Wind Turbine Syndrome
A Report on a Natural Experiment
a book by Nina Pierpont
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/
Wind energy is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. It’s billed as “clean, green, renewable.” In this engagingly written, peer-reviewed report by a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine-trained M.D. and Princeton (Population Biology) Ph.D., we discover wind energy’s dirty little secret.
Many people living within 2 km of these spinning giants get sick. So sick that they often abandon (as in, lock the door and leave) their homes. Nobody wants to buy their acoustically toxic homes. The “lucky ones” get quietly bought out by the wind developers—who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Wind Turbine Syndrome exists. (And yet the wind developers thoughtfully include a confidentiality clause in the sales agreement, forbidding their victim from discussing the matter further.)
Dr. Nina Pierpont explains in simple, layman’s terms how turbine infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) create the seemingly incongruous constellation of symptoms she has christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. (Incongruous only to the non-clinician who does not understand Mother Nature’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense.) For the high level clinician, Pierpont provides a parallel chapter written in sophisticated medical language and format, complete with voluminous, up-to-date clinical and scientific references.
The core of the book is 66 pages of ingeniously laid out tables wherein the author presents her clinical Case Histories. The hard data.
Since publishing the book in late 2009, Pierpont has heard from people around the world who are discovering that Wind Turbine Syndrome is not confined to living in the shadow of industrial wind turbines. It turns out people suffer identical symptoms from living close to natural gas compressor stations, industrial sewage pumping stations, industrial air conditioners, and other power plants. In each case, low frequency noise and infrasound appear to be the chief disease-causing culprit—basically, Wind Turbine Syndrome without the turbines.
************
Dear Council
I would hope Council considered the following information in your submission regarding the Wind Farm Legislation.
I personally would not live any where near a Wind Farm. I live on Kangaroo Island to enjoy the natural environment and do not want to live on an Industrialised Island.
Your Sincerely
Lara Tilbrook
0438623742
From
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/11/27/health-concerns-over-impact-of-wind-farms/
Living within 10km of a windfarm could be bad for your health. An expert warns that problems caused by long-term exposure to noise and vibrations can be “real, serious and life-threatening”. The Government has been urged to set up 10km exclusion zones.
Credit: By Euan Duguid, The Sunday Post, 27 November 2011
A health expert has called for a 10km exclusion zone between homes and new UK wind farms. The “setback” zone plea is based on fears over the impact on health.
The call comes from Dr Sarah Laurie, medical director of the Waubra Foundation, an Australian body dedicated to researching the health effects of wind turbines close to human habitation.
She argues that the problems caused by prolonged exposure to noise and vibrations of the turbines are “real, serious and at times life-threatening”.
The Sunday Post has spoken to Scots families who live near wind farm sites who claim their health has been damaged by conditions including insomnia and stress.
Dr Laurie has advocated the precautionary setback zone in Australia following a recent Senate Committee recommendation into n independent study of the health effect of wind turbines. But now the former GP says that until similar detailed research is conducted in the UK the 10km zones should be rolled out here too.
She revealed she knows of Australians affected by windfarms who have had a number of potentially life-threatening illnesses. They include a condition caused by an adrenalin surge and leading to symptoms including severe headache and dangerously high blood pressure.
Dr Laurie explained: “There’s an urgent need for research at existing wind developments to determine what the “dose” of noise and vibration is that these people are exposed to and what their symptoms are before more turbines are built closer than 10km to homes.”
In Scotland there is currently a 2km guide for separation distance between windfarms and the edge of towns, cities and villages. However, this is not a requirement and it is up to planning authorities to make a judgment. Dr Laurie said: “Until local data is collected, I would certainly advocate this (10 km) setback as a minimum.”
Dr Chris Hanning a retired consultant in Sleep Medicine, said Dr Laurie’s requirement for 10km would “certainly prevent any harm while further investigations are being carried out.” He added: “The health impacts of wind farms are serious. I have no doubt that many people have suffered serious adverse effects. The Japanese government has implemented a four-year programme of research into the health effects of wind turbine noise. Pressure should be placed on the UK Governments to do likewise, and in the meantime enact a moratorium on on-shore windfarm construction.”
Struan Stevenson MEP said” “The constant noise, vibration and flicker-effect have caused extreme stress, nausea, migraine and panic attacks in people living within a 10km zone. I am convinced that having a 10km zone is correct.”
(…)
LACK OF SLEEP IS MAKING LIVES A MISERY
Two families in a Scottish Glen say their health is being affected by a nearby windfarm.
Residents living in what was once dubbed the “secret valley” – previously unspoiled countryside three miles inland from Girvan – say the pounding of the Hadyard Hill wind farm is making it impossible to get a decent sleep.
And during waking hours bleary eyed locals are being subjected to “shadow flicker” – a “disturbing” intermittent shadow cast over their homes when the sun is behind the rotating blades of 52 turbines.
Full-time foster carer Robert Baldwin, who lives in a cottage just over 1km from the site explained: “We don’t know what health effects this noise is having on people. If 10km is proven to be the safe distance, that should be the distance they build from. When the blades are spinning the noise tunes itself into your heartbeat and it’s a thump, thump, thump. We feel constantly tired because we’re just not getting proper rest.”
Retired civil servant Kay Siddell who lives nearby with her husband John, believes her health has been compromised by the wind-farm. “I have autoimmune problems. I think there’s a link between stress and my health problems and living in the circumstances that we do is stress inducing.”
A windfarm at the center of circle of radius 10km is an area of 314 sqkm. This restriction would prevent ANY windfarms on KI. A great victory for coal generators.
Read our submission instead. http://www.eco-action.com.au/PDF/windfarms.pdf
The subject of energy production cannot be approached in a simplistic, dualistic manner, like some form of competition between forces of evil (dark coal) and forces of goodness (pure wind)…
There are all sorts of other sources of energy, like solar panels, which have been installed on an impressive number of houses on Kangaroo Island… There is geothermal energy, unfortunately not a forte of Australia… Nuclear energy – ditto… The lowering of energy consumption, really not a forte of Australia…
Some sources of energy create much more nuisances and externalities than others… Wind generation creates assured nuisance to the human and natural neighbourhood. On the other hand, solar-generated electricity is quiet, easy to install and basically non contentious.
All modes of energy production benefit from government subventions, directly or indirectly, some more than other. Wind generation needs a lot of public money.
Accordingly, on the whole, Eco-Action KI should rethink its position and spend more energy lobbying the government to reinstate solar rebates, rather than participate into a scheme that tries to make wind generation forced onto a relatively small island which has no room for it.
Dr Bittar, Gabriel, Kangaroo Island
Wind Farms and CSIRO Study http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Transformed-Flagship/Exploring-community-acceptance-of-rural-wind-farms-in-Australia.aspx
The preliminary study produced four key findings:
(1) There is strong community support for the development of wind farms.
(2) Many of the benefits can be shared or communicated in ways that would enhance community support for the development of wind farms in a region.
(3) Existing regulatory approaches provide an appropriate framework for negotiating wind farm developments, but there is scope for improving outcomes.
(4) The emerging notion of a ‘Social Licence to Operate’ provides a useful framework for wind farm developers to engage local communities in ways that could enhance transparency and local support.
A story in [Ruppert] Murdoch’s “Weekly Times Now” has the Australian Environment Foundation calling the report “unbalanced” AEF cites nine peer reviewed papers which the CSIRO seems to have ignored. These papers report on the adverse health effects surrounding wind turbines, which is one of the greatest objections people have to wind farms. Now, I’m no epidemiologist but two of these papers that I looked at, that were most critical, used self administered questionnaires and a collection of self published reports as the data set. Is this hard evidence?
Who are the AEF? Well, its chair is a corporate lawyer who is “dedicated to drawing public attention to the controversial and hotly contested state of the science about global warming”. Controversial? Hotly contested? He is also director of the Lavoisier Foundation. A climate change denier? An Astro-Turf group? You be the judge.
In the interest of full disclosure there is the Waubra Foundation.
They have been often cited in terms of the health effects of wind farms. In spite of their claims of having done their “own field research”, I cannot find any peer reviewed papers generated by them or appearing on their website.
According the the National Health and Medical Research Council comprising a multidisciplinary team of 200 senior staff, “The Statement concludes that there is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects.” The NHMRC evidence review is in marked contrast to the Waubra group and the AEF.
Good constructive comment Nelly. I agree your observations regarding the science behind AEF and Waubra is very sus.
As regards your faith in the NHMRC though, I have observed and found as an engineer in dealing with them, whilst they deserve respect for their very traditional (solidly researched) positions, they are often way, way out of date with those current positions/information.
Dig a little deeper. This “clutching at theoretical straws” reminds me of how advocates of homeopathy try to justify their quackery.
http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/06/10/nina-pierpont/
http://earthfirst.com/debunking-'wind-turbine-syndrome'/
http://grist.org/climate-energy/2009-11-16-nina-pierpont-quest-to-sound-the-alarm-on-wind-turbine-syndrome/
Her study consisted of 38 people from ten families — by most standards too small to yield conclusive results. All of them self-identified as people who were already experiencing health effects; there was no control group. Pierpont’s work has not been accepted by any peer reviewed scientific journals, the standard first step in publishing original research. A self published diatribe.
It is indeed preferable for scientific results or theories to be published in peer-review journals, but this cannot be an absolute condition for validity. It is quite common for pioneer works to be initially mocked and rejected by the mainstream or the establishment, and not to be published in any peer-review journals.
After all, despite the appearance of plurality of journals, often it’s the same global group of experts who are contacted for a given subject of study. They have their mindset, their political connections, their financial sources… With the inevitable result that those lonely researchers with different ideas have to work with very limited ressources and have to go through alternative ways to get their research published.
It looks like all the weaknesses reported with regards to Pierpont’s research are normal ones for initial results. Rather than being simply rejected out of hand, for ideological or personal enmity reasons, they need to be properly addressed in a wider and more thorough study (preferably associating her in the process).
This is particularly true for epidemiological research addressing apparently low-level nuisances, but with a long-term potential of high destructiveness. History is replete with such cases…
Dr Gabriel Bittar
Kangaroo Island
Oh please! Argumentum ad Misercordiam. I expected much better from you Gabriel.
If you read me more carefully, you would notice that I did not argue for mercy, but for fairness and rationality. So your expectation was wrong-footed.
But don’t worry, you have my full misericordia, without argumentatio.
Hello there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it’s really informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I�ll be grateful if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!