[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind turbines report ‘pitiful’  

Credit:  Graham Lloyd, Environment editor, The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au 26 March 2011 ~~

A National Health and Medical Research Council report dismissing concerns about wind turbines was a “pitiful and dubious document” that misrepresented research and relied on industry-funded reports, a Senate hearing was told yesterday.

Nina Pierpont, the US-based physician whose research led to the term Wind Turbine Syndrome, said the NHMRC report relied on statements by government departments and wind industry lobby groups and was not a credible report.

“This is not a scientific critique; there is obvious conflict of interest in what these documents and people have to say,” Dr Pierpont told the Senate hearing by telephone hook-up.

The NHMRC public statement published last July has been widely quoted in submissions to the Senate inquiry into the impacts of wind farm developments in regional areas.

The NHMRC report said there was “presently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects”.

Dr Pierpont said the US National Institute of Health had referred to “real scientific articles” that took “quite a different view of the physiological effects of infrasound and the potential effects of proximity to wind turbines on human health”.

Her wind turbine syndrome includes sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate and panic attacks.

She recommended more research be undertaken into the effect of infrasound, or very low-frequency sound waves.

The Senate hearing was told that, despite requests, the NHMRC had not made a submission to the inquiry.

CSIRO social scientists Peta Ashworth and Nina Hall told the inquiry the CSIRO had not conducted any research into the health impacts of wind farms but had relied on a survey of newspaper clippings and the NHMRC paper.

They said the CSIRO had not reviewed Dr Pierpont’s work because it had not come up in a search of a database of peer-reviewed work.

Dr Pierpont told the inquiry her work had been published as a book with peer reviews.

Family First senator Steve Fielding asked whether the CSIRO had “a vested commercial interest” because it was supplying smart load technology to wind energy companies.

Ms Ashworth and Dr Hall said they did not know.

Source:  Graham Lloyd, Environment editor, The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au 26 March 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.