Resource Library Category: Health (212 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.
Aesthetics, Environment, General, Health, Human rights, Impacts, Noise, Wildlife •
Wind Wise Radio
Source: Wind Wise Radio
RSS feed — previous shows
RSS feed — upcoming shows
Infrasound and Adverse Health Effects
Ambrose and Rand
Sunday, February 12, 2012, 7:00-8:00PM
Join us for the first edition of Wind Wise Radio when we will be delighted to welcome Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand, professional acousticians, members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, and the authors of “The McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study” which investigated the possible relationship between infrasound and adverse health effects experienced by people living near and industrial wind turbine (IWT) in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
We will be discussing Stephen and Robert’s findings, their personal experience in the vicinity of IWT, their work on other projects, and their thoughts on the the recently released “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study”. We will also be asking them about their ideas for further studies to advance our knowledge.
Stephen and Robert will be happy to take questions and listen to your comments so please join us for this important event.
Read the McPherson Report.
Read the Mass. DEP Wind Turbine Health Impact Study.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
The Word from Waubra
A conversation with Dr. Sarah Laurie
Sunday, February 19, 2012, 7:00PM
Dr. Laurie is the medical director of the Waubra Foundation in Australia and is facilitating some of the seminal research surrounding the set of symptoms known here in the U.S. as Wind Turbine Syndrome. ”Down Under” it is often termed Waubra Disease.
In mid 2010, Dr. Laurie was in the process of returning to work clinically as a rural General Practitioner when she became aware that a wind energy project was proposed for the hills near her home in regional South Australia. Being concerned with climate change and the environment, and the need for renewable energy she was initially supportive of the local project and unaware of any health concerns. It wasn’t until a neighbour alerted her to Dr Amanda Harry’s study of health issues with wind factories, that Dr. Laurie realised there were some potentially serious health problems associated with wind turbines. She decided to look into the matter fully, and became aware that despite the health problems being described around the world, there was a lack of research, and hence an urgent need for more research into this problem.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
An Alternative Vision for Vermont
Luke Snelling, Geoff Goll, and Steve Wright
Sunday, February 26, 2012, 7:00PM
Please join us as we talk with leaders in the struggle for smart alternative energy solutions in Vermont.
- Lukas B. Snelling, Executive Director, Energize Vermont
- Geoff Goll, Hydrologist, Princeton Hydro
- Steve Wright, Former Commissioner of Fish & Wildlife Department
We will discuss the current situation in Lowell Mountain, Sheffield, Searsburg, the current regulatory environment, and other projects and issues involving industrial scale wind turbines in Vermont.
Energize Vermont advocates for renewable energy solutions that are in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont and contribute to the people’s well-being.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (18-MB MP3).
National Wind Watch’s Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson on WWR
Sunday, March 4, 2012, 7:00PM
Wind Wise Radio is honored to be joined by the president and vice-president of National Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson, for an hour of conversation about their experiences at the center of the struggle against Industrial Wind in the U.S.
Since 2005, National Wind Watch (NWW) has been a indispensable resource providing a central clearinghouse for information and assistance to individuals and local groups seeking the facts about industrial wind power.
Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer and editor. In 2001 Eric and family moved from New York to northeastern Vermont, where he founded his own company, Kirby Mountain Composition & Graphics. Eric has been involved since 2003 when he learned that there were plans to erect wind turbines on the ridge behind his house. At first, he was a cautious supporter of the development but as he learned more his opinion shifted. In 2005, he started up the excellent site aweo.org, which he continues to maintain and where you can find much of his writing on the subject of IWT. He also blogs at kirbymtn.blogspot.com.
David Roberson is a gallery owner in Shelburne Falls (jewelry, fine handcrafts, décor, books, gifts) and a small-scale farmer. David lived off the grid for 12 years in Hawley, Massachusetts, before moving to Rowe, where he lives with his “wife, dogs, cats, goats, geese, and chickens.”
In December of 2003, his seminal article, Questioning the Faith of Wind Power, was published in Shelburne Falls Independent. The article broke new ground on a host of issues, argued cogently against the rush to wind without rigorous, thorough analysis, and should be required reading for all those interested in these issues. In 2005, David organized the first gathering of interstate wind opponents, a weekend-long conference with participants from 10 states. He was the founding president of National Wind Watch and has served as its Vice-President since 2006.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
The Struggle in Canada
Dr. Robert McMurtry
Sunday, March 11, 2012, 7:00PM
Dr. Robert McMurtry is currently an advisor for the Society Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, engineers and other professionals promoting the development of authoritative international wind turbine guidelines to protect the health and safety of communities. The mission of The Society for Wind Vigilance is to mitigate the risk of both physiological and psychological adverse heath effects through the advancement of independent third party research and its application to the siting of industrial wind turbines.
He was a member of the Health Council of Canada for 3½ years and a member and special advisor to the Royal Commission under Roy Romanow on the future of health care in Canada. Dr. McMurtry was a visiting Cameron Chair to Health Canada for providing policy advice to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health. He was the Founding and Associate Deputy Minister of Population & Public Health, Canada.
Dr. McMurtry sat on the National Steering Committee on Climate Change and Health Assessment. Presently Dr. McMurtry is Professor (Emeritus) of Surgery, University of Western Ontario.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Vermont’s Precious Ridges
Susan Morse and Annette Smith
Sunday, March 18, 2012, 7:00PM
Please join us as we talk with Susan Morse, a world-renowned naturalist and wildlife tracker, and Annette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE), about the threats posed to some of Vermont’s most ecologically sensitive areas by industrial wind power.
Susan Morse has more than thirty-five years of experience monitoring wildlife and interpreting wildlife habitat use. Her research has focused on cougar, bobcat, black bear, and Canada lynx. She is the founder and director of Keeping Track an organization devoted inspiring community participation in the stewardship of wildlife habitat.
Ms. Morse has authored numerous articles and authors a regular column on wildlife in Northern Woodlands Magazine. Her work has also been featured in many other publications, including Smithsonian, Audubon, Amicus Journal, Forest Magazine, Wild Earth, Vermont Life, Adirondack Life, The Nature Conservancy, and Ranger Rick, as well as on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition”.
Annette Smith is a native of Lewisburg and leads Vermonters for a Clean Environment in its mission to raise the voices of Vermonters and hold corporations accountable for their impacts on our people, our land, our air and our water.
VCE’s members are united in the belief that Vermont’s future lies in conserving its clean, rural, small-town environment. They have joined together to pursue the common goals of encouraging economic development with minimal environmental impacts and preserving Vermont’s natural beauty. VCE is committed to providing facts and information so that people can make informed decisions.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Industrial Wind in the Wilds of Maine
Monique Aniel, David Corrigan, and Steve Thurston
Sunday, March 25, 2012, 7:00PM
Join us as we talk with those struggling against the ongoing destruction of Maine’s precious natural areas by industrial wind developers.
We will be joined by Dr. Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston from the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – a coalition of citizens from around Maine drawn together in the common purpose of advocating for responsible, science-based, economically and environmentally sound approaches to Maine’s energy policy.
Also we are happy David Corrigan, a Registered Maine Master Guide who blogs at Real Wind Info for Me, will be joining in our discussion.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
Talking Action
Lisa Linowes and Julie Johnson
Sunday, April 1, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Direct Impact: Talking with Victims of IWT
Neil Anderson, Barbara Ashbee, and Richard Braithwaite
Sunday, April 8, 2012, 7:00PM
Neil Anderson hails from Falmouth, Massachusetts, and has been a leader in the effort to tell the story of the many families in Falmouth who have been severely affected by the turbine know as Wind One. Wind One is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant a little more than 1300 feet from Neil’s home. As many as 50 families have been affected and they have managed, for now, to get the turbine turned off. Neil was an advocate of the turbine before it turned on and started to affect his health.
Barbara Ashbee was forced out of her Amaranth, Ontario, home by the siting of industrial turbines too close. Barbara could easily count 15 turbines from her yard. Her experiences with the local and provincial government is scary and disturbing:
“The Ontario government did not help, in fact they misled us on the number of complaints they had received and were claiming all was running in compliance when it wasn’t.
“The Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) released a literature review in May 2010 concluding there are no direct health issues linked to turbines. The developers and government actually use this review to approve new wind projects and they hand out copies at wind meetings but the CMOH, Dr. Arlene King, was well aware of the serious problems in many wind projects in Ontario before she signed off on the literature review. She was made well aware that families were being made sick with some being forced from their homes and chose not to speak with even one of them. She was warned.
“There is a wall of silence but as the evidence mounts they will have to answer to it at some point. These people are in a position of public trust and their lack of action or even acknowledgment of what they are doing to people is very serious.”
[Click here for a CBC radio report about Barbara Ashbee's whistleblowing about the province's knowledge of noise problems. (Click the play button above to listen, or download the 7-MB MP3 file.)]
Richard Braithwaite lives in Keyser, West Virginia and was one of 75 neighbors who signed a petition seeking a solution to the noise coming from the Pinnacle Wind project. He purchased an inexpensive sound meter and routinely registers 60–70 dB outside his home. As he says, “Let them bring their thousand dollar machine and take their own readings.” The wind developer has paid lip service to the complaints and is installing, of all things, a muffler!
Gerry Meyer lives in the 86-turbine Forward Energy project in Brownsville, Wisconsin that was erected by Invenergy of Chicago. There are five 400′ turbines within 3/4 of a mile and eleven within a mile of his house.
Gerry attended the first few public meetings about the Forward Energy project. (that was long after many local farmers were signed up to host turbines). The Invenergy representatives and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin told the public the turbines were quiet and would be a great benefit to his community. Gerry left those meeting feeling good about wind energy.
Gerry knew know about the Horicon Marsh Advocates, a group fighting for a 5-mile set back from the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, however he did nothing to help them in their cause. As a rural mail carrier he drove within the project often stopping to take photos and on his way home from work stopped to talk to workers and take more photos. As a former construction worker the turbine construction was intriguing.
On March 3rd, 2008, he walked out of his house and heard a jet flying over. He looked to the sky for that jet. There was no jet. It was the large industrial wind turbine 1560 feet straight north of his house. This was the first day of operation of this turbine. He immediately knew he was lied to by Invenergy about the quiet sound of the turbine. This did not sound like the wind blowing through the trees. It sounded like sitting on the runway at O’Hare Airport. He began writing a daily noise diary which can be read at lifeinawisconsinwindproject.tumblr.com.
“In the house there are thumping sounds everywhere, especially upstairs in the sewing room. Very tense and sickening.”
Just a few of the heath affects caused to Gerry’s quality of life are sleep deprivation, high cortisol levels, chest pain, pulsating the neck, nausea, exhaustion, no longer has dreams, cognitive thinking issues, and the concern of what other heath affects are down the road due to constant sleep deprivation.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Strife in Ontario: The IWT Resistance
Sunday, April 15, 2012, 7:00PM
Rural Ontario is being plundered by the McGuinty government and his wind developer allies. The citizens are actively resisting the onslaught. We will talk to some of the leaders of the resistance.
Mark Davis, Deputy Mayor of the Municipality of Arran Elderslie, farm country consisting of 1 town, 2 villages, several hamlets and about 7000 people, located in central Bruce County, which is about 10 miles off the shore of Lake Huron about 3 hours northwest of Toronto. Cash crop and beef farmer, real estate sales rep for Coldwell Banker and auctioneer doing charity auctions for worthwhile causes, Mark has been a strong opponent of industrial wind turbines for quite some time and is chair of the Inter Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group consisting of 12 to 15 municipalities from about 6 counties of like-minded elected and appointed citizens doing their very best to work with the Ontario Green Energy Act and come up with bylaws and ideas to get some control back to local government and the people directly involved.
Greg Schmalz, the founder of S.T.O.P. Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy resisted group opposing placement of CAW (UAW in Canada) whose 35-story turbine on the grounds of their $70M resort is surrounded by 100 families living within 550 m and more than 4,000 people within 2,000 m. This turbine has become the lightning rod representing all that is wrong with placing turbines too close to people’s homes and businesses.
Lisa Thompson, the MPP for Bruce-Huron, recently introduced a private member’s bill at Queen’s Park to establish a moratorium on futher IWT development in Ontario.
Jane Wilson, a registered nurse and health care writer and editor, is the current president of Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of individuals and community groups in Canada’s most populous province, Ontario. She is also the editor of a book on how the Ontario government has pushed the industrial wind power generation agenda at the expense of Ontario’s people and communities, called Dirty Business: the reality behind Ontario’s rush to wind power. Jane lives in a rural community which is part of Canada’s capital city, Ottawa; her community is threatened by a 20-megawatt industrial power project that will be too close to hundreds of homes.
Along with our special guests:
Gail and Ed Kenney of Wolfe Island, Ontario, whose appeal of their property value assessment was rejected this past week by Ontario’s assessment review board because they could find “no evidence”. Didn’t the fact that zero homes had sold since the 86 Turbines went up actually constitute stark, compelling evidence?
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
Saving Massachusetts from IWT — Louise Barteau, Virginia Irvine, Andrew Wells
Sunday, April 22, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Truth from Texas — Robert Bryce
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (18-MB MP3).
Turbine Trouble in Paradise
Sunday, May 6, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (17-MB MP3).
Windfall hits the small screen – Director Laura Israel
Sunday, May 13, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
Fighting for Feathered Friends (and Other Creatures) – Ileene Anderson, Biologist and Public Lands Deserts Director, Center for Biological Diversity; and Miriam Raftery, Editor and Founder, East County Magazine
Sunday, May 20, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (18-MB MP3).
Re: Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel
Source: Krogh, Carmen
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel of January 2012 that was prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
I would like to share excerpts from Ontario, Canada experiences regarding the serious risks to health that can occur when industrial wind turbines are sited in close proximity to residents.
As background, I have held senior executive positions at a teaching hospital, a professional organization and Health Canada (PMRA). I am a former Director of Publications and Editor in Chief of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS), the book used by physicians, nurses, and health professionals for prescribing information in Canada.
Contact with those experiencing adverse health effects which correlated with the onset of industrial wind turbine operations, inspired my research on the topic.
I volunteer my time and expenses, self support research and other activities such as education regarding the science related to wind turbine health effects. Some of my activities include meeting with authorities, locally, provincially and federally.
A colleague and I initiated a self reporting health survey in March 2009. WindVOiCe (Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities) follows the principles for Health Canada’s Canada Vigilance Programs for self reporting suspected adverse events for prescription and consumer products, vaccines and other. The results of this research have been published in a special edition of a peer reviewed scientific journal. [1]
I have also researched societal impacts relating to this topic. This article has also been published in a peer reviewed journal. [2]
Based on several years of investigation: “My research demonstrates that IWTs were initially welcomed into communities. The reported adverse impacts were unexpected …” and “In addition to physiological and psychological symptoms there are individuals reporting adverse impacts, including reduced well-being, degraded living conditions, and adverse societal and economic impacts. These adverse impacts culminate in expressions of a loss of fairness and social justice.” [3]
Several months after the publication of my article, Shepherd et al noted:
“… wind turbines were initially welcomed by many communities due to their environmental credentials …”
“… residents living within 2 km of a turbine installation reporting lower overall quality of life, physical quality of life, and environmental quality of life. Those exposed to turbine noise also reported significantly lower sleep quality …” [4]
Quality of life and social well being are important health considerations. I have found the stressors occurring within the home and community environment as the result of a change in the environment, e.g. industrial wind turbines, are contributing to adverse health effects. To date, there is no mitigation available to those suffering.
There is ample evidence regarding the health risks associated with industrial wind turbines.
In 2009 The American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association funded experts to conduct a literature review which explicitly identifies a causal link (through annoyance) to the reported adverse health effects.
The authors of the industry convened report determined the documented “wind turbine syndrome“ symptoms (sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep are symptoms) “are not new and have been published previously in the context of “annoyance”” and are the “well-known stress effects of exposure to noise”. [5]
This acknowledgement cannot be ignored.
Peer reviewed studies consistently acknowledge wind turbine noise is perceived to be more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels. [6]
Now that the experts funded by members of the wind industry have identified a causal link steps must be taken to ensure these health outcomes are avoided.
Three of the authors of this industry report testified at an Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal which was conducted under oath. 26 expert witnesses from around the world testified (10 Appellants, 16 Respondents – Ministry of Environment and Suncor Inc developer). The evidence and testimony of this tribunal is further evidence that wind turbines can harm human health.
An Ontario Freedom of Information request and peer reviewed articles published during 2011 should also be considered.
I have attached legal opinions and citations regarding the evidence including a summary which I presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, October 18, 2011.
The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal Decision, July 18, 2011, stated:
“This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.” [7]
A Freedom of Information request from the Ontario Ministry of Environment notes:
“It appears compliance with the minimum setbacks and the noise study approach currently being used to approve the siting of WTGs will result or likely result in adverse effects …” [MOE memorandum, Ontario Senior Environmental Officer, April 9, 2010]
The Ontario Ministry of Environment documents are available at www.windyleaks.com
I note that the Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects – An Expert Panel Review – December 2009 states that: wind turbine sound/noise may cause annoyance (p. 5-3), stress (p. 4-3, 4-10) and sleep disturbance (p. 4-3), which may have other consequences (p. 4-3, 4-10) [8] Annoyance may seem of little consequence in everyday language; however, in clinical terms it has negative health consequences. The term annoyance is acknowledged as an adverse health effect.
The indirect pathway is often given a low priority regarding this topic. The Environmental Review Tribunal expressed concerns with respect to The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines (Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Ontario Report) – May 2010.
“… about the Director’s apparent lack of consideration of indirect health effects and the need for further work on the MOE’s practice of precaution …” [9]
To better understand the importance of the indirect pathway, please note the World Health Organization noise schema below. Symptoms being reported are through the indirect pathway. Testimony under oath during the Environmental Review Tribunal acknowledged that the indirect pathway was not considered by the CMOH. [10]
Statements indicating there is no evidence of a “direct” causal link may be accurate but is also an incomplete assessment of the health risks. The indirect pathway of noise annoyance, sleep disturbance and stress leads to consequences (cardiac). When one focuses on “direct” effect one omits consideration of an equally significant part of the health equation ie indirect effects.
Some have referenced that World Health Organization Noise Guidelines (2009) recommend a 40 dB noise level for industrial wind turbines; however, this is an incorrect interpretation of these guidelines. The WHO guidelines are based on road, rail and air craft noise, not on industrial wind turbine noise. Peer reviewed research has shown wind turbine noise is more annoying than these three types of noise at comparable sound levels. Therefore the premise of 40 dB applying to wind turbines is not justified – research [11] and MOE field officer [12] propose 30 to 32 dB.
To conclude, a December 2010 report commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and submitted as evidence during the Environmental Review Tribunal and just recently released by the Ministry notes:
“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.” [13]
This report also states
“Stress symptoms associated with noise annoyance, and in particular low frequency annoyance, include sleep interference, headaches, poor concentration, mood swings …” [14]
During 2011, there has been significant progress in acknowledging the harm that can occur when industrial wind turbines are sited too close to residents.
Consideration should be given to recent Australian movements towards a minimum 2 km setback (see Senate slides attached for references). Furthermore in January 2012 the National Health and Medical Research Council reaffirmed their position that authorities are instructed to maintain a precautionary approach for this issue.
Social well-being is acknowledged to be a determinant of health: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization [WHO], 1948). Many jurisdictions, including the Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial governments and health officials have accepted WHO’s definition of health (Health Canada, 2004, vol. 1, p. 1-1).” [15]
I am not certain whether jurisdictions in the United States of America have accepted the WHO definition; however, it is widely accepted that social, physical and mental health should be evaluated when assessing adverse health effects.
The symptoms have been acknowledged through testimony under oath, and / or disclosure evidence and/or witness statements and through other references as briefly provided in this letter.
There are some research gaps regarding the mechanism and the siting distances and noise levels that will protect human health.
To conclude: “In all cases, noise should be reduced to the lowest level achievable in a particular situation. Where there is a reasonable possibility that public health will be damaged, action should be taken to protect public health without awaiting full scientific proof.” [16]
I believe we are at the stage where public health officials must acknowledge there are some suffering from exposure to industrial wind turbines. Furthermore it is time to move beyond repetitive literature reviews. There is an urgent need to conduct the research to determine the siting parameters including setback distances and noise levels to ensure protection of health.
~~~
January 19, 2012
Ms Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
Ontario, Canada
krogh/email.toast.net
[1] Krogh, CME, Gillis, L, Kouwen, N, and Aramini, J, (2011), WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 334, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412551, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/334
[2] Krogh, CME, (2011), Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice? Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 321, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412550, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/321
[3] Krogh, CME, (2011), Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice? Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 321, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412550, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/321
[4] Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill. Noise & Health, September-October 2011, 13:54,333-9
[5] Colby, W. D., Dobie, R., Leventhall, G., Lipscomb, D. M., McCunney, R. J., Seilo, M. T., & Søndergaard, B. (2009). Wind turbine sound and health effects: An expert panel review 2009. Prepared for American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. http://www.canwea .ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf
[6] Pedersen, E., Bakker, R., Bouma, J., & van den Berg, F. (2009), Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 634-643
[7] Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment Environmental Review Tribunal, Decision, p 207
[8] Colby, W. D., Dobie, R., Leventhall, G., Lipscomb, D. M., McCunney, R. J., Seilo, M. T., & Søndergaard, B. (2009). Wind turbine sound and health effects: An expert panel review 2009. Prepared for American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. http://www.canwea .ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf
[9] Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment Environmental Review Tribunal, Decision, p 206
[10] Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment Transcript of Dr. G. Rachamin, Mar, 4, 2011 [1] p. 211, [2] p. 216
[11] Thorne, B, (2011), The Problems With ”Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 262, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412557, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/262
[12] MOE memorandum, Ontario Senior Environmental Officer, April 9, 2010
[13] HGC (2010) Low frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine Generation Systems, A Literature Review, Ontario Ministry of Environment RFP December 2010
[14] HGC (2010) Low frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine Generation Systems, A Literature Review, Ontario Ministry of Environment RFP December 2010
[15] World Health Organization. (1948). Preamble to the constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the InternationalHealth Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official records of theWorld Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on7 April 1948. Cited Krogh, CME, (2011), Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice? Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 321, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412550, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/321
[16] World Health Organization. (1999). Guidelines for community noise. Geneva; OMS, 1999, p 94. Ilus, Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., and Schwela, D. H.
To:
Jeffrey M. Ellenbogen, MD; MMSc Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School Division Chief, Sleep Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital jeffrey_ellenbogen@hms.harvard.edu
Sheryl Grace, PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University sgrace@bu.edu
Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, PhD Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health Chair, Lexington Board of Health Email unavailable
James F. Manwell, PhD Mechanical Engineering; MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics Professor and Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst manwell@ecs.umass.edu
Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, FAAP State Health Officer, Maine 1996–2011 Vice President for Clinical Affairs, University of New England Email unavailable
Kimberly A. Sullivan, PhD Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health Email unavailable
Marc G. Weisskopf, ScD Epidemiology; PhD Neuroscience Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Epidemiology Department of Environmental Health & Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health mweissko@hsph.harvard.edu
Copy:
Susan L. Santos, PhD, FOCUS GROUP Risk Communication and Environmental Management Consultants info@focusgroupconsulting.com
Wind Turbine Health Impact Study Is Junk Science
Source: Hartman, Raymond
[Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel, January 2012, prepared for: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Department of Public Health]
Junk Science: What Is It?
“Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.”
General Examples
“Government regulators may use junk science to expand their regulatory authority, increase their budgets or advance the political agenda of elected officials.”
“Businesses may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors’ products, make bogus claims about their own products, or to promote political or social change that would increase sales and profits.”
“Politicians may use junk science to curry favor with special interest groups, to be politically correct or to advance their own personal political beliefs.”
Specific Real-World Examples
The Tobacco Research Institute
- It was funded by the big tobacco companies.
- It produced “scientific research” for 50 years or more “demonstrating” that smoking was good, or at least not bad, for people.
- Over time, as doctors and patients complained that smoking caused lung cancers and cardiovascular diseases, the Tobacco Research Institute produced more “scientific research” demonstrating that something else caused the disease.
→ The “research” was Junk Science.
→ It was untrue, manipulated and unreliable.
→ The “research” caused disease and death.
Asbestos Manufacturers
- Asbestos was used for decades in shipbuilding, construction and a variety of other trades.
- Those workers installing and working with asbestos were told for decades that research demonstrated that the workers were safe.
- Workers were not safe.
- Asbestos caused innumerable cases of cancer – mesothelioma.
- The asbestos manufacturers put forward research “demonstrating” that the cancers were not caused by the asbestos.
→ The “research” was Junk Science.
→ It was untrue, manipulated and unreliable.
Manufacturers of DDT
- DDT was first used as a pesticide in the 1940s.
- It was claimed to be a successful and safe pesticide.
- The US government began banning DDT for particular uses in the 1960s.
- It was banned outright in 1972.
→ The original “research” was Junk Science.
→ It ignored the health and environmental risks of DDT.
The Wind Turbine Health Impact Study Is Junk Science
Deval Patrick sponsored and defends the study which “found no scientific evidence or medical studies to prove that living near a wind turbine has adverse impacts on people’s health, though it acknowledged further study is needed to look at health impacts stemming from ‘annoyance’ for residents who live near turbines.” [State Capitol Briefs, Afternoon Edition, Thursday, January 19, 2012, State House News Service]
The conclusions reached by the study are utterly and profoundly dishonest.
The study is labeled a “Report of Independent Expert Panel.”
- The panel was not independent.
- Several “experts” have pro-wind industry connections. [For one important example, I understand that Dr. James Manwell’s Wind Energy Center is heavily funded by the Commonwealth. I believe that it is therefore impossible for him to offer a neutral opinion on the health effects of industrial wind turbine installations, given the Commonwealth’s obvious infatuation with wind energy.]
- The Panel is no more qualified or expert than the substantial number of opponents, including Dr. Pierpont and myself.
[NWW: Perhaps much less so — see this Jan. 28 letter running down the members of the panel.]
The Panel relies primarily on an inexplicably small number (4) of published research papers, out of 100s that are available.
- Two Swedish research papers, one Dutch research paper and one New Zealand Research paper.
- The Panel dismisses for unsupported reasons all the other studies.
- In statistical modeling, this is called “cherry picking” – choosing only those studies that support a desired conclusion.
The sizes of the wind turbines studied are quite small.
- The turbines studied were only 164-213 feet tall.
- These are much smaller than those proposed for Mount Massaemet which are nearly 500 feet tall.
- Noise effects increase with the size of the turbine blades.
The data, models and statistical analyses in these papers are flawed, in ways explicitly noted by the Panel.
- The Panel notes: “The peer-reviewed papers have weaknesses, including the cross sectional designs and sometimes quite low response rates (p. 28).”
- The Panel further notes: “The model from which this conclusion was drawn, however, imposed a linear relation on the association between noise level category and annoyance. But … it appeared that the relation might not be linear (p. 18).”
- In statistical modeling, the imposition of a linear relationship when it is invalid is called specification bias.
→ When present, the model and analysis are wrong.
→ The studies introduce a multiplicity of other possible factors, all of which interfere with properly analyzing and estimating the impact of the primary factor upon health – turbine noise.
The Panel mentions but ignores the findings of the most recent analysis by the authors of two of their chosen studies (the Swedish studies). This most recent study contradicts the Panel’s conclusions as follows [as noted explicitly by the Panel at page 19]:
- “A more intricate statistical model of the association between turbine noise levels and annoyance that used the data from both Swedish studies … suggested a significant association between noise levels and annoyance even after considering other factors.”
- Why didn’t the Panel consider this third study by the same authors, which used better analytic and statistical methods?
→ This exclusion is unprofessional, unscientific and outright dishonest.
→ This is Junk Science.
The Panel identifies the preferred type of study – time-series analyses, looking at families and households before and after the industrial turbines are put into operation → “A Before-and-After Study.”
- The Panel notes “Cross-sectional studies [which the Panel uses] lack the ability to determine the temporality of cause and effect; in the case of these kinds of studies, we cannot know whether the annoyance level was present before the wind turbines were operational from a cross sectional study design.”
- Why didn’t the Panel look at time-series experiences that have occurred in New England – Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts? [I understand that the ISO-NE seasonal-claimed capability spreadsheet identifies the following industrial wind turbine (IWT) sites which could have been used for “Before-and-After” studies: 19 IWT projects in Massachusetts; 9 IWT projects in Maine, including Mars Hill which is outside the ISO-NE area and so is not listed on the ISO's spreadsheet; 3 IWT projects in Rhode Island; 2 IWT projects in New Hampshire; and 2 IWT projects in Vermont.]
- This is the most natural set of experiments to be done and is easily available.
- Is the reason because they knew what such experiments would find – that Industrial Wind Turbines cause sleep problems and severe annoyance, leading to health problems?
The Panel does admit to finding the following:
- “Wind turbines can produce unwanted sound (referred to as noise) during operation (p. ES-4)”
- “The whooshing that is heard is NOT infrasound … [It] is at higher frequency … It is important to note then that when a complaint is tied to the thumping or whooshing that is being heard, the complaint may not be about ILFN at all even if the complaint mentions low frequency noise. Kamperman et al. (2008) state that, ‘It is not clear to us whether the complaints about ‘low frequency’ noise are about the audible low frequency part of the ‘swoosh-boom’ sound, the once-per-second amplitude modulation … of the ‘swoosh-boom’ sound, or some combination of the two (p. 13).” [Emphasis added. These are precisely the sounds described by Neil Anderson from Falmouth.]
- “Most epidemiologic literature on human response to wind turbines relates to self-reported ‘annoyance’ … (p. ES-5).”
- “A very loud wind turbine could cause disrupted sleep, particularly in vulnerable populations, at a certain distance, while a very quiet wind turbine would not likely disrupt even the lightest of sleepers at that same distance (p. ES-6).”
The Panel however concludes that there is insufficient evidence that industrial wind turbines will have any effects upon residents near the installation. It states:
- “There is limited evidence from epidemiologic studies suggesting an association between noise from wind turbines and sleep disruption. In other words, it is possible that noise from some wind turbines can cause sleep disruption. … But there is not enough evidence to provide particular sound-pressure thresholds at which wind turbines cause sleep disruption (p. ES-5 and ES-6).”
- “Whether annoyance from wind turbines leads to sleep issues or stress has not been sufficiently quantified. While not based on evidence of wind turbines, there is evidence that sleep disruption can adversely affect mood, cognitive functioning, and overall sense of health and well-being (p. ES-6).”
- “There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly (i.e., independent from an effect on annoyance or sleep) causing health problems or disease (p. ES-6).”
Reflect closely on this language.
- Noise causes annoyance and disrupts sleep.
- Annoyance and sleep disruption causes stress and disease states.
- While the evidence demonstrates that industrial wind turbines cause annoyance and disrupt sleep, the Panel finds it is insufficient or an indirect cause.
- Do you believe that assertion?
The Panel’s report and conclusions are JUNK SCIENCE.
What does this mean for Shelburne?
- There will be wind turbine noise.
- Prepare yourself for the “‘swoosh-boom’ sound, the once-per-second amplitude modulation … of the ‘swoosh-boom’ sound, or some combination of the two.” [See the Impact Study, p. 13, cited above.]
- This noise will disrupt the sleep of an unknown number of Shelburne and Buckland residents.
- This noise will cause low-to-severe cases of “annoyance,” every day, every hour, every minute for an unknown number of residents.
- The non-stop annoyance and sleep disruption will cause stress and disease states for an unknown number of residents.
- This noise will affect many Shelburne residents in precisely the same fashion as has been found in Falmouth, Vinalhaven and across New England.
- Are you ready to be guinea pigs for an experiment in which we suffer the possible consequences while outside developers make hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, and then leave town?
Raymond S. Hartman is a Shelburne resident, living in the Patten District: ‘I have a BA from Princeton University and a Masters and PhD from MIT. All of my degrees are in mathematical economics. I have been a member (Associate Professor) of the faculties of MIT, Boston University, and University of California, Berkeley. I have published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles and contract research using statistical and mathematical models, methods, and data. I am currently President and Director of Greylock McKinnon Associates, an economic consulting firm specializing in analysis in support of litigation. Indeed, I regularly have testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office in a variety of matters, including the 1995-1996 tobacco litigation (the result of which the Commonwealth received billions of dollars in settlement from “Big Tobacco”); litigation against large drug companies for defrauding the Massachusetts Medicaid program (2008-2011); the restructuring of the electric power industry (1990s); and a variety of utility rate cases (2000s). Over the past 40 years, I have reviewed and responded to hundreds of “Expert Reports” like “The Wind Turbine Health Impact Study.”’
Download original document: “The Wind Turbine Health Impact Study Is Junk Science”
Pragmatic view of a wind turbine noise standard
Source: Dickinson, Philip
Abstract
New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind farm noise is unique in that it acknowledges, up front under committee representation, that a representative of a university involved in its development does not support the Standard. Since that time a number of papers and presentations have decried this opposition to the Standard without giving the committee member the privilege of comment or reply. This paper is to put the record straight and explain why the Standard is not supported. Wind farms may well be a viable alternative energy source, but the effects of noise immissions on the health of people living within several kilometres of the wind farms is becoming a concern. The noise level from a wind farm may be quite low, but its characteristics compared to that of the normal background sound make it stand out as something quite different. Often the sound is heard more clearly indoors than outside due to its ability to excite room resonances, making it an irritant causing severe loss of sleep and extreme annoyance. New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 closely follows that used in Britain and parts of Europe, even though there are clear indications that the criteria to be met do not fully conform with World Health Organization recommendations, and the method used is likely mathematically, scientifically and ethically wrong. This Standard and similar standards across the world are clearly biased towards cost effective wind farm development, and it appears public health concerns are not being given enough attention.
Philip J Dickinson
College of Sciences, Massey University Wellington, New Zealand
Updated from paper presented at Acoustics 2009, 23-25 November 2009, Adelaide, Australia
Download “A pragmatic view of a wind turbine noise standard”
