media outlets claimed that Cooper's report proved that wind turbines make people sick. The claims were deconstructed on Media Watch, 2015/02/16. Steven Cooper said, on the program, "No, it's not correct... You can't say that noise affects health from this study". Due to this media attention I have devoted a page to Mr Cooper's report.

  Acoustician Steven Cooper produced a report on the impact of a wind farm at Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, on six self-selected subjects, in February 2015. Cooper wrote about 'sensations' perceived by the subjects. Of particular interest, it seems about half of the 'sensations' were reported when the wind turbines were not working. For more in Cooper's report I refer readers to a piece written by Jacqui Hoepner and Will J Grant and published in The Conversation in response to the report on 2015/01/22. It was titled "Wind turbine studies: how to sort the good, the bad, and the ugly". (I found Cooper's report unclear in what he was ascribing the 'sensations' to.)

Not specifically relating to wind turbines

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

Home
Wind home
Top

Home
Wind home
Top