FAMILY FIRST

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