FAMILY FIRST
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Family First initiated a Senate inquiry in
order to allow for proper consideration of a number of concerns that were
raised with our office and in particular, to investigate claims that wind farms
are causing adverse health effects for residents living in close proximity to
them.
What has become evident during the Senate
hearings is that there is an enormous divergence of views expressed by the
proponents and opponents of wind farms. There have also been serious concerns
about the over-reliance by wind farm developers on the National Health and
Medical Research Council's rapid review of evidence, and public statement on wind
farms and health, both released in July 2010.
A number of submissions have sought to
highlight the economic benefits or pitfalls of Australia's renewable energy
policy and whether wind power has a viable future in this country. However,
Family First’s main focus has always been on whether or not wind turbines pose
a serious health risk to local residents.
Health
There have now been many inquiries, of which this Senate
committee investigation is just one, that have uncovered numerous cases where
adverse health effects have been attributed to wind farms.
These issues have been identified in cases around the world,
wherever wind farms have been built. As a result, there have been reviews of
the public health effects of wind farms not only in Australia but
internationally. Many of these reviews, however, have been confined to
examination of the existing literature, rather than conducting new research
that directly targets the issues. Examples include a 2008 report by the Chatham-Kent
Public Health Unit for the Chatham-Kent Municipal Council in Canada, a 2011
report by Delta consulting for the Danish Ministry of the Interior and Health,
and the 2010 NHMRC rapid review of evidence on wind farms and health.
Research consistently shows that the noise from wind farms
at levels below those required by planning guidelines is annoying to nearby
residents and causes sleep disturbance. It would also appear that there is a
link between the symptoms of stress and disturbance by wind farm noise. There
are also other serious health symptoms reported by some of these residents.
There is no adequate research to explain these cases.
We simply do not know enough about the health effects on
individuals and communities that find themselves adjacent to these large
developments. As a consequence, Family First remains concerned about the use
made by wind farm developers of the NHMRC's rapid review of evidence on wind
farms and health. Family First thinks the NHMRC's evidence to this committee is
critical:
We regard this as a work in progress. We certainly do not
believe that this question has been settled. That is why we are keeping it
under constant review. That is why we said in our review that we believe
authorities must take a precautionary approach to this. That is what we do say
in medicine anyhow, but this is very important here because of the very early
stage of the scientific literature.[1]
It is notable that, since the NHMRC has given evidence to
the inquiry, it initiated a scientific forum on the issue, initiated a
systematic review of the literature, and may update its previous statements.[2]
While this is encouraging, the misuse of the NHMRC's work by
developers has damaged the perceived independence of the NHMRC in the eyes of
those in affected communities. Mr Mitchell from Australian Landscape Guardians
said 'The NHMRC and the state departments of health have not got off their
chairs. They do not know what is going on'.[3]
Dr Pierpont commented of the study that it was:
A really pitiful and dubious document, and I have just
reviewed it. It has also been reviewed by Dr Robert McMurtry in Canada, a dean
at a medical school. I am also a PhD scientist, and I know about evidence. The
sources used in this document are mostly government sources and other
non-scientific, non-peer reviewed sources, and of the peer reviewed sources
they cite, one of them I know well, which is the Pederson and Persson Waye, and
they misused their information...
Many of the sources it cites are also direct wind industry
documents, from the American and Canadian Wind Energy Association and the
Australian Wind Energy Association. These are not independent sources, these
are industry documents. This is not scientific critique. There is an obvious
conflict of interest in what these documents and people have to say.[4]
Dr Laurie remarked:
I must admit that when I read the NHMRC document not only was
I disturbed; I was a little appalled. There was a lack of recognition about the
conflict of interest and the issues which were emerging even then, back in
July, particularly in Waubra in Victoria. There were reports emerging then. To
just ignore people I think was unconscionable.[5]
The committee has recommended that the NHMRC review of
evidence should continue, with regular publication. However, Family First
believes that there must now be a role for an independent organisation in
reviewing the existing literature. A body that operates at arm's length from
government should review the evidence and the work of the NHMRC to date. This
could be a university research centre with expertise in medical research and
policy, or a research and policy institute. Organisations that could conduct such
an independent review include the Sax Institute, which conducts evidence check
reviews in the areas of health policy and medicine.[6]
It is also necessary that new research be conducted on the
health issues themselves. Family First endorses the committee's recommendation
that the National Acoustics Laboratories (NAL) conduct a study and assessment
of noise impacts, including the impacts of infrasound.
However, NAL's mission is 'to lead the world in research and
development that improves the way hearing is assessed, hearing loss is
prevented, and hearing loss is rehabilitated'. This is a much narrower brief
than the full range of health issues associated with wind farms.
Broader research must be conducted. The committee has
recommended that that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of
priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies
of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. Family First endorses
this, and emphasises that there must be a sense of urgency.
It is also vital that the research be peer-reviewed, and be
conducted by individuals and organisations that do not have an ongoing
relationship with the wind energy industry. Organisations that could conduct
this research include the Australian National University's National Centre for
Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH). Family First also notes the
evidence of Dr Laurie, indicating there are existing research proposals ready
to be undertaken that could be funded.[7]
These should be given serious consideration.
Planning controls
Family First notes that the current trend is toward
tightening controls around wind farm development, and believes that this is for
good reason. The Victorian government has recently revised its planning
guidelines for wind farms. The revisions have included setting more stringent
noise limits in low-noise environments:
The New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010, Acoustics – Wind
Farm Noise (the Standard) specifies that a noise limit of 40 decibels is
appropriate for the protection of sleep, health and amenity of residents at
most locations... Importantly, the Standard also sets out a process to
determine if a more stringent limit should apply in specific noise sensitive
locations (discussed below).
All wind farm applications will need to be assessed to
determine if the location warrants application of the Standard’s more stringent
‘high amenity noise limit’ of 35 decibels as set out in Section 5.3 of the
Standard. The high amenity standard applies in special circumstances, such as in
an environment where the background noise level is particularly low.[8]
Evidence received by the committee strongly suggests that
most, if not all, wind farm developments outside built-up areas should require
the high amenity standard.
Victoria has also set a greater distance as the guidelines
for notification of affected neighbours:
Responsible authorities should ensure affected parties are
fully informed of a proposed Wind energy facility development. It is suggested
that all property owners with dwellings within 2 km of a proposed turbine are
notified of a proposal, as a minimum.
The New South Wales Legislative Council Committee report on
rural wind farms recommended that the NSW Minister for Planning 'include a
minimum setback distance of two kilometres between wind turbines and residences
on neighbouring properties in the NSW Planning and Assessment Guidelines for
Wind Farms'.[9]
Family First recognises that establishing guidelines for any
development project can be complex. However, planning controls must take
account of the nature of the proposed development and its potential adverse
impacts.
In this regard, Family First notes that independent studies
have shown that residents are annoyed by wind farm noise at far lower decibel
levels than they are by road and aeroplane noise.[10]
Family First believes that planning controls and development guidelines should
reflect this fact.
Recommendation 1
Family First recommends that, at a minimum, planning
controls and development guidelines in all states and territories should
require that wind farm proposals meet the high amenity noise limit in Section
5.3 of New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010, Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise.
Recommendation 2
Family First recommends that, at a minimum, planning
controls and development guidelines in all states and territories should
require all property owners with dwellings within 2 km of a proposed turbine to
be notified of a development proposal.
Recommendation 3
Family First recommends that the EPHC's draft National
Wind Farm Development Guidelines be revised to reflect the position
outlined in the two recommendations above.
Recommendation 4
Family First recommends that, in addition to immediately
acting on the above recommendations, all states and territories should review
their planning controls and development guidelines for wind farms within three
years to consider whether new research on the health impacts of wind farms
warrants further tightening of development conditions, including possible
mandatory setbacks.
Senator Steve Fielding
Family First Party
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page