The issue of health effects of wind turbines is a late addition to this site. I've held off because, although the noise, flicker, vibration etc properties of turbines could conceivably cause health problems, the evidence I've seen until recently has not been totally persuasive. A number of people living close to turbines have complained about these various effects, but that doesn't necessarily translate to health problems. Unfortunately, over time, the evidence is building up. More and more doctors are starting to speak out about the symptoms they've noticed and how they seem to be directly related to turbine exposure.

Thus far the argument between proponents and opponents has quite a deja-vu aspect to it. Something is created (a drug, a wind farm, a new chemical, cigarettes, whatever) and the creators make a lot of money from it. After some length of time people exposed to the creation start noticing health symptoms. It takes a while, but finally there's enough correlation between the creation and the symptoms to get someone's attention. The creators impede the following investigations in any way they can - hiding data, misrepresenting data, hiring pr firms, attacking the detractors. I think we've all seen the script. Eventually the evidence becomes overwhelming and the government regulates and/or the lawyers descend. But until all this happens, people are harmed.

The straws that convinced me were the pending publication of Dr. Pierpont's book (2.9mb) along with Dr. Nissenbaum's research (2.0mb). As soon as I can get my hands on the book I'll be reviewing it here. You could quibble about her suggested mechanism - as she herself states, it awaits further analysis. But there's enough info about the case histories and methodology that you have to either accept her conclusions or you have to posit that she and all her subjects are lying. She has written this letter to the mayor of Essex, Ontario, and this letter to Kim Iles at Chatham, Ontario. Her web site is quite interesting and contains lots of information and comments on her book as well as other topics. You can't quibble about Nissenbaum's research, you just can't.

Presently there are six major health impacts that are in the news. They are:

• Sleep disturbance by audible (generally low-frequency) noise. This is widely reported. The wind industry and the government seem to regard this as an insignificant problem. I can't imagine anyone not on their payroll agreeing with them. Dr. Hanning has published an excellent report, 0.7mb on the topic.
• Stress induced by audible (generally low-frequency) noise. This is widely reported. The wind industry and the government seem to think that this is "all in your head". While that may be true in a strict sense, stress - regardless of how it is induced - is a health problem.
• Noise/pressure interference with balance mechanisms, which in turn causes a surprisingly long list of health complaints. This is the primary topic of Dr. Pierpont's book.
• Vibro-Acoustic Disease, or VAD. This is Dr. Alves-Pereira's specialty. Leventhall claims no infrasound or LFN harm is possible, but the research of VAD specialists tells a different story. VAD can be life-shortening.
• Blade flicker. It may also affect the balance system, causing many of the same symptoms as noise does. It is mentioned in Dr. Pierpont's book, but only in passing.
• Electrical or magnetic effects. So far there's disturbing anecdotal stories, but nobody has come up with a mechanism to explain how the harm might be caused.

• This well-written letter pretty well states the current situation.
• Those wimps, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (38,000 farmers) has issued this commentary asking for such a study. I think they've heard enough from their members, who after all live out there.
• This letter is from a resident amid the Port Burwell project and provides of sense of the problems she is experiencing. Note the paragraph about the sleep disturbances, and that some of her symptoms sound like VAD.
• The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has endorsed this resolution from PEC.
• Here's one letter from Dr. Havas.
• Here is another from Dr. McMurtry (which also has some links to more info).
• And another report of a pharmacist who has first-hand knowledge of the symptoms.

• This presentation (2.0mb) is by Dr. Nissenbaum after he visited Mars Hill. Scary stuff.
• This report was issued by an entire medical center.
• Followed by this resolution from the entire Medical Association.
• This affidavit (0.6mb) is by Dr. Nissenbaum, and states very clearly the current view of many actual medical personnel who have first-hand contact with the victims.
• Dr. Nissnebaum's follow-up cohort study is the first one published. This is the type of study the wind industry is trying to make sure never happens.

Proponents steadfastly deny any health effects from wind turbines. As a typical example, here's a paragraph from the Canada Wind Energy Association's web site.

Myth: Wind farms are dangerous to humans.
Fact: Wind energy is a benign technology with no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products. In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 turbines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by wind turbines. In response to recent unscientific accusations that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, says: "I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run. There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines."

A casual read of this sort of statement would lead one to think that turbines have no health effects at all. But a careful reading reveals a fairly good example of what I call a "wordsmith". I used to occasionally wordsmith myself, and know it when I see it. There's no outright lies in the paragraph, but it is very far from being truthful, to the point where it is fundamentally dishonest. They start with emissions etc which are not at issue. This is called a "strawman", where a they create a problem that nobody has complained about and declare it fixed. Strawmen are used to distract the readers. They continue with saying there's "no member of the public has ever been harmed", and that certainly seems straightforward enough. But it depends on how you define "harmed". They'd like you to assume the common definition, which would be "any harm". By that definition, this is an out-and-out lie, no matter if you are talking about accidents or longer term health impacts. If someone with a little knowledge pressed them on the issue they would probably say by "harmed" they meant "innocent passer-by harm" or "scientifically proven harm", and can therefore avoid being caught in the lie. But they hope most people will accept the statement without close questioning. Then they mention "unscientific accusations", sidesteping the fact that these are actual reports from real people living with wind turbines, carefully gathered by medical professionals. Never mind that early in the discovery process the indications are always anecdotal, and only when someone comes up with the money are they confirmed scientifically. That is now starting to happen. The entire last half of their paragraph relates to Dr. Leventhall, who is not a medical doctor, has no training in medical matters, and has never published anything related to human health. CanWEA doesn't even mention potentially more important problems, like low-frequency noise (as opposed to infrasound) and flicker. The first rule of a wordsmither is to omit stuff that is inconvenient and hope nobody notices.

It is interesting that Dr. Leventhall's name gets used so much. Here's a guy who says not only are there no health effects from wind turbines, he also says it is not worth even doing a study on them. However, the following report came from the IOS conference in Cardiff, Wales.

Noise vibration and acoustics consultant Dr Geoff Leventhall said there was no doubt people living near the turbines suffered a range of symptoms, including abnormal heart beats, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks and general irritability.

“I have lots of people phoning me up and telling me that it’s ruining their lives – and it’s genuine,” he said.

But Dr Leventhall said he is taking part in a Defra project that aims to use psychotherapy to enable sufferers to live with the noise.

“The aim is to reduce stress that’s related to noise. People get very stressed and the aim is to make it bearable for them,” he said.

Please, dear readers, think about what is being said here.

Wind energy proponents also have their own set of papers that they cite to "prove" there are no health affects from wind turbines, but upon examination it seems they are invariably cherry-picked. One of these, widely cited by proponents, is the Chatham-Kent Public Health report. Unfortunately, my examination of that report shows that it is sorely lacking in merit, an opinion shared by Dr. McMurtry. Dr. McMurtry further discussed the duplicity in this radio interview, 8 min. Health Canada chastised a developer in Digby, NS who made similar statements in their environmental review for a project, stating that they were untrue.

In spite of industry's assurances that there's no problems, past research indicates that the unknowns are so significant that they have no business making these assurances. There have been more than enough reports from around the world to justify a proper epidemiological study. Many doctors, including all those mentioned here, are calling for just that. Ontario simply refuses to do one, saying there are no "peer-reviewed" studies that indicate the need. Never mind that there are no studies either way, and if you don't look for something you'll be likely to not find it. And never mind that Pierpont's book has been peer-reviewed to death.

In response to the growing awareness of health issues, CanWEA and AWEA joined forces to commission a health "review" in December of 2009. There's a large number of problems with this review, as detailed further on my Pseudo-Science page.

You might want to journey over to my noise page which overlaps somewhat with this one. And Mars Hill continues giving.

Below are links to a number of health-related papers. As always, if you know of any additions - on either side of the issue - please let me know.

• Robert Bryce's WSJ article on health reads like he just discovered the problem. At least he is known as a good researcher, and a week later was on Fox Business News.
• The CanWEA/AWEA Health Review looks authoritative enough but really is quite deficient.
• Copes Report, 7.6mb, from the Ontario helath department, and used as a reference in Ontario's Parliament.
• A health warning from the UK's Noise Abatement Society.
• Kamperman and James how-to book, including health commentary.
• Minnesota Dept of Health effects of wind turbines.
• A newspaper ad from Grey Highlands with some interesting quotes.
• Another letter from 4 doctors requesting a study in Ontario.
• Electrical Problems, a description of the phenomenon from Wind Concerns Ontario.
• Care Flight problems, 1.1mb, a look at an indirect health issue, not being willing to fly a helicopter into a wind farm for emergencies. The notice is on the last page.
• Caithness Wind Farms, home page with a link to their accident listing, similar to wind-watch's.
• Wind-watch's accident compilation, 0.3mb, a listing of all known accidents, not just to humans.
• WCO Health Survey, this is the original survey from Wind Concerns Ontario. Visit their site to see the latest one.
• McMurtry Ontario Deputation, similar to the PEC deputation.
• CTV Report #2, the title page to a longer series on turbines and health. Some trivia - I helped (I hope) the producer with some of the early research. The video links are to the right side of the page.
• AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise Impacts, A treasure-trove of information.
• Adams Letter, A fine letter written by our own John Adams.
• Palmer Paper, 1.2mb, Comments to OMB, Safety Setbacks and Issues-Hype-Truth-Issues. Includes health issues among others.
• Palmer Paper, 0.1mb, extraction of Issues rotated so you can read it.
• Pierpont Paper, 0.3mb, Wind Turbine Syndrome: Noise, shadow flicker, and health.
• Pierpont Paper, 0.1mb, Noisy Wind and Hot Air.
• Pierpont Paper, 0.1mb, Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power installations. How close is too close?
• Harry Paper, 0.4mb, Wind Turbines, Noise and Health, probably the "unscientific accusations" mentioned above.
• Frey Paper, 1.0mb, Frey and Hadden, full of horror stories.
• Nat Collaborating Ctr for Environmental Health, 1.0mb, for a contrary opinion, but look on page 8 where they get their data from.
• Stewart Paper, 3.9mb, the UK Noise Assn Report: Location, Location, Location.
• Alves-Pereira Paper, 0.3mb Infrasound Effects, a general discussion.
• Lincoln Township Experiences, 0.1mb Some mention of health effects.
• Health Aspects, A brief recap from our friends in Picton.