Documents filed under Impact on People
In this paper, the authors warn Canadian family physicians of increasing numbers of rural patients reporting adverse effects from exposure to industrial wind turbines (IWTs). The abstract, background and conclusion of the paper appear below. The full paper can be accessed by clicking the link(s) on this page.
Vermont physician, Dr. Sandy Reider, delivered this testimony before the Vermont Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. His testimony discusses Dr. Reider's clinical observations regarding the health impacts of living too close to large wind turbines.
In this scientific policy advisory report, the Superior Health Council of Belgium answers questions on the impact on health and well-being of siting wind farms in residential areas, placed in a context of sustainable development. The Superior Health Council formulates general recommendations as well as recommendations linked to specific physical environmental factors in order to develop onshore wind energy in a socially acceptable way, taking a quality of life perspective.
This lawsuit filed against Consumers Energy Company, owner of the Lake Winds Energy Park consisting of fifty-six Vestas V100 1.8 megawatt turbines with a total installed capacity of 100.8 megawatts. An excerpt of the complaint is provided below. The full complaint can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
In this paper by Dr. Raymond S. Hartman, Dr. Hartman critiques two reports that claim to provide scientific evidence regarding the adverse health effects of Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs). Each paper attributes increased reports of adverse health effects to some form of mass hysteria. These research papers are fatally flawed, for reasons Dr. Hartman discusses in his paper. The overview and summary of Dr. Hartman's paper is provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.
Audiologist Dr. Jerry Punch (Ph.D) released this critique of a paper published in Health Psychology where Dr. Punch takes issue with the authors' study methodology and conclusion that human health responses to wind turbine infrasound emissions are psychosomatic symptoms resulting from the anticipation that the sound will be harmful.
This study was publish in Health Psychology. The abstract appears below. The full document can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
In this important ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the court found that a proposed wind project that was accepted for review by the State prior to more restrictive nighttime sound emissions limits being adopted, would still be subject to the new sound limits. The full ruling can be accessed at the link below.
The US EPA submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the Shu'luuk Wind Project proposed for the Campo Indian Reservation in San Diego County, California. An excerpt of the comments is provided below including EPA's concerns about infrasound and the potential impact on human health. The full submission can be accessed by clicking the link on this page. This project was officially withdrawn from consideration.
The wind developer for Fairhaven Wind, two industrial-scale towers built near residences, has admitted that the sound survey conducted on October 15, 2012 was tainted due to one of the turbines, while still spinning, was not producing power. The developer insists human error was the cause but claims the no intent to artificially reduce the sound levels. The State of Massachusetts has ordered the results be discarded and for further studies to be conducted.
Dr. Steven Cooper, an Australian acoustician with considerable experience measuring wind turbine sound emissions, prepared this important and detailed critique of a study sponsored by the South Australia EPA on low-frequency noise. The SA EPA report insisted that infrasound emitted by wind turbines was not different from infrasound from other sources in the environment. Dr. Cooper exposes the fatal flaws in the EPA's methodology for surveying the sound. Excerpts of his critique are provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking the link at the bottom of this page.
This unanimous decision by the Nevada Supreme Court could have impacts across the U.S. The Court lays out a clear and convincing explanation for why a personal wind turbine in a residential subdivision should be prohibited. In the order, Justice Jim Hardesty covers noise, property value impacts and the effect on aesthetics including shadow flicker. Excerpts of the order are provided below. The full order can be accessed at the below links.
The following speech was given on the floor of the Australian Parliament, House of Representatives, by the Member for Hume, Alby Schultz. Mr. Schultz addresses the failure of the Waubra wind farm and others to operate within the limits of their permits, the high cost and inefficient operation of wind turbines and, what he deems fraudulent issue of RECs to shell companies overseas.
This straightforward, easy to understand analysis by acousticians Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand provide insight in to predicting whether wind turbine noise will result in community complaints. The report has four parts. Part 1 is shown below. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
This important study published in the The Journal of Laryngology & Otology found there is evidence to suggest that low frequency noise can affect inner ear function; the outer hair cells of the cochlear respond to sounds at frequencies known to be produced by wind turbines. In comments by the lead author (provided below) the researchers report that infrasound can cause deleterious effects on humans. The abstract with author comments can be viewed below. The full report can be accessed through the links at the bottom of the page.
David and Alida Mortimer host two Vestas 1.75 megawatt wind turbines in the Lake Bonney windfarm. Since the wind project went into service, he and his wife moved into a new farmhouse that they built away from the turbines. The new house is approximately 2.5 km from from a cluster of four turbines situated on his neighbor's property. The problem of noise has been significant. Mr. Mortimer filed this testimony before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal in reference to the Cherry Tree Wind Farm proposal. In his testimony, Mr. Mortimer details the disruptions and health complaints he and his wife are experiencing as a result of the turbines.
The Ontario government took almost 1½ years to respond to a freedom of information act regarding wind turbine noise emissions and the impact on the public. Despite claims that there were over 300 pages collected, a scant 26 pages were released and many of those pages are heavily redacted. But what was revealed was clear evidence that Ministry of Environment Provincial Officers knew of the adverse health effects of wind turbine noise years ago.
The Melancthon I and Melancthon II wind energy facilities (200 megawatts), known as Melancthon EcoPower Center, began commercial operation in March 2006. Since that time, numerious complaints of turbine noise and other adverse effects were reported; homes were abandoned. The Ontario government took almost 1½ years to respond to a freedom of information act to finally release this document, a draft abatement plan to address the noise. The document was never released to the public and the plan was never implemented. This document exposes that the Ontario Provincial government was well aware of the adverse effects created by the turbines years ago but chose to let people suffer.
These important comments prepared by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum respond to questions raised by the Australian Senate Environment & Communications committee during its inquiry into wind turbine noise. In particular, Dr. Nissenbaum explains how the 'nocebo' effect is not a factor and that health complaints reported by those living near large turbines are real and require attention.