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
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/