[ 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

Intentional bias behind AMA position statement?  

Credit:  Sandy Reider, MD ~~

Dear Dr. Hambleton,

As a rural primary care physician (graduate of Harvard Medical School in 1971) in northern Vermont, USA, I have observed first hand the adverse health effects experienced by individuals living too close to the two large wind projects that have been brought online in the area over the past few years. In my testimony (see attached below) last year before the Vermont Senate Health Care Committee (as well as testimony before the Senate Natural Resources Committee and the Governor’s Siting Commission), I described one such patient in detail. His complaints are typical, and similar to symptoms reported by the 5 or 6 others, who I have seen in my office, as well as many other reports around the world. Though industry and health authorities alike have dismissed these case reports as anecdotal, their sheer numbers and consistency can be ignored only if there exists an intentional bias, but not on scientific grounds. I do understand there is much current debate about whether the health effects are “direct” or “indirect”, but from a clinical perspective, looking at health outcomes, this is an entirely academic distinction, and not at all pertinent for the person(s) adversely affected.

Likewise, the industry’s refusal to consider that very low frequency sound may be contributing to these adverse health effects, seems to represent another example of intentional scientific bias. A detailed study of infrasound produced by large downwind bladed wind turbines, and its health effects, was undertaken by the US Dept. of Energy and NASA in the mid-1980’s:


It clearly documented the significant adverse effects of infrasound generated by large downwind bladed wind turbines, and recommended protective sound threshold standards. This is far from new information, and taken with other more recent papers, it does not seem credible to exclude from consideration the adverse health effects from infrasound produced by these large modern wind turbines.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the siting standards for large wind projects have been, and continue to be, inadequate to protect the health of many persons living in their vicinity, and sincerely hope the Australian Medical Association will review it’s current position that negates such concerns.

Sandy Reider MD

Also see: 
Letter from Dr. Jay Tibbets, Wisconsin, to AMA.
Letter from Dr. Robert McMurtry, Ontario, to AMA.
Letter from Dr. Håkan Enbom, Sweden, to AMA.
Letter from Dr. Mauri Johanssen, Denmark, to AMA.
More letters:  www.wind-watch.org/news/tag/ama/

Source:  Sandy Reider, MD

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


Tag: AMA

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.