Chapter 3
Health
Introduction
3.1
The bill being considered by the committee does not directly mention
health effects of wind farm noise. However, as the second reading speech by
Senator Madigan indicated, and as the submissions reflect, health issues are
the rationale behind the bill.
3.2
The committee acknowledges the concerns of residents, who need to
understand whether there may be health impacts of existing wind farms in their
area, or of a wind facility planned for their district.
3.3
Individual witnesses, and some organisations, reported to the committee
a range of symptoms they said were being experienced by people living up to ten
kilometres away from wind farms. The most common reported complaint was sleep
disturbance.[1]
Others included headaches, nausea, anxiety and a range of other symptoms, many
(though not all) common to stress-related conditions. Examples of individuals
expressing concern about current health impacts included these:
members of my family have experienced various symptoms
including excruciating painful ear pressure, severe headaches, severe nausea to
the point of being unable to keep food down, profuse nose bleeds, dizziness,
chronic and severe sleep disturbance and worrying chest pains. We have never
suffered any of these symptoms before the wind farm was built too close to our
home at Waubra.[2]
Once the turbines were operating I began to suffer extremely
bad headaches and had a very cold body after sleeping... I can no longer work or
go to the property... without suffering nausea, pains in the head, pains in the
chest, and difficulty breathing...[3]
I get head aches, nervous tension, nose bleeds...angina...[another
person] now has diabetes which has been brought on by those B turbines.[4]
3.4
The committee also heard from people who had not experienced health
effects but were concerned about the potential for them:
I have spent hundreds of hours talking to, listening to,
reading about, and corresponding with, real, normal people for whom a real,
normal life is no longer possible... These are people...whose lives have been
completely devastated by a wind farm development nearby. I have listened to
their explanations of the impact on their lives, knowing that their experience
will become our experience if the proposed development near us goes ahead.[5]
Our community has recently been involved in a proposal for an
industrial wind facility in our heritage-listed Trawool Valley. Concerned about
excessive noise and the potential adverse health affects as a result of
infrasound, low frequency sound and vibration, our community organised an
information session in August 2012. We invited some members of other wind
facilities close by and two residents from the Waubra area attended. They
recounted their experience of living in close proximity to a wind energy
facility and also of their belief that it was creating excessive noise and that
the complaints procedure was ineffective and deficient to adequately address
their countless concerns.[6]
3.5
There is an extremely diverse range of adverse effects on people and on
animals that have been claimed in submissions to this inquiry and in other
sources.[7]
It is unlikely that all of these are due to wind farms, but the issue
nevertheless requires thorough attention.
3.6
As noted in Chapter 1, the National Health and Medical Research Council
is considering the current literature in detail and will address this issue
definitively in 2013.
Number of health complaints relating to noise
3.7
The committee heard a range of views about the scope of effects on people
residing near wind turbines. The Waubra Foundation claimed it was aware of:
over 40 families from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria
and South Australia who have left their homes because of excessive noise from
the wind turbines near their former homes, and the consequent serious health
problems they experienced.[8]
3.8
On the other hand, others considered the concern to be limited in
geographic scope, arguing that it tends to be in particular sites and not
others:
expressions of concern among residents living adjacent to
wind farms only occur in relatively few places. The overwhelming majority of
wind farms around the world do not have any sorts of examples of people
expressing anxiety. There is something like 200,000 wind turbines around the
world and most of the concern which is being expressed is in areas like
Ontario, in Canada—but not in other places in Canada—several areas of the east
in the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and some places in
Australia.[9]
3.9
Given that as of April 2012 there were approximately 1345 turbines
operating in 59 facilities around Australia,[10]
the numbers expressing concern appear small compared to the numbers of
residents near these turbines. The committee received just over 160 submissions,
of which a little under 140 supported the bill and/or expressed concern about
noise effects. Of these, the majority were from people worried about whether
they might experience noise or health effects from proposed wind
farms, rather than from people who claimed to have actually experienced annoyance
or other adverse effects. The submissions related to a minority of Australia's
wind farm operations.
3.10
Professor Chapman indicated that he had commenced gathering data from
wind farm operators about numbers of complaints about noise, and numbers of
residents within five kilometres of wind farms. The committee notes that the
research is in its early stages and has not been peer reviewed. Nevertheless,
his results to date are that in only two cases out of the 35 wind farms for
which he had data at the time of making his submission, were there more than
five complaints to the operator, and for the majority the number was zero.[11]
These figures appear indicative of the overall level of complaint, and
consistent with committee evidence.
Committee view
3.11
The number of health-related complaints about wind farms is small in
proportion to the number of people living near these facilities. The numbers
also vary greatly from one facility to the next, for reasons not apparently
related to the number of residents in the area.
3.12
The committee believes that, while small in number, the nature and cause
of the complaints must be taken seriously.
The health effects of audible sound
3.13
Noise can be annoying, and can lead to adverse health effects. This is
most evident for extremely loud noise, the effects of which can include
deafness. However, noise does not have to be extremely loud to have health
effects: other pathways exist, such as through sleep disturbance.[12]
3.14
Health effects from wind farm noise result from the same mechanisms as from
other sound sources. Dr Shepherd stated:
wind turbine noise really is no different to other forms of
annoying community noise such as aviation noise, road traffic noise or
nightclub or neighbourhood noise in that people do find it very annoying and it
has a potency to disrupt sleep.[13]
3.15
The committee received some evidence from individuals reporting sleep
disturbance from audible sound.
We have a property literally in the middle of the Waubra Wind
Farm...From our residence we have... 5 [turbines] within 1.5 km. with the closest
600 metres. We are surrounded by turbines on three sides... Since the turbines
were turned on in 2009, we have had on average 3-4 nights per week of disrupted
sleep.[14]
We have 4200 acres at Waubra of high quality farming land...our
home is 800 to 900 metres from 4 turbines...our bedroom is closest to the
turbines some nights you put your head on the pillow and all that you can hear
is the constant noise and the constant rotation of the turbine blades.[15]
I live [near Leonards Hill, Victoria] where there are 2 –
125mtr wind turbines which are situated between 550–650 metres from the back
door. I hear the noise from the turbines day and night, inside and outside...
After a week of the turbines operating I started to suffer severe tension head
aches and tightness in my shoulders, neck and my lower jaw felt tight and my
teeth ached. I would wake up in the morning with vertigo when I stood up out of
bed and have a bad runny nose. It has been over a year now that the turbines
have been operating and my symptoms are becoming worse, I still have all of the
above and now I get pains in my chest, eye spasms while reading or watching TV,
do not sleep as I wake up in fright two or three times and do not know why but
you can just hear the turbines in the bedroom.[16]
3.16
There was no evidence to the committee of a causal link between the
relatively low levels of noise that are produced by wind farm noise and the
symptoms reported by those living near wind turbines. Though there is evidence
linking community noise in general to health problems, there is little research
on turbines in particular, and none at all testing the relationship between
turbine noise and health-related quality of life.[17]
3.17
The NHMRC reviewed some of the literature available in 2010, and noted the
conclusion of one of the few relevant studies, 'that no adverse health effects
other than annoyance could be directly correlated with noise from wind
turbines'.[18]
3.18
The committee was provided with two recent publications that sought to
examine the relationship between wind turbine noise and sleep or mental health.[19]
Both were based on questionnaires filled out by residents, though the nature of
the survey was different in each case. The study by Shepherd included 39
respondents living near wind turbines and 158 in a control group. There were no
differences between the groups in self-reported illness or self-rating of
general health, but the turbine group survey responses indicated lower physical
health-related quality of life than the control group, and this was linked to
their responses to questions on sleep quality and self-reported energy levels.
The study by Nissenbaum and others included 38 respondents near two wind farms,
and 41 respondents in a control group, with results that increased daytime
sleepiness and reduced sleep quality was reported among those closer to
turbines though, counter-intuitively, there was no difference in the use of
sleep medications as a result.
3.19
The committee received commentary that questioned some key aspects of the
studies. This included discussion around the noise level assessment and
significance of key health indicators in the case of the paper by Nissenbaum
and others,[20]
and about causal factors in both papers.
3.20
The possibility that respondents were influenced by their own attitudes
toward wind farms, or the views of others, was an issue. Discussing both
studies, Professor Chapman commented:
Both of those studies suffer from the same problem. That is
that there has been considerable activity, in both regions studied in those two
papers, of anti-wind-turbine activity. For example, in the New Zealand paper
there had been, for a large number of years, a resident group called 'something
guardians'. I cannot remember the name of the area now but they were the local
landscape guardians group over there. They have a website which lists all of
their activities against wind turbines and so forth. So the idea that this was
an environment which was unpolluted by people going around saying, 'These wind
turbines are going to cause health problems—will probably make you unable to
sleep well and will affect your quality of life in a detrimental way—was not
mentioned in that paper at all. I think that the failure to mention that was
really a very severe problem. It was also absent in the other paper—the more
recent one.[21]
3.21
The New Zealand study notes that, by concealing the questionnaire's
specific purpose, such effects should be minimised, and Dr Shepherd wrote to
the committee noting that the website of the local landscape guardians had not
been updated for a long period before the survey was conducted.[22]
However, the committee was later advised by another researcher that there had
been a television broadcast featuring wind farm opponents, specifically
mentioning sleep disturbance effects, in August 2009.[23]
This was quite close to the date of the survey, and also indicated that critics
of the facility were active at that time.
3.22
The committee is unable to form a view about how this discussion will
ultimately play out. It expects that information, including these two recent
studies, will be considered by the NHMRC in the course of its review. As the
NHMRC noted in 2010, 'the measurement of health effects attributable to wind
turbines is...very complex'.
Committee view
3.23
There is limited, and contested, published evidence that wind farm noise
may be associated with annoyance and sleep disturbance in some individuals, but
the causes are not clear; this is also considered further below. State
governments and planning authorities currently have in place guidelines that
are intended to address audible noise pollution, including from wind farms.
Some aspects of these are discussed in subsequent chapters.
Proposed causes of health effects: infrasound
3.24
The effects of audible and mid-frequency noise are relatively well-known
and understood. However, most inquiry participants appeared to refer not to
normal audible noise issues, but to possible health effects from low frequency
sound, or infrasound. It has been suggested by some inquiry participants,
including some researchers or professionals,[24]
that there may be pathways by which infrasound may be creating symptoms of
health problems, even though the sound is not audible. The Waubra Foundation,
while referring to the 'full spectrum' of noise, commented:
Currently, there are a growing number of Australian residents
who are experiencing serious health problems resulting directly from exposure
to excessive noise from operating wind turbines...This pattern of exposure
related symptoms has been long known to acousticians working in the field of
both infrasound and low frequency noise...[25]
3.25
This is often referred to as 'wind turbine syndrome'. One witness
observed:
I shall leave the scientific and/or neurological theories and
explanations to the experts. Nevertheless, the existence of low frequency sound
energy, produced by wind turbines, and inaudible to the human ear, may be the
reason for this syndrome. While this low frequency noise or sound energy (aka
infrasound) may be inaudible and thus not able to be consciously perceived by
the human ear, it does appear that the ear's vestibular system is still capable
of perceiving the presence of this infrasound, and so send signals to the
central nervous system for processing, in this case without the conscious
awareness of the affected individual.[26]
The potential health impacts of low
frequency noise
3.26
Professor Alec Salt in his written and oral evidence to the committee
asserted that the human ear perceives sounds that may be inaudible to most
people. According to Professor Salt the inner ear 'does respond to
low-frequency sounds at levels well below those that are heard' through outer
hair cells that:
...respond well to low frequencies and infrasound, and if you
measure the ear's responses to an infrasound stimulus, they can be four- to
five-times larger than to any sounds you normally hear. So, the ear is
extremely sensitive and responds very strongly to infrasound stimuli.[27]
3.27
The key question for Professor Salt is 'whether these responses stay
confined just to the ear and do not have any effect on you at all, but I think
this is very, very unlikely'.[28]
3.28
Dr Levanthall commented specifically on Professor Salt's arguments by
stating that:
In contrast to the unproven claims made by Professor Salt, my
own belief continues to be that infrasound from wind turbines is just another
sound, which you hear if it is above your hearing threshold and you don’t hear
if it is below. There is no mystery about infrasound, but it has been falsely
used by those opposed to wind turbines in order to alarm others, and also as a
distraction, which they know will be difficult and time consuming to work on,
whilst at the same time they ask for a moratorium on further constructions
until the work is done.[29]
3.29
Dr Leventhall argued that people are not affected by sounds they cannot
hear. He cited studies on deaf people to see if exposure to infrasound caused
any effects. The conclusion of the studies according to Dr Leventhall was
that:
Work with deaf people shows that they are not influenced by
infrasound which they cannot hear. (Landström and Byström 1984, Landström
1987).[30]
This work showed that infrasound just below the hearing threshold had no effect
on either hearing or deaf people. That which was just above the normal threshold
made hearing people sleepy but had no effect on deaf people. People were not
affected by sound which they could not hear.[31]
3.30
Other research has shown no brain response in subjects exposed to 90dB
sound at 12Hz, a level that, while higher than typical for wind farm
infrasound, is below the generally accepted threshold for hearing at that
frequency.[32]
Dr Leventhall described this:
There is recent confirmation in the work of Dommes et al, who
used functional magnetic resonance imaging fMRI to investigate brain activity
of subjects listening to infrasound and low frequency sound...It was shown that
infrasound above the threshold level i.e. which was audible, activated the
auditory cortex, which is the part of the brain associated with hearing.
Infrasound below the threshold level i.e. inaudible, did not excite the
auditory cortex.[33]
3.31
In drawing attention to what it considered the neglect of infrasound as
a health issue, the Waubra Foundation made reference to a literature review A
Review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects (2003).
The Waubra Foundation was critical of the NHMRC and others for not considering
this report when reaching conclusions in this area.[34]
3.32
The Waubra Foundation drew attention to this document as demonstrating
'the adverse health effects of low frequency noise on human health'.[35]
However, the 2003 report does not appear relevant to wind turbine noise. That
report points out that most of what is written in popular sources is misleading
and 'should be discounted'.[36]
It concluded that 'No medical condition has been reported in the literature... to
be associated with the perception of infrasound or its enhancement'.[37]
3.33
Dr Leventhall was the principal author of that report. He wrote to the
committee, indicating that low frequency noise 'and infrasound from wind
turbines were not considered in the report as they were not believed to be a
problem. A belief which I still hold'.[38]
He rejected the idea that infrasound presented an issue different in nature
from other sounds. While the report focussed on low frequency noise, this was
because that was the brief he was given, and did not imply that it was
qualitatively different from other noise.[39]
He pointed out that the review cited peer reviewed research showing that, in an
experiment during which some subjects were exposed to low frequency noise and
others were not, there was 'no significant difference in medical or
psycho-social symptoms between the groups'.[40]
Finally, Dr Leventhall was critical of reference made by some witnesses including
Dr Laurie to the NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) report
Infrasound Brief Review of Toxicological Literature (2001). He noted that
that review in fact only showed health effects from low frequency sounds at
levels typically around one million times higher than those generally involved
in the case of wind farm noise.[41]
3.34
In its answers to questions on notice and elsewhere, the Waubra
Foundation has also drawn attention to the results of a 2004 published study by
Chen Yuan Huang Qibai and Hanmin Shi.[42]
The Waubra Foundation claimed that this showed that exposure to low frequency
sound 'causes increases in heart rate and blood pressure as well as symptoms
such as nausea'.[43]
However, the study in fact exposed subjects to these sounds at 110 and 120dB,
levels several orders of magnitude higher than those involved in wind farms.
This research also therefore appears not relevant in considering possible
effects of low frequency sounds from wind turbines.
3.35
Professor Seligman pointed out that people are exposed to a great deal
of infrasound. Its presence is ubiquitous and this raised questions for the
committee about how it would be possible that inaudible infrasound could cause
health problems in one particular setting and not in others. Professor Seligman
indicated that he and colleagues were planning some research in this area:
My first comment is that the environment is awash with
infrasound, which is both from natural and man-made sources and which is often
far in excess of what is produced by wind farms.
The second point is that there is a claim that it is
modulation of low-frequency noise that can produce the symptoms that have been
described. The Melbourne Energy Institute, in combination with the Department of
Psychology, are planning to do a double-blind study with this type of noise to
see if we can actually induce the symptoms that have been described.[44]
3.36
The Public Health Association of Australia commented on the current
literature in the field, stating:
It is important to note though that reviews of all the
literature to date have failed to identify any adverse physiological effects
attributed to exposure to wind turbines, with the exception of those mediated
by noise in a small proportion of exposed people whose symptoms may or may not
be related to perception, annoyance and other psychosocial factors related to
the uptake of the new technology.[45]
Proposed causes of health effects: Psychogenesis and Nocebo effect
3.37
Late in the inquiry process, the committee was provided with recent
research, peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the leading journal Health
Psychology, but not yet released.[46]
The research comprises a controlled double blind study, in which subjects were
exposed to infrasound and sham infrasound.
Fifty-four participants were randomised to high or low
expectancy groups, and presented audiovisual information, integrating material
from the internet, designed to invoke either high or low expectations that
exposure to infrasound causes specified symptoms.[47]
3.38
The authors' results and conclusions were:
High expectancy participants reported significant increases,
from pre-exposure assessment, in the number and intensity of symptoms
experienced during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. There were
no symptomatic changes in the low expectancy group.
Conclusion: Healthy volunteers, when given information about
the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms which
aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham
infrasound. Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily
available on the internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to
be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest
psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure
and health complaints.[48]
3.39
This research is consistent with the views expressed by Professor
Chapman, that one of the factors likely to be involved in symptom reports from
people near wind farms is the nocebo response (the opposite of a placebo
response). A medical journal review published this year explains the response:
A nocebo effect is the induction of a symptom perceived as
negative by sham treatment and/or by the suggestion of negative expectations. A
nocebo response is a negative symptom induced by the patient’s own negative
expectations and/or by negative suggestions from clinical staff in the absence
of any treatment. The underlying mechanisms include learning by Pavlovian
conditioning and reaction to expectations induced by verbal information or
suggestion. Nocebo responses may come about through unintentional negative
suggestion on the part of physicians and nurses. Information about possible
complications and negative expectations on the patient’s part increases the
likelihood of adverse effects.[49]
3.40
Nocebo responses produce real symptoms, but the cause is psychological
rather than physical in origin:
CHAIR: Professor Chapman, if people do suffer the nocebo
effect, do they actually feel ill?
Prof. Chapman: Yes, very much so. There is no suggestion that
they are making it up or that they do not feel ill or that, in many cases, you
cannot physiologically measure the problems that they are having—they do... I
want to emphasise that, by talking about nocebo effects or psychogenic effects,
I am not saying at all that people who say that they are feeling nauseous or
have any of the other 207 diseases or symptoms I have seen on the internet are
making it up. They very often genuinely do have those symptoms, but it is whether
or not they are actually being caused by the turbines or by the anxiety which
is being spread about the turbines.[50]
3.41
The possibility that psychological factors, rather than infrasound, are
a key 'link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints' is also
consistent with some of the anecdotal evidence received by the committee. Significant
numbers of submissions came from people who were being informed and becoming
worried about the claimed effects of a wind farm prior to one commencing
operation near them, expressing fear or anxiety about negative health effects:
I will be close to proposed wind development if it is built,
and don’t want to be getting sick in my own home and unable to sleep just like
the people at Waubra who came and told me about their situation.[51]
[From a resident 3.4 kms from a proposed development] There
is already enough evidence to prove people are suffering from the effects of
low frequency noise, infrasound and vibration from industrial wind turbines,
these noise levels can affect people living up to and beyond 10KM from
industrial wind turbines.[52]
I was told of side effects of other people from other wind
farms before the Waterloo windfarm was built and thought that it would not get
me, but it has.[53]
I live 9kms away, within the 5km to 10km zone of the
potential effects of a proposed wind farm... IF the proposed wind farm is built
near me I will have my symptoms [of pre-existing fibromyalgia] exacerbated and
my recovery jeopardised, but not the data to confirm the cause.[54]
From my reading and research it appears that sleep
disturbance, nausea, irregular heartbeat and headaches have been reported by
people living in close proximity to wind turbines. I will see and hear 46
turbines from my house, currently under construction. Excessive noise is a
major concern for me.[55]
My serious concerns of being impacted by excessive noise by
the Proposed ...Wind Farm as i live approximately 4k from the nearest (Proposed )
Wind Turbine. As I already have suffered from Mental Illness for 20+ years. The
impact of of this will undoubtedly force myself to leave this Tranquil Valley.[56]
There is currently a proposal for a wind development close to
my home. I have major concerns regarding health problems caused by noise
emissions from turbines. I am alarmed by reports of sleep disturbance,
tinnitus, and headaches by people living in the vicinity of wind farms.[57]
This letter is to request an initial and ongoing review of
The Bald Hills Wind farm that is currently under construction, I am deeply
concerned about the severe impact this will have on our young family, our
business and our lifestyle.[58]
3.42
There was some evidence to suggest that psychological expectations may
have played a role in the reporting of symptoms. Anecdotal evidence submitted
to the committee includes symptoms being associated with phenomena other than
wind farms, symptoms not occurring coincident with the start of wind farm
operation, not being related to whether there is wind blowing, or being at
distances far greater than those usually reported:
About five kilometres west of us is the Macarthur Wind
Farm...Upon returning from an overseas trip, I immediately noticed adverse health
effects. I am restless and not sleeping well. In the short time I have been
home, I am noticing a pattern already. When the wind is in the west, and also
if it is very mild, with no or little wind, I have trouble sleeping, and
pressure in my ears builds up. I am really alarmed at how quickly I have
noticed these symptoms, as the Macarthur Wind Farm is only in the testing phase
with a small number of turbines turning.[59]
I have problems daily that are only happening when I am near
a wind farm or high voltage electricity... I began noticing the noise when the
wind farm had been operating for several months.[60]
Some people may not be affected but [others are]... People
who stand underneath them cannot hear anything and up to 10 km away in some
cases further they are heard...[61]
3.43
Another submitter described symptoms that she associated with the
turbines, but also said there was no pattern to their occurrence.[62]
A further submitter identified a precise date on which she believes she became
sensitive to low frequency sound, but it was long after turbines were built in
her area, and she experiences symptoms wherever she goes, not only near the
turbines in her region.[63]
Committee view
3.44
The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body
may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that
inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating
health problems. In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the
existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study
suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases.
3.45
The committee wishes to emphasise that it does not doubt that the
symptoms are real. It also does not doubt that some people may be affected by
audible noise. It is concerned, as Dr Tait from Doctors for the Environment
Australia expressed, that the discussion about a purported wind turbine
syndrome is hampering progress on the issue:
Part of the problem, I think, of going around and promoting a
wind turbine syndrome and going into communities and getting people scared
about wind turbines is that it has muddied the water and it is distracting us
from actually dealing with those small groups of people who have got a
legitimate problem and do need us to be having some sort of debate about how we
as a society work to help them with the issues that they are experiencing.[64]
3.46
As Dr Shepherd pointed out, some individuals may be particularly
sensitive to noise, though the underlying causes of the sensitivity are not
well understood.[65]
The needs of these individuals should be addressed, but in the context of
established medical research.
Health and wind farm noise: future research
3.47
The NHMRC have set out the timetable for their wind farms and human
health project, which is included in Appendix 3. Doctors for the Environment
Australia supported this work.[66]
And both they and the Public Health Association of Australia argued that to
support the current bill would be to pre-empt the NHMRC's work.[67]
3.48
The committee notes the strong academic record of the NHMRC's Wind Farms
and Human Health Reference Group, established to 'ensure a thorough and robust
evaluation of the evidence occurs'. It notes the inclusion of two external
observers, from the Waubra Foundation and the Clean Energy Council, 'to ensure
transparency of processes and to assist the Reference Group fulfil their Terms
of Reference'.[68]
3.49
The committee notes Professor Seligman's plans, in conjunction with
others, to conduct research to test whether modulation of low-frequency noise
can produce the some of the symptoms heard about in this inquiry.[69]
Committee comment
3.50
This committee is not a group of experts, and does not draw any
conclusions about the experiences of any particular individual reporting
effects from wind turbine operation. However, the wide range of symptoms, the
regular expression of anxiety about wind farm construction, and the widely
varying relationship between the facilities and the symptoms experienced, all
suggest a complex situation that cannot obviously be ascribed to the operation
of wind turbines alone. The committee concurs with Dr Tait that recurring
claims of a wind turbine syndrome, for which there is no peer-reviewed
evidence, are obscuring the focus on assisting properly the small number of
people whose cases do need attention. The committee is also concerned that a
nocebo response is developing, caused by the reproduction and dissemination of
claims about adverse health impacts – claims not grounded in the peer-reviewed
literature currently available.
Recommendation 2
3.51
The committee recommends that there should be no regulatory changes prior
to the release of the NHMRC's assessment in 2013, as this would be premature.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page