Resource Documents: Human rights (75 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are 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.
Author: Andre, Mark; Andre, Donna; et al.
State of New York Supreme Court, County of Wyoming—
33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Invenergy created and owns a wind energy operation, including wind turbines on property located within 800-1500 feet from the properties owned by Plaintiffs.
34. Upon the construction of and operation of the· wind turbines, Defendant has destroyed Plaintiffs’ rural viewshed from their property.
35. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has caused constant noise, vibrations and flicker to enter Plaintiffs’ property, significantly impacting the health and wellbeing of the Plaintiffs and causing them to become sick, sore, lame and disabled.
36. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has caused constant noise and vibrations significantly diminishing the value of Plaintiffs’ property and home.
37. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s wind turbines have violated, on a regular basis, town noise ordinances that restrict the noise levels to 50 decibels.
38. Moreover, Defendant’s operation of such wind turbines caused noise pollution, vibrations, and flicker to occur, creating a nuisance and interfering with Plaintiffs’ exclusive possessory interest in their property, and causing Plaintiffs’ quality of life to be significantly diminished.
39. In spite of being informed of the nuisance condition created by the Defendant, the Defendant has refused to either abate the nuisance or otherwise engage in any mitigating measures, intentionally continuing the nuisance that they have created, causing a significant diminishment of the Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property, quality of life, health, value of Plaintiffs’ property and economic wellbeing.
Download original document: “Andre et al. v. Invenergy”
Author: Laurie, Sarah
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your rally.
I first wish to pay tribute to the long suffering residents of Falmouth USA, who lived or are still living near the wind turbines owned by the town. These people have made an incredible contribution to our knowledge of wind turbine acoustics, wind turbine adverse health impacts, and have shown true human courage and compassion for others in a similar situation – both in their own country and further afield. We owe them, their acoustics and health professionals, and their supporters, a great debt of gratitude.
Their lived experiences, which are now very much in the public domain, in part because of their determination to fight for their legal and human rights, are a window on the incredible suffering which excessive intrusive wind turbine noise can cause. These people are just like you and me but have had to suffer intolerably and disgracefully because of gross government regulatory failure and corporate bastardry, deceit and greed.
They are simply trying to live their lives, free from the devastating adverse health effects resulting from what can only be described as an invasion of their home, resulting in acoustic trespass and noise nuisance, from pulsing infrasound and low frequency noise. These frequencies have been known to be harmful for over thirty years since the seminal research work by Dr Neil Kelley and his team from NASA and other research organisations.
Wind turbines are of course not the only source of this damaging sound energy, but once someone is sensitised, their body and brain don’t care what the source of the pulsing sound is – it is going to react anyway, at ever decreasing doses, until or unless they can remove themselves from that exposure. The only two options are turn off the noise OR move away.
It is not humanly possible to go for long without good quality sleep and remain unharmed and as you all probably know, sleep deprivation from repeated sleep disturbance is the commonest problem reported by most residents living near industrial wind power facilities. This inevitably results in exhaustion, and consequently serious and predictable adverse physical and mental health effects.
The Centers for Disease Control in America has recently stated the obvious – that insufficient sleep is a public health problem. Their website states the following:
“Sleep is increasingly recognized as important to public health, with sleep insufficiency linked to motor vehicle crashes, industrial disasters, and medical and other occupational errors.1 Unintentionally falling asleep, nodding off while driving, and having difficulty performing daily tasks because of sleepiness all may contribute to these hazardous outcomes. Persons experiencing sleep insufficiency are also more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, depression, and obesity, as well as from cancer, increased mortality, and reduced quality of life and productivity.”
So why are the most commonly reported symptoms of wind turbine neighbours, ignored by the American Health Authorities? Where are the public health physicians?
Why has there not yet been even one detailed case study of one person, anywhere in the world, examining the full spectrum of acoustic exposures overnight, together with concurrent sleep study EEG and continuous heart rate monitoring?
The Waubra Foundation has been calling for this precise research for the last five years.
As you all no doubt know, US Acousticians Rob Rand and Steve Ambrose conducted the wonderful initial acoustic investigation in Falmouth, USA funded by the generosity of Bruce McPherson, which provided vitally important clues about the causes of the symptoms. This study is still of global importance, and is something which Falmouth residents should be very proud of.
But where are the medical and public health investigators? They seem to be in hiding; either ignoring important research evidence in the case of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council “expert panel” with members who had documented conflicts of interest, or in the case of Health Canada, deliberately choosing study designs which do not directly investigate the problems in the best possible way. For example any doctor knows that you do not make clinical judgements about someone’s blood pressure with a single once off measurement, yet that is what this Health Canada team did – with no concurrent measurement of the acoustic exposure at the time. You must repeat the measurement. This is junk science, and Health Canada know it, and are trying to hide it by dribbling the study results out slowly and in small “bites”, restricting access to the raw data and other results, making it very difficult for others to critically evaluate their results.
I applaud Falmouth Psychiatrist Dr William Hallstein for his professional integrity, courage, and honesty – advocating so strongly for his patients, to whom he owes a professional and ethical duty of care, which he clearly takes seriously. Others need to follow his example.
I also applaud Dr Nina Pierpont for her research, and her courage and integrity, and her work with Falmouth residents, helping them expose their stories to the public.
But where are their colleagues? Why the silence?
The silence of too many professionals, or indeed even active collusion with noise polluters to hide or ignore the evidence of serious harm, has allowed this serious abuse of the legal and human rights of residents in Falmouth, and indeed all over the world, to occur, and to continue.
But why are the public servants responsible for environmental health, planning and noise pollution regulation, seemingly so complicit with the harmful abuse of the rights of citizens?
Is it ignorance or incompetence?
Is it pure corruption?
Is it regulatory capture?
Is it ideological zealotry – an attitude that leads to the concept that people who are noise impacted from wind turbine noise are somehow acceptable “collateral damage”.
Is it fear of being ridiculed or ostracized by colleagues?
I am very glad that you are showing such open and public support for the impacted Falmouth residents today, and I join with you in demanding immediate change before any more damage is done to vulnerable citizens.
There must be full spectrum acoustic measurements inside and outside people’s homes, with the complete cooperation of the wind turbine operators so that on off testing can be performed to determine the true contribution of the wind turbines to the soundscape, and so the symptom triggers can be properly identified.
If the turbines are disturbing sleep, they must be turned off at night.
If health is being adversely impacted, there needs to be a resolution – two alternatives being property buy outs with compensation for nuisance, or wind turbines being deconstructed and removed. There are precedents for both.
Its time people’s health, and their human rights are properly protected – in particular the right to attain the best possible physical and mental health.
That fundamental human right to the best possible health specified in most United Nations Human Rights instruments, is not possible if people cannot sleep.
Author: Barrett, Eva
On 1 July 2010, Ireland gave an ambitious pledge to convert a significant share of electricity generation from conventional to onshore wind generation. This pledge was designed to support a legal obligation to reach a 16 per cent share in renewable energy consumption by 2020. More recently, buoyed by the apparent success of the initial policy, the Irish Government indicated its intention to explore the potential for a wind generated electricity export market. However, problems are evident that threaten these ambitions as Ireland’s wind policy and most of its commercial wind developments (namely those constructed before 2011) are open to legal challenge for having breached EU law. Although the case law that supports this proposition will be considered solely in relation to the threat it poses to Ireland’s wind policy and developments, the jurisprudence has broad-ranging implications for renewable energy across the EU, and for environmental lawyers and policy-makers in all 28 of the EU’s Member States.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 2015
Vol 33, No 1, 59–81, doi: 10.1080/02646811.2015.1008847
Download original document: “‘In sowing the wind, how Ireland could reap the whirlwind’ – a case against Irish wind development(s)”
Author: Krogh, Carmen
University of Waterloo Seminar, May 7, 2014
1948: Definition of health
Constitution of the World Health Organization:
“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”
Annoyance is acknowledged to be an adverse health effect.
- Health Canada, Community Noise Annoyance, Its Your Health (2005, September)
- Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., & McMurchy, D., “Noise Annoyance in Canada”, Noise Health, 7, 39-47 (2005)
- Pedersen, E., & Persson Waye, K., “Wind Turbine Noise, Annoyance and Self-Reported Health and Well Being in Different Living Environments”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64, 480-486 (2007) doi:10.1136/oem.2006.031039
- Suter, A. H., Noise and Its Effects, Washington, DC: Administrative Conference of the United States (1991)
- New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Rural Wind Farms (2009, December)
Definition: Sound versus noise
World Health Organization defines noise as “unwanted sound.” [Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H., Guidelines for Community Noise, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (1999)]
Sound meters can assess sound; however, humans assess “noise.”
Humans are being considered as “objective measuring instruments (New Experts), whose reports and descriptions must be taken seriously and quantified by technical measurements.” [Bray, Wade, Acoustical Society of America 164th Meeting, Kansas City, MO, 22‐26 October, 2012, 2aNS6, Relevance and applicability of the Soundscape concept to physiological or behavioural effects caused by noise at very low frequencies which may not be audible. www.acoustics.org/press/164th/Bray_2aNS6.html]
2009: Commonly reported symptoms
Dr. Nina Pierpont documented symptoms reported by individuals exposed to wind turbines which include: 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. [Pierpont, N., Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment, Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books (2009)]
“I am happy to accept these symptoms … what Pierpont describes is effects of annoyance by noise – a stress effect …” —Geoff Leventhall, Wind turbine syndrome – an appraisal
“… well-known stress effects of exposure to noise …” —David Colby et al., Wind turbine sound and health effects: an expert panel review
“… Wind Turbine Syndrome is the result of stress from annoyance by audible noise from wind turbines …” —Geoff Leventhall, Wind farms and human health
Noise: Direct and indirect pathways
World Health Organization, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, 2009:
High sound level: direct cause of stress
Moderate sound level: indirect pathway to annoyance and stress, via disturbance of activities, sleep, and communication and cognitive and emotional response
Stress reactions of autonomic nervous system and endocrine system (pituitary, adrenal) affect biological risk factors involving blood pressure and viscosity, cardiac output, and blood lipids, glucose, and clotting factors – which lead to manifest disorders, namely cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, arteriosclerosis, and ischemic heart disease.
2010: Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health:
“While some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.” [emphasis added; Chief Medical Officer of Health. The potential health impact of wind turbines. www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/minis try_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf
CMOH report only looked at direct links.
2011: Direct and indirect impacts
“… The Tribunal has found above that “serious harm to human health” includes both direct impacts (e.g., a passer-by being injured by a falling turbine blade or a person losing hearing) or indirect impacts (e.g., a person being exposed to noise and then exhibiting stress and developing other related symptoms). This approach is consistent with both the WHO definition of health and Canadian jurisprudence on the topic.” [Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment Environmental Review Tribunal, Decision, p 190]
The ERT Decision expressed concerns “… 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 …” [p 206]
1986 Policy: Health Canada
“It is clear … that existing policies and practices are not sufficiently effective to ensure that Canadian men and women of all ages and backgrounds can have an equitable chance of achieving health … Conflicting interests may exist between sectors.” —Achieving health for all: a framework for health promotion [emphasis added]
2008 Policy: World Health Organisation
“Different government policies, depending on their nature, can either improve or worsen health and health equity.” —Closing the gap in a generation
2009: Green Energy Act, Ontario
Preamble: The Government of Ontario is committed to fostering the growth of renewable energy projects, which use cleaner sources of energy, and to removing barriers to and promoting opportunities for renewable energy projects and to promoting a green economy. [emphases added]
Message from Co-Chair Geoff Munro, Chief Scientist & Assistant Deputy Minister, Innovation and Energy Technology Sector, Natural Resources Canada:
“This Wind Technology Roadmap is an industry-led, government-supported initiative that has developed a long-term vision for the Canadian wind energy industry and identified the major technology gaps and priorities to achieve a major increase in deployment of wind energy in Canada.”
Yesterday’s and Today’s Industrial Wind Turbines
Real property value: Denmark
“An erector of a wind turbine has a duty to pay compensation for loss of value of real property following the erection of the wind turbine. the size of the loss of value is determined by an appraisal authority.” [Danish Energy Agency, “Loss of value to real property due the erection of wind turbines”, www.ens.dk/en- US/supply/Renewable-energy/WindPower/Onshore-Wind-Power/Loss-of-value-to-real-property/Sider/Forside.aspx, cited August 21, 2012]
2011 Ontario disclosure
“3. Are there any hydro generating projects planned for the immediate area? eg: Wind Turbines” [Ontario Real Estate Association, Seller Property Information Statement, Form 220 for use in the Province of Ontario, Revised 2011]
2004: Special edition: Noise & Health
“It is difficult for residents to protect themselves against low frequency emissions.”
“Conventional methods of assessing annoyance, typically based on A-weighed equivalent sound level, are inadequate for low frequency noise and lead to incorrect decisions by regulatory authorities.
Experiments with both animals and humans have shown that the vibroacoustic stress or causes thickening of cardiovascular structures (cardiac muscle and blood vessels).
2007: Examples of reviews
LFN-exposed animal models: “LFN is an agent of disease and the respiratory tract is one of its preferential targets.” —Branco NA et al, 2007, Respiratory pathology in vibroacoustic disease: 25 years of research. [Review] Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia. 13(1):129- 35, 2007 Jan-Feb [27 refs]
Patients and animals: “At present, infrasound (0-20 Hz) and low-frequency noise (20-500 Hz) (ILFN, 0-500 Hz) are agents of disease that go unchecked. … Frequency-specific effects are not yet known, valid dose-responses have been difficult to identify, and large-scale epidemiological studies are still lacking.” —Alves-Pereira M & Branco NA, Vibroacoustic disease: biological effects of infrasound and low-frequency noise explained by mechanotransduction cellular signalling. [Review] Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology. 93(1-3):256-79, 2007 Jan-Apr. [123 refs]
“There is sufficient research and history to link the sensitivity of some people to inaudible amplitude-modulated infra and low-frequency noise to they type of symptoms described by those living near industrial wind turbines. This information should have served as a warning sign.”
—James, Richard R. Wind Turbine Infra and Low-Frequency Sound: Warnings Signs That Were Not Heard DOI: 10.1177/0270467611421845, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society published online 15 December 2011, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/07/0270467611421845
Downwind 2 MW MOD turbine, Boone, North Carolina [N.D. Kelley et al., A methodology for assessment of wind turbine noise generation]:
“unexpected noise complaints from a few residents within 3 km”
“… hypothesize one of the causal factors related to annoyance associated with the pulsating pressure fields in the rooms measured is a coupling with human body resonances … creating a sensation of a whole-body vibration.” [emphasis added]
“This perception is more noticeable indoors…”
1987 Proposed Metric
N.D. Kelley, A proposed metric for assessing the potential of community annoyance from wind turbine low-frequency noise emissions, November 1987, Presented at Windpower’87 Conference and Exposition, October 5-8, 1987, San Francisco, California:
“… over a range of 5-100 Hz …
“4. Calculate the equivalent PLSL or PC levels at the reference distance of 1 km …
“Add 15 dB to the results of step (4)”
[PLSL = predicted low-frequency sound level; PC = predicted C-weighted]
Birgitta Berglund and Peter Hassmen, Sources and effects of low-frequency noise, J Acoust Soc Am 99 (5), May 1996:
“Further research is needed in relation to a number of features and outcomes of low-frequency noise. These needs include the following.
(1) In general, there has been too little research on the role of different frequency spectra of noise in the production of effects on humans. Greater consideration of this factor in many studies of noise is desirable.
(2) Most of the research of adverse effects of low-frequency noise in humans has used short durations of exposure. It is of great importance to research prolonged exposures …” [emphases added]
2000: WHO on low-frequency noise in general
“Health effects due to low-frequency components in noise are estimated to be more severe than for community noises in general” —World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, 2000 www.euro.who.int/mediacentre/PR/2009/20091008_1
2004: Low-frequency noise exposure in general
“… chronic psychophysiological damage may result from long-term exposure to low-level low frequency noise.”
“The claim that their ‘lives have been ruined’ by the noise is not an exaggeration …”
Low frequency noise annoyance
“Those exposed may adopt protective strategies, such as sleeping in their garage if the noise is less disturbing there. Or they may sleep elsewhere, returning to their own homes only during the day.”
[Leventhall HG. Low frequency noise and annoyance. Noise Health [serial online] 2004 [cited 2009 Dec 31]; 6:59-72. Available from: www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2004/6/23/59/31663
2007: National Research Council:
“Low-frequency vibration and its effects on humans are not well understood. Sensitivity to such vibration resulting from wind-turbine noise is highly variable among humans…. studies on human sensitivity to very low frequencies are recommended.” —National Research Council (NRC). Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, 2007, Washington, DC [emphasis added]
2007: Wind turbine noise characteristics
“Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and it creates a different type of nuisance compared to usual urban, industrial, or commercial noise.”
[Soysai, H., and O. Soysai. Wind farm noise and regulations in the eastern United States. 2007. Proceedings of the Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise. Lyon, France: September 20-21, 2007. INCE/Europe.]
2008: Wind turbine noise is more annoying
“… wind turbine sound is relatively annoying, more so than equally loud sound from aircraft or road traffic.”
“… and (more) sound mitigation measures must be considered.”
—Pedersen et al., 2008, Project WINDFARMperception, Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents, Netherlands
2010 to 2014: Inner ear research
2010: “In this review, we consider possible ways that low frequency sounds, at levels that may or may not be heard, could influence the function of the ear.” [Salt, Alec N. and Hullar, T.E. Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines. Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. Hearing Research 2010 Sep 1; 268(1-2):12-21. Epub 2010 Jun 16]
2011: “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.” [Salt, Alec N. and Kaltenbach, James A. Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 296, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412555 http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296]
2012: “… we have to be concerned that sounds that are not perceived are clearly transduced by the ear and may still affect people in ways that have yet to be fully understood.” [Salt, Alec N. and Lichtenhan, Jeffery T. Perception-based protection from low- frequency sounds may not be enough Invited paper presented at Inter-noise 2012, New York City, NY]
2014: “Based on well-established principles of the physiology of the ear and how it responds to very low-frequency sounds, there is ample justification to take this problem more seriously than it has been to date.” [Salt AN and Lichtenhan JT, How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People? Acoustics Today. A publication of the Acoustical Society of America. Volume 10: Issue One: Winter 2014]
2012: Wisconsin: Brown County Board of Health
“Therefore, be it resolved that the Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property. The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.”
2012: A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin. Prepared cooperatively by: Channel Islands Acoustics, Camarillo, California; Hessler Associates, Haymarket, Virginia; Rand Acoustics, Brunswick, Maine; and Schomer and Associates, Champaign, Illinois. Report number 122412-1. Issued December 24, 2012.
“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. I thould be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.” [emphasis added]
2012: Massachusetts: Falmouth Health Department (June 11, 2012)
“The Falmouth Board of Health requests that Mass DPH immediately initiate a health assessment of the impacts of the operation of wind turbines in Falmouth. This appeal is compelled by two years of consistent and persistent complaints of health impacts during turbine operation. … Due to the increasing intensity of the reported health impacts, the Board is considering emergency actions. To determine the appropriateness of such actions, the Board requests immediate guidance on interim measures to protect the health of affected individuals while the complete health assessment is being conducted.”
2012: Town of Falmouth vs. Town of Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals and Others
“By order of the court, preliminary injunction shall issue until further order of the courts. 1. The Town of Falmouth, its Selectmen, agents and persons acting in concert shall be restrained from operating the Wind Turbines located at the Waste Water Treatment Facility except during the hours of 7am to 7pm, every day of the week except Sunday.”
—Superior Court Civil Action No. BACV 2013-00281, November 21, 2013
Judicial processes in other venues
2012: Supreme Court Bavaria Germany: 3 dB addition for pulsed noise for the E82 and compensation
2012: High Court UK: Viewscape/landscape
2013: Supreme Court Portugal: Removal of 4 turbines and compensation
Children and vulnerability to noise
WHO: vulnerable groups
- The fetus and babies
- Preterm, low birth weight and small for gestational age babies
- Children with dyslexia and hyperactivity
- Children on ototoxic medication”
Direct and indirect effects
Direct: ear damage
Indirect (physiological and psychological effects):
- impaired cognition
- stress-related somatic effects (stress hormone, blood pressure and muscle spasm)
- psychological effects n annoyance/isolation
- sleep disturbance and mental health issues
- cognitive effects – reading, concentration, memory and attention issues, (reading comprehension and long term memory)
- Academic performance affects
—World Health Organization, Children and Noise, Children’s Health and the Environment, WHO Training Package for the Health Sector, www.who.int/ceh
Pre-existing medical conditions
- Autism [1,2,3]
- Asthma [4,5]
- Migraine [6,7]
- Bronchitis 
- Epilepsy [9,10]
- Childhood asthma  and migraine  can be triggered by stress
 Cristina Becchio, Morena Mari, Umberto Castiello, (2010). Perception of Shadows in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders PLoS ONE | May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10582. Retrieved from www.plosone.org
 Catherine Purple Cherry and Lauren Underwood. The ideal home for the autistic child: physiological rationale for design strategies. Autism Science Digest: The Journal Of Autismone, Issue 03 Retrieved from www.purplecherry.com.
 Flavia Cortesi, Flavia Giannotti, Anna Ivanenko, Kyle Johnson (2010). Sleep in children with autistic spectrum disorder, Sleep Medicine 11 (2010) 659–664.
 Hartmut Ising, Martin Ising (2002), Chronic cortisol increases in the first half of the night caused by road traffic noise. Noise and Health 2002,4(16):13-21. Retrieved from www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2002;volume=4;issue=16;spage=13;epage=21;aulast=Ising
 Bockelbrink A, Willich SN, Dirzus I, Reich A, Lau S, Wahn U, Keil T. (2008) Environmental noise and asthma in children: sex specific differences J Asthma. 2008 Nov;45(9):770-3.
 Neut D, Fily A, Cuvellier JC, Vallée L (2011). The prevalence of triggers in paediatric migraine: a questionnaire study in 102 children and adolescents. J Headache Pain. 2011 Nov 1. [Epub ahead of print]
 Doreen Wagner, Velitchko Manahilov, Gunter Loffler, Gael E. Gordon, and Gordon N. Dutton, Visual Noise Selectively Degrades Vision in Migraine Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, April 2010, Vol. 51, No. 4. Retrieved from www.iovs.org/content/51/4/2294.full.pdf
 Ising H, Lange-Asschenfeldt H, Moriske HJ, Born J, Eilts M., Low frequency noise and stress: bronchitis and cortisol in children, Noise Health. 2004 Apr-Jun;6(23):21-8
 Gilboa T. Epilepsia. 2011 Dec 9. Emotional stress-induced seizures: Another reflex epilepsy? doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03342.x. [Epub ahead of print]
 Epilepsy Facts – Epilepsy Canada Cited March 2012, Retrieved from www. email@example.com
2003: Children and possible irreversible negative consequences
“It is likely that children represent a group which is particularly vulnerable to the non-auditory health effects of noise.” [emphasis added]
“… there is a possible risk that exposure to an environmental stressor such as noise may have irreversible negative consequences for this group …” [emphasis added]
[Stephen A Stansfeld and Mark P Matheson (2003), Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health, British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68: 243–257. DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldg033 Retrieved from http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/1/243.full.pdf]
2009 Children & learning
“The American National Standards Institute emphasizes that school buildings’ sound isolation should prevent two types of noise: … outside of the school building … within the school building such as unwanted speech.”
[Robert Ljung, Patrik Sorqvist and Staffan Hygge (2009), Effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children’s reading and mathematical performance. Noise and Health, Oct-Dec 2009. http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2009;volume=11;issue=45;spage=194;epage=198;aulast=Ljung]
2010: Long-term sleep disturbances in children: A cause of neuronal loss
“Animal experiments unequivocally show that sleep loss even for three or four days can adversely and permanently affect neurophysiological functions and neurogenesis.”
“This review summarises the increasing evidence … that chronic disturbances of sleep adversely affect brain development … Pediatric neurologists, the scientific community and the public must be aware of these recent scientific developments. Further studies are urgently required.”
—James E. Jan et al., European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 14 (2010) 380-390
2012: WHO: short- and long-term health problems
“Noise is an underestimated threat that can cause a number of short- and long-term health problems, such as for example sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, poorer work and school performance, hearing impairment, etc.”
—World Health Organization Noise Facts and Figures, cited December 23, 2012, http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/facts-and-figures
Low frequency noise guidelines
2009: Low frequency noise guidelines
“It is proposed that wind turbines would not be permitted less than 550 metres from the nearest dwelling and this minimum setback would increase with the number and loudness of turbines. It is also proposed that there would be setback distances from all roads, railways, and property side and rear lot lines, and there would be ongoing requirements to monitor and address low frequency noise and vibrations.’ —John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment (Ontario), email July 13, 2009, 3:56 pm
2009: LFN/infrasound guidelines
“… CanWEA submits that the proposed requirement for infrasound or low frequency noise monitoring as a condition of the REA be removed.” —CanWEA EBR Posting 010-6516 (Proposed Ministry of the Environment Regulations to Implement the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. 2009) – CanWEA’s Supplemental Submission Dated July 24, 2009, EBR Comment ID 123788. Signed Robert Hornung President.
2011: LFN/infrasound guidelines
In fact, according to our analyses, the most economical turbines, the 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements to neighbours for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years. … The proposed low frequency limit values may hinder the development of onshore wind in Denmark, including meeting our commitments in relation to the EEC. Ultimately, we consider there is a danger that the regulations will be coped by other countries and accordingly this will provide an obstacle to the popularisation of wind energy at a global level. Both issues will damage Vestas as a business, including affecting Danish activities.” [emphases added]
—Ditleve Engel, Chief Executive Officer, Vestas Wind Systems, letter 29 June 2011
2009: Health effect “conclusively demonstrated”
“Health Canada provides advice on the health effect of noise and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from proposed wind turbine projects, particularly for environmental assessments done under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. to date, their examination of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase of self-reported general annoyance and complaints (e.g, headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo).” [emphasis added]
—Correspondence from the Honourable Rona Ambrose, June 30, 2009
2010: ON Freedom of Information
“… the setback distances should be calculated using a sound level limit of 30 to 32 dBA at the receptor, instead of the 40 dBA sound level limit.” [emphasis added]
“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
2010: Setbacks and noise levels expected to adversely affect some
“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.” [emphases added]
—Low frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine Generation Systems, A Literature Review, Ontario Ministry of Environment. RFP December 10, 2010 [MOE consultant report]
2011: Environmental Review Tribunal
“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.”
—Case Nos. 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment Environmental Review Tribunal, Decision, p 207
2013: Health Canada wind turbine noise study
“Dr. Michaud acknowledged that there is credible scientific support for an association between wind turbine noise and community annoyance. He explained that the study will help to build the evidence base to determine the link between nosie created by wind turbines, including infrasound and low frequency, and variables like sleep disturbance, stress, quality of life and annoyance.”
—Dr. David Michaud, meeting with MP Poilieve, June 2013 newsletter
2012–2014: Reported wind turbine health effects
Austrian Medical Association Issues Warning, Calls for Comprehensive Studies on Wind Turbine Noise and minimum safety distances to populated areas. April 30 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2014/austrian-medical-association-issues-warning-calls-for-comprehensive-studies-wind-turbine-noise/
Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen M.E. Krogh, and Brett Horner, Industrial wind turbines and adverse health effects Can J Rural Med 2014;19(1) www.cma.ca/multimedia/staticContent/HTML/N0/l2/cjrm/vol-19/issue-1/pdf/pg21.pdf
Enbom H and Enbom IM, Infrasound from wind turbines: An overlooked health hazard,” Läkartidningen, vol. 110 (2013), pp. 1388-89.
Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen Krogh, and Brett Horner, Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines Can Fam Physician 2013; 59: 473-475 (Commentary) www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full
Roy D. Jeffery MD FCFP, Carmen Krogh, Brett Horner CMA, Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines, Letter to editor, Vol 59: September • septembre 2013, Canadian Family Physician • Le Médecin de famille canadien
Hanning, Christopher D. and Evans, Alun Editorial: Wind turbine noise British Medical Journal, BM J2 012;344. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1527 (8 March 2012)
Nissenbaum, Michael A.; Aramini, Jeffery J.; and Hanning, Christopher D. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health Noise & Health, September-October 2012, Volume 14, p 243
1999: WHO precaution in general
“… 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.” [emphasis added]
—World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, WHO (1999). www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html
Policy Interpretation Network on Children’s Health and Environment:
“Policies that may protect children’s health or may minimise irreversible health effects should be implemented, and policies or measures should be applied based on the precautionary principle, in accordance with the Declaration of the WHO Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest in 2004.”
—Report WP7 Summary PINCHE policy recommendations, Policy Interpretation Network on Children’s Health and Environment (PINCHE) QLK4-2002-02395
- Government lack of acknowledgement of health issues
- Burden of proof of causality before prevention and precaution n Reported loss of trust in the processes/systems
- Loss of decision-making rights (imposed without consent)
- Characterizations: “NIMBYISM” [not in my backyard]; “anti-wind”, “anti-wind activist”; “opponent”; and attributing negative effects based on fright factors/lack of financial agreements/nocebo effect.
- Community/individual financial burdens: consultation and appeal processes; relocate; remain exposed; enter into legal actions
- Acknowledge that:
- r>Experimental and human research on noise including low frequency noise/infrasound and risk factors are available.
- If sited too close to residences, wind turbines can cause harm to humans.
- Children are vulnerable to effects of noise.
- Invoke prevention and precaution before approving more projects.
- Provide relief/remedy to those reporting harm.
- Implement vigilance and long term surveillance monitoring.
Download original document: “Harm from wind turbines – What has been known for decades”