Resource Library Category: Human rights (52 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes: The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health
A review of the literature & discussion of the issues ~~
This paper addresses not only the issues of wind energy policy where it violates the basic living environment of families and the adverse health effects ofwind turbine noise, but also assesses the considerable number of anecdotal reports from people living with wind turbine noise. As noted in the authors’ 2007 paper, although there are many who dismiss anecdotal reports as inconsequential or meaningless, these reports are from real people, living with real problems, often with no recourse: they put ‘the human face on science’. The authors also examine how this translates into a human rights issue, as government policy assigns more credibility to acousticians’ reports than to medical evidence, and assigns more importance to renewable energy policy than to the individual lives injured by that policy.
The paper begins with a review of the acoustic impact of wind turbine noise reported by families and communities in the UK as well as similar cases in Japan, Australasia, the United States, Canada, and throughout Europe. This first chapter collates and details some of the evidence of recent reported cases and the extent of discomfort, distress, and health problems suffered by those families with prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise.
Chapter 2 examines the views of leading acoustic experts on the reasons that the acoustic ‘bombardment’ impacts people physically. This chapter also reviews the problems and complexities in interpreting the UK ETSU-R-97 guidance and subsequent apparent difficulty enforcing noise conditions that emerge from ETSU.
Chapter 3 discusses peer-reviewed medical research and reports from internationally recognised authorities, e.g., the World Health Organization, supporting the anecdotal evidence of health problems experienced by families living near wind turbines; these families endure the pulsating noise as well as prolonged exposure. There is also a growing body of evidence-based research substantiating the adverse health impacts of environmental noise pollution, particularly with extended exposure, of which wind turbine noise is an example.
As with many public health issues, the problems with wind turbine noise started with anecdotal reports where turbines were built too close to homes. These complaints emerged in a scattered pattern, because often the people affected did not associate the sudden onset of their sleep disturbances, headaches, or inability to concentrate with the noise. Most people were confident when told by the wind energy companies and their local officials that wind turbines were not intrusive, that the noise produced is easily masked by background noise, and that the noise compared favourably with familiar sounds, e.g., a home fridge, or a quiet conversation in the library. Initially, each affected person thought his or her new symptoms were unique.
As more complaints emerged from those who lived near newly operational wind turbine sites, and those who pinpointed the start of their newly identified health problems with the movement of the blades, some of those affected — and a few health professionals — suspected that the source of their problems might be associated with the noise generated by the wind turbines. This association seemed more likely because the victims’ symptoms were relieved when they were away from their homes or farms. Moreover, the symptoms recurred once they returned home. These patterns emerged only over time, and across many wind turbine areas, internationally. Chapter 3 also reviews several pilot studies conducted by physicians in order to assess the anecdotal reports of health effects from those living near wind turbines.
Chapter 4 considers basic international human rights, apparently sidestepped by Britain, as its environmental policy appears to assign greater priority to the protection of landscape, bats, dormice, and water voles (though the authors certainly applaud those efforts). The State appears to accord more importance to, and enforces with more stringency, those issues to the detriment of policy that protects the health and dignity of families. As a result, in their ambition to achieve renewable energy targets, public officials authorise what amounts to the degrading and inhuman treatment of families.
The influential wind energy industry and its lobbyists, public agencies, environmental organisations, and many media sources often employ pejorative labels, such as NIMBY – Not In My Backyard, to decry or stigmatise those who complain, as insensitive to environmental pollution and global warming, in order to dismiss these anecdotal reports. Yet, it is essential to remember that many of those affected by wind turbine noise were those same people who welcomed the wind turbine schemes and were skeptical of those who complained about potential or actual noise interference. Many early wind turbine noise studies focused on annoyance and identified sleep disturbance as a frequent problem, but these studies did not collect data on health effects. Public health problems often evolve gradually and become more evident only with the passage of time as more people are affected (duration of exposure).
UK government renewable energy policy has focused more on expanding the role of industrial wind turbines rather than ensuring the protection of the health of those exposed to wind turbine noise, i.e., the protection of the public’s health. Thus, the voices of those affected by wind turbine noise have grown more insistent as more wind turbine sites are located near homes and villages. The solution has always seemed transparently straightforward: locate wind turbines further from homes and other sensitive structures. Of course, one must then determine the optimum distance, and there lies the rub, with industry pushing for minimal distances, while many others seek a more precautionary stance, in an effort to protect health, well-being, dignity, and quality of life.
Wind turbine noise is a form of and another cause of environmental noise pollution. Recent studies, both medical and acoustic, offer data to assist with the decision on where to site and how to design wind turbine arrays. Notably, wind energy developers often assert that there are virtually no studies on wind turbine noise and no evidence of its ill effects. However, there are not only studies specifically on the adverse effects of wind turbine noise, there are also studies on noise with similar or shared acoustic characteristics. Wind turbine noise is especially complicated because of the ‘cocktail’ of physical acoustic characters that comprise the noise pollution. The pulsating noise, characteristic of wind turbines, can be more intrusive than other types of noise, and the pulsations include both audible and inaudible components, i.e., low frequency noise, infrasound, and vibration. Noise with these characteristics is more intrusive, and the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend lowering the permissible decibel levels when noise contains these characteristics. WHO makes these recommendations not merely to reduce annoyance or nuisance. WHO makes these recommendations because epidemiological studies indicate clearly that environmental noise is prejudicial and injurious to health. [WHO 1999, 2010, 2011]
WHO’s impartial reports are particularly compelling because they undergo periodic review and updating by its international panel of experts from diverse, related fields. Moreover, the panel’s findings and reports undergo a process of stringent review internally amongst the panelists, as well as externally, by reviewers not on the panel. Most recently WHO issued Night Noise Guidelines for Europe 2009, and the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise 2011, which, with EU directives and guidelines on noise, offer policy-makers and other invested parties with descriptions of how health is adversely affected by noise, as well as with methodologies to ameliorate or to prevent injury to health from environmental noise.
Those affected by wind turbine noise could be your relatives, friends, neighbours, and even — at some point — you. Often these are people who know austerity intimately, who understand the dilemma of balancing environmental issues such as energy supply and global warming with current policy and future demands. Instead, they are marginalised and made to feel doltish and selfish. They also feel disenfranchised and abandoned by those in whom they have placed their trust. This cynicism is not unfounded, as many are left financially impoverished as they seek advice and support in order to make their voices heard. The issue of wind turbine noise is about real people, who are genuinely suffering degrading and inhuman treatment.
Planning for industrial estates near dwellings is more restrictive on noise control, with those facilities rarely operating daily, 24/7, than the noise controls on wind turbines. Selecting a minimum distance of 2km as a buffer between homes and the placement of a wind turbine — though an even greater distance may be required — is not excessive when the lives and well-being of those affected are taken into account. There is still ample opportunity for developers to site their schemes more appropriately and for government to redress errors in policy that allow these untoward, unpredictable, and unacceptable effects.
Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota)
Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man), FRICS
January 2012
Complaint against the UK in re: UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities
Source: Watson, George
I lodge the following complaint against the United Kingdom Government in relation to the terms and Articles contained in the United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities. The UK Government are responsible for the drafting, administration and enactment of the UK planning legislation throughout the countries that make up the United Kingdom. In addition, the United Kingdom Government are the signatories of the aforementioned UN Convention and are bound by the terms contained thereof.
I would advise you that should the UK Government permit (directly or indirectly), encourage, or are complicit in any planning consent awards for ANY ADDITIONAL wind turbines throughout the United Kingdom that would not comply with the provisions of the Convention, I reserve the right to make an application to the courts for an Interim Interdict/Injunction that would protect the legal rights of persons with Disabilities. The medical evidence is clear and unequivocal that wind turbines cause serious medical problems and exacerbate current medical conditions.
I submit my complaint as follows:
United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities:
1) Article 3 – General Principles: (c) Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
(e) Equality of opportunity; Disabled persons do not participate in the planning process on an equal basis with those without a Disability. The Governments involved fail to provide planning applications in ‘Braille’ to allow those with a visual Disability to have ‘Effective Participation’ in the planning process. The obvious health problems from wind turbines on ALL groups in society make it even more important that the vulnerable members of society are allowed to have an effective participation. There are no special procedures put in place in the UK to allow those with a Disability to address the Planning Committee on particular applications.
a) Article 3 will be violated by a failure to ‘effective participation’ by the authorities failing to provide the application in ‘Braille’ to allow those with a visual impairment to participate in the process.
2) Article 10 – Right to Life: If the person with a Disability had walking difficulties, or was unable to walk, they would be at a substantial disadvantage to someone without a Disability from the on-going health and other issue’s from wind turbines. They would not be able to simply ‘get out’ for the day due to their Disability or they may suffer from a mental health Disability and do not know or understand that they are in danger from wind turbines. Governments are failing to acknowledge or accept the mounting medical evidence against wind turbines and are exposing the most vulnerable members of society to long term health problems from wind turbines.
3) Article 11 – Situations of Risk – Governments shall take, in accordance with their obligations under International law, including International Humanitarian law and International Human Rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with Disabilities in situations of risk…This can be interpreted as including ‘protection and safety of persons from Government policies if they are a threat to the life and health of a person with a Disability’ under the terms of International Human Rights law.
4) Article 12 – Equal recognition before the law – (3) State parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with Disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity. This includes free legal representation whilst exercising their rights and protection from ‘undue influence’ from Government.
5) Article 13 -Access to Justice – This includes all legal proceedings, at investigative and preliminary stages as direct or indirect participants.
6) Article 15 – Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment – The World Health Organisation has stated that ‘Sleep Deprivation’ is a form of torture. There is a mountain of information that clearly shows that wind turbines cause ‘Sleep Deprivation’ in every sited area throughout the United Kingdom.
a) Article 15 will be violated when any wind turbine causes the complainant to have an interruption to their sleep for prolonged periods in the same night. The World Health Organisation has stated that noise above 30db in a bedroom will cause ‘Sleep Deprivation’.
7) Article 16 – Freedom from exploitation – The definition of ‘exploitation’ is “to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc) esp unethically or unjustly for one’s own ends”. The UK Government has failed to provide a planning application in ‘Braille’ that would allow the visually impaired to participate in the planning process. This would be self evident in the number of objectors or supporters of a planning application from the visually impaired currently on record. The United Kingdom Government has already confirmed that they have no record of any planning objections from the visually impaired and that they are unaware of planning applications being available in ‘Braille’.
a) Article 16 would be violated as those with a visual impairment are prohibited from being included in the planning process.
b) Article 16(2) states that “State Parties shall also take all appropriate measures to prevent all forms of exploitation …. State Parties have allowed the Energy Companies to make planning applications for wind turbines knowing that those with a visual impairment would be excluded from participating. The United Kingdom Government are complicit in the exploitation of the visually impaired and thereby in violation of the aforementioned Article.
c) Article 16(3) states “In order to prevent the occurrence of all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, State Parties shall ensure that all facilities and programmes designed to serve persons with disabilities are effectively monitored by Independent Authorities”. The United Kingdom Government have no such regime in operation and are in violation of the aforementioned Article.
d) Article 16(5) states “State Parties shall put in place effective legislation and policies, including women – and child focussed legislation and policies, to ensure that instances of exploitation, violence and abuse against persons with disabilities are identified, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.” No such legislation or policy decisions have been put in place by the United Kingdom Government that prevents cases of ‘exploitation’ of the visually impaired by the planning system. In addition, there have been no prosecutions for violations by the United Kingdom planning system. The United Kingdom Government are in violation and, complicit in continued violation, of the aforementioned Article.
8) Article 17 – Protecting the Integrity of the Person – states “Every person with disabilities has a right to respect for his or her physical or mental integrity on an equal basis with others.” A person with learning difficulties will be subjected to additional and exacerbated health problems from wind turbines. The person with learning difficulties will not have the mental capacity to participate in the planning process to object, as no provisions are made for such an occurrence by the United Kingdom Government. In addition, the United Kingdom Government has a legal obligation to protect the most vulnerable in society and a failure to act is a violation of the aforementioned Article.
9) Article 21 – Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information – states “State parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in Article 2 of the present Convention, including by:
a) Providing information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost;
b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign language, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions.
c) Urging private entities that provide services to the general public, including through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and useable formats for persons with disabilities.
d) The current planning process in the United Kingdom violates the aforementioned Article as any planning application is only in a single format and does not take into consideration persons with a disability. Those who are visually impaired are unable to scrutinise the planning application in Braille and does not conform to the Convention principles.
10) Article 22 – Respect for Privacy – states “No person with disabilities, regardless of place of residence or living arrangements, shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence or other types of communication or to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. Persons with disabilities have the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” The United Kingdom Government are in violation of this Article as the planning system does not make special provisions for the participation of persons with disabilities. The granting of planning consent for wind turbines is unlawful due to the failure of persons with disabilities participating in the planning process. This is also a violation of privacy, family and home of people with disabilities due to the unlawful granting of planning consent due to the planning application only being presented in a single format and does not take into consideration those with a visual impairment.
I request that you acknowledge receipt of my complaint.
Yours sincerely
George Watson
Wind turbine noise and health: Special issue of Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
Source: Various
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, August 2011, 31(4)
Wind Turbine Noise
John P. Harrison
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: Following an introduction to noise and noise regulation of wind turbines, the problem of adverse health effects of turbine noise is discussed. This is attributed to the characteristics of turbine noise and deficiencies in the regulation of this noise. Both onshore and offshore wind farms are discussed. [download PDF - Harrison]
The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment
Bob Thorne
Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia
Abstract: Human perception responds primarily to sound character rather than sound level. Wind farms are unique sound sources and exhibit special audible and inaudible characteristics that can be described as modulating sound or as a tonal complex. Wind farm compliance measures based on a specified noise number alone will fail to address problems with noise nuisance. The character of wind farm sound, noise emissions from wind farms, noise prediction at residences, and systemic failures in assessment processes are examined. Human perception of wind farm sound is compared with noise assessment measures and complaint histories. The adverse effects on health of persons susceptible to noise from wind farms are examined and a hypothesis, the concept of heightened noise zones (pressure variations), as a marker for cause and effect is advanced. A sound level of LAeq 32 dB outside a residence and above an individual’s threshold of hearing inside the home are identified as markers for serious adverse health effects affecting susceptible individuals. The article is referenced to the author’s research, measurements, and observations at different wind farms in New Zealand and Victoria, Australia. [download PDF - Thorne]
The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being
Arline L. Bronzaft
GrowNYC, New York, New York, USA
Abstract: Research linking loud sounds to hearing loss in youngsters is now widespread, resulting in the issuance of warnings to protect children’s hearing. However, studies attesting to the adverse effects of intrusive sounds and noise on children’s overall mental and physical health and well-being have not received similar attention.This, despite the fact that many studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises such as those from passing road traffic, nearby rail systems, and overhead aircraft can adversely affect children’s cardiovascular system, memory, language development, and learning acquisition. While some schools in the United States have received funds to abate intrusive aircraft noise, for example, many schools still expose children to noises from passing traffic and overhead aircraft. Discussion focuses on the harmful effects of noise on children, what has to be done to remedy the situation, and the need for action to lessen the impacts of noise from all sources. Furthermore, based on our knowledge of the harmful effects of noise on children’s health and the growing body of evidence to suggest the potential harmful effects of industrial wind turbine noise, it is strongly urged that further studies be conducted on the impacts of industrial wind turbines on their health, as well as the health of their parents, before forging ahead in siting industrial wind turbines. [download PDF - Bronzaft]
Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans
Alec N. Salt, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
James A. Kaltenbach, Lerner Research Institute/Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Abstract: Wind turbines generate low-frequency sounds that affect the ear. The ear is superficially similar to a microphone, converting mechanical sound waves into electrical signals, but does this by complex physiologic processes. Serious misconceptions about low-frequency sound and the ear have resulted from a failure to consider in detail how the ear works. Although the cells that provide hearing are insensitive to infrasound, other sensory cells in the ear are much more sensitive, which can be demonstrated by electrical recordings. Responses to infrasound reach the brain through pathways that do not involve conscious hearing but instead may produce sensations of fullness, pressure or tinnitus, or have no sensation. Activation of subconscious pathways by infrasound could disturb sleep. Based on our current knowledge of how the ear works, it is quite possible that low-frequency sounds at the levels generated by wind turbines could affect those living nearby. [download PDF - Salt]
Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
Carl V. Phillips
Populi Health Institute, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract: There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder-type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data. Proponents of turbines have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that the evidence does not “count,” the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’ own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the problems must not exist. These claims appeared to have swayed many nonexpert observers, though they are easily debunked. Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects. There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias. [download PDF - Phillips]
Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis
Robert Y. McMurtry
St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: Internationally, there are reports of adverse health effects (AHE) in the environs of industrial wind turbines (IWT). There was multidisciplinary confirmation of the key characteristics of the AHE at the first international symposium on AHE/IWT. The symptoms being reported are consistent internationally and are characterized by crossover findings or a predictable appearance of signs and symptoms present with exposure to IWT sound energy and amelioration when the exposure ceases. There is also a revealed preference of victims to seek restoration away from their homes. This article identifies the need to create a case definition to establish a clinical diagnosis. A case definition is proposed that identifies the sine qua non diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of adverse health effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines. Possible, probable, and confirmed diagnoses are detailed. The goal is to foster the adoption of a common case definition that will facilitate future research efforts. [download PDF - McMurtry]
Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?
Carmen M. E. Krogh
Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: This article explores the loss of social justice reported by individuals living in the environs of industrial wind turbines (IWTs). References indicate that some individuals residing in proximity to IWT facilities experience adverse health effects. These adverse health effects are severe enough that some families have abandoned their homes. Individuals report they welcomed IWTs into their community and the negative consequences were unexpected. Expressions of grief are exacerbated by the emotional and physical toll of individuals’ symptoms, loss of enjoyment of homes and property, disturbed living conditions, financial loss, and the lack of society’s recognition of their situation. The author has investigated the reported loss of social justice through a review of literature, personal interviews with, and communications from, those reporting adverse health effects. The author’s intention is to create awareness that loss of social justice is being associated with IWT development. This loss of justice arises from a number of factors, including the lack of fair process, the loss of rights, and associated disempowerment. These societal themes require further investigation. Research by health professionals and social scientists is urgently needed to address the health and social impacts of IWTs operating near family homes. [download PDF - Krogh]
WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring
Carmen M.E. Krogh, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Lorrie Gillis, Flesherton, Ontario, Canada
Nicholas Kouwen, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Jeff Aramini, Intelligent Health Solutions, Fergus, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: Industrial wind turbines have been operating in many parts of the globe. Anecdotal reports of perceived adverse health effects relating to industrial wind turbines have been published in the media and on the Internet. Based on these reports, indications were that some residents perceived they were experiencing adverse health effects. The purpose of the WindVOiCe health survey was to provide vigilance monitoring for those wishing to report their perceived adverse health effects. This article discusses the results of a self reporting health survey regarding perceived adverse health effects associated with industrial wind turbines. [download PDF - Krogh et al]
Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines: The Case of Ontario, Canada
Martin Shain
University of Toronto, Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Abstract: While industrial wind turbines (IWTs) clearly raise issues concerning threats to the health of a few in contrast to claimed health benefits to many, the trade-off has not been fully considered in a public health framework. This article reviews public health ethics justifications for the licensing and installation of IWTs. It concludes that the current methods used by government to evaluate licensing applications for IWTs do not meet most public health ethical criteria. Furthermore, these methods are contrary to widely held fundamental principles of administrative law and governmental legitimacy. A set of decision-making principles are suggested to address this situation that are derived from existing and emerging legal principles in Canada and elsewhere. These include the Precautionary Principle, the Least Impactful Means (Proportionality) Test, and the Neighbor Principle. [download PDF - Shain]
Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence about the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
Source: Phillips, Carl
Abstract
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically-gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data. Proponents of turbines have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that the evidence does not “count”, the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’ own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the problems must not exist. These claims appeared to have swayed many non-expert observers, though they are easily debunked. Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects. There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias.
Carl V. Phillips, PhD
Populi Health Institute
Carl V. Phillips, “Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence about the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents,” Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (August 2011), pp. 303-315.
