Dear AMA Federal Council Members,
I have particular interest in the Australian Medical Association (AMA) Position Statement on Wind Farms and Health 2014. Please to do not take offense at my forwardness. I have nowhere near the council’s expertise and I attempt only to make “simple sense” of your statements. I am also in a personal challenge involving the inappropriate siting of industrial wind turbines too near my home. I suspect the opposing litigants will reference this “poppy-cock” as creditable evidence and if so, I will raise the same concerns.
Please entertain me.
I find it odd that “The results of these measurements have shown that … infrasound levels are well below the perception threshold …” yet so many citizens have and are reporting ill symptoms consistent with turbine operation and no ill symptoms when turbine operations cease? I’m no expert but a reasonable man would deduct that only measuring infrasound might not be the “tell all” tool accurately defining results. What type of medical association would make a diagnosis, be satisfied, and allow patients to continue to become sick?
If the AMA’s opinion is that “The infrasound and low frequency sound generated by modern wind farms in Australia is well below the level where known health effects occur, and there is no accepted physiological mechanism where sub-audible infrasound could cause health effects,” what explanation, compelled by evidence, does the AMA offer? I’m no expert but a reasonable man wouldn’t expect a medical association to classify a whole bunch of its own citizens as crazy, hypersensitive or delusional without proof?
It’s odd that the AMA should tout “health scares” and misinformation as another reason folks too near wind farms have become sick. As cited in the previous paragraph, without the proof that valid concerns and experiences are unfounded, a reasonable man would think the AMA was trying to cast its own “voodoo” spell for whatever other reasons.
The portion of the AMA”s position that is irrefutable – “The regulation of wind farm developments should be guided entirely by the evidence …” To date, there is no evidence supporting a predictable, repetitive and safe setback that prevents wind turbine operations inducing illness for some people, whether at 300 or 1800 meters. Therefore, a reasonable man would side that safe regulation development would be impossible. The under-researched and “unknown” variables prevent a sound regulation.
As a side note, it’s my opinion that if the citizenry of Falmouth Massachusetts (USA) had entertained more of your labeled misinformation, anxiety and the threat of community division before the approval of our wind projects, the community”s reasonable men and women would have undoubtedly rejected the project.
Thank you very much for listening to a common man”s concerns. I hope they have given pause to ponder a change of AMA position. After all, medicine and all of its care givers are relied upon to make the sick better. An admirable vocation indeed!
Mark J. Cool
AMA President Dr Steve Hambleton
Vice President Professor Geoffrey Dobb
All members of AMA Federal Council
More letters: www.wind-watch.org/news/tag/ama/
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding