tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/wind-turbine-syndrome-4382/articlesWind turbine syndrome – The Conversation2016-05-30T07:35:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/601892016-05-30T07:35:03Z2016-05-30T07:35:03ZWorld’s largest wind farm study finds sleep disturbances aren’t related to turbine noise<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124459/original/image-20160530-7706-507bvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Canadian study found turbines produce a maximum of forty six decibels, around the same as a dishwasher. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-288191903/stock-photo-wind-turbines-wind-farms-silhouette-at-sunset-in-thailand.html?src=qxEOvsrJ5X8Q9olcka53aQ-1-54">Shutterstock/SUWIT NGAOKAEW</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the Abbott government, the often recalcitrant Senate cross bench was thrown a big, juicy bone plainly intended to sweeten their disposition toward government bills which needed their support to pass. The anti- wind farm Senators were outraged with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/eh57">2015 report</a> on wind farms which found no strong evidence of health effects from turbine exposure. There have been <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/10559/7/WindHealthReviews_3.pdf">25 reviews</a> with similar findings published since 2003. The government may have promised these Senators the gift of the office of the <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/national-wind-farm-commissioner">National Wind Farm Commissioner</a> which by February 2015 had received just <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/wind-farm-commissioner-cost-actual-role-questioned-in-estimates-hearing-68340">42 complaints</a> about 12 wind farms, seven of which have not even been built.</p>
<p>In August 2015, the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines published its <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final_Report">report</a>. The Committee was chaired by Senator John Madigan, an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COP8c_7hapg">open opponent</a> of wind farms, and consisted of eight members. Six of these had form in savagely criticising wind farms. The content of their final report was therefore utterly predictable, with Labor’s Senator Anne Urquhart’s minority <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final%20Report/d01">dissenting report</a> shining like a beacon of respect for evidence. </p>
<p>There was no greater display of the naked demonising agenda of the Madigan-aligned group’s anti wind farm show trial than the total absence in their report of any mention of the world’s largest and most important study of the question of whether living near wind farms was harmful to health.</p>
<p>Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health study published its <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php">preliminary findings</a> on October 30, 2014. Senator Urquhart’s minority report noted that many submissions to the inquiry recognised the great contribution of the Health Canada “Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study” to the body of knowledge on the potential impacts of wind farms on human health. But the 181-page report made no mention of the study.</p>
<p>The study data were collected between May and September 2013 from adults aged 18 to 79 (606 males, 632 females), randomly selected from each household. They lived between 0.25 and 11.22km from wind turbines in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.</p>
<p>In March, the Health Canada study group published its full findings in a series of open-access papers in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, the world’s most cited acoustical research journal, and in Sleep, a leading journal in sleep research. Here is a summary of some of its chief findings.</p>
<h2>Do wind turbines increase the prevalence of health problems and sleep disturbance?</h2>
<p>The researchers assessed self-reported sleep quality over the past 30 days using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and a wrist monitor to record the total sleep time, and the rate of awakening bouts and how long these last, for a total of 3,772 nights.</p>
<p>Averaged over a year, the measured sound of the turbines reached a maximum of 46 dB(A) with an average of 35.6. Forty six decibels is around the sound of a dishwasher operating in a kitchen.</p>
<p>Since January 2012, I have collected and catalogued a remarkable <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/10501/5/Wind_Disease_List.pdf">247 different symptoms</a> and diseases wind farm opponents claim are caused or exacerbated by wind turbines in humans and animals. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27036283">Health Canada study</a> found that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Self-reported health effects (e.g., migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, etc.), sleep disturbance, sleep disorders, quality of life, and perceived stress were not related to wind turbine noise levels.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Both <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26518593">self-reported and objectively measured sleep outcomes</a> consistently revealed no apparent pattern or statistically significant relationship to wind turbine noise levels. </p>
<p>But, unsurprisingly, sleep was affected by whether residents had other health conditions (including sleep disorders), their caffeine consumption, and whether they were personally annoyed by blinking lights on the wind turbines.</p>
<p>Sleeping problems affect around 29% of <a href="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005374/T1.expansion.html">all communities</a>, regardless of whether they are near wind farms or not.</p>
<h2>Do wind turbines cause measurable stress?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27036285">researchers</a> used a recognised scale to measure self-reported stress (the perceived stress scale – PSS) as well as recording hair cortisol concentrations, resting blood pressure, and heart rate. </p>
<p>However, the majority (77%–89%) of the variance in the perceived stress scale (PSS) scores was unaccounted for by differences in these objective measures. And wind turbine noise exposure had no apparent influence on any of them. </p>
<p>Again, the study concluded that the findings did not support an association between exposure to wind turbines and elevated self-reported or objectively defined measures of stress.</p>
<h2>Do wind turbines annoy people?</h2>
<p>Expressions such as being “hot and bothered” are well understood. When people are annoyed by something in their life, this can lead to the onset of symptoms. Being annoyed is not health problem in itself, but chronic annoyance can have health consequences.</p>
<p>The Health Canada study reported:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Visual and auditory perception of wind turbines as reported by respondents increased significantly with increasing wind turbine noise levels as did high annoyance toward several wind turbine features, including the following: noise, blinking lights, shadow flicker, visual impacts, and vibrations … Beyond annoyance, results do not support an association between exposure to wind turbine noise up to 46 dBA and the evaluated health-related endpoints.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The prevalence of residents reporting that they were very or extremely annoyed by wind turbine noise increased from 2.1% to 13.7% when sound pressure levels were below 30 dB compared to when the noise was between 40–46 dB.</p>
<p>So in summary, those who found the turbines annoying, tended to be those who lived nearer to them.</p>
<h2>What factors predict who gets annoyed?</h2>
<p>Even for the most annoying features, more than 86% of residents were not very or extremely annoyed by them. </p>
<p>There is much variation among our families, friends working environments in the way people react to noise. A 2014 <a href="http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2014;volume=16;issue=69;spage=116;epage=122;aulast=Rubin">review</a> of symptoms related to modern technology (including wind turbines) found those who were more anxious, worried, concerned, or annoyed by a source that they believed to be a health risk more commonly reported symptoms than those without such beliefs.</p>
<p>In this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27036284">Health Canada study</a>, while proximity to the turbines was statistically significantly associated with annoyance, the relationship was weak. It was better explained by factors such as holding negative views about the visual impact of the turbines (not liking the look of them), being able to the see aircraft warning blinking lights, the perception of vibrations when the turbines were turning and high concern about physical safety. These are all perceptual variables that bothered some but not most.</p>
<p>Less than 10% of the participants derived personal benefit from the turbines (such as income from hosting the turbines). Deriving personal benefit had a statistically significant, although modest relationship to not being annoyed. The authors concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>these findings would support initiatives that facilitate direct or indirect personal benefit among participants living within a community in close proximity to wind power projects.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This suggests that strategies such as community sharing of rental incomes, offers of free electricity or home improvement and amenity payments may reduce annoyance.</p>
<p>If a Labor government is elected in July, the future of the ill-conceived Office of the National Wind Farm Commissioner is likely to be vulnerable, as it may well be with the expected departure of several wind farm-obsessed cross bench senators in the double dissolution, should the Coalition be returned. </p>
<p>State governments are increasingly removing wind farm planning barriers and the availability now of the Health Canada health report should drive another large stake through the forces determined to slow the growth of wind energy in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60189/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>In late 2012 Simon Chapman was remunerated by lawyers acting for Infigen energy for providing an expert report on psychogenic aspects of wind farm noise complaints for possible use in a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing. Expert witnesses have a general duty to courts, not to any party in proceedings, as set out here: <a href="http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/cm7">http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/cm7</a> </span></em></p>During the Abbott government, the often recalcitrant Senate cross bench was thrown a big, juicy bone plainly intended to sweeten their disposition toward government bills which needed their support to…Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/568162016-03-29T05:00:55Z2016-03-29T05:00:55ZBan new wind turbines? Not if the bar for declaring them safe is impossibly high<p>The debate about wind farms is clearly not over yet. Last week Australia’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/3.3m-pledged-for-research-into-wind-turbine-sickness/7267946">National Heath and Medical Research Council awarded</a> A$3.3 million to fund two new health studies: one to measure the effect of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-real-science-on-wind-farms-noise-infrasound-and-health-43112">infrasound</a> on sleep quality, balance, mood and cardiovascular health; the other to determine whether low-frequency sound from wind farms can disrupt sleeping patterns. </p>
<p>Given the past few years of prickly wind turbine politics, this has predictably caused quite a stir.</p>
<p>On one side, the usual suspects sought to capitalise on the NHMRC’s announcement. Independent senator John Madigan <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/23/wind-power-senators-want-moratorium-on-turbines-until-health-studies-conclude">called for a moratorium</a> on new wind farms, wanting all projects to be put on hold as a “precaution”. </p>
<p>Coalition senator Chris Back leapt to support his call, perhaps unsurprisingly given that he (along with Madigan and fellow senators Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day) have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-next-a-senate-inquiry-into-infrasound-from-trees-waves-or-air-conditioners-50902">described</a> by Sydney University public heath professor Simon Chapman as “sworn enemies of infrasound”.</p>
<p>In contrast, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/3.3m-pledged-for-research-into-wind-turbine-sickness/7267946">many</a> in the scientific community <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/quite-disgraceful-nhmrc-doles-out-33m-to-study-windfarm-effects-on-health-20160321-gnnzhe.html#ixzz449ib4G2A">expressed their disappointment</a> at what they see as a waste of millions of research dollars. They referred to <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php">studies from around the globe</a> that have consistently failed to find solid evidence for a connection between infrasound and poor health. </p>
<p>However, funding further research on the possible health impacts of wind turbines is consistent with the NHMRC’s own conclusions in a <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh57_nhmrc_statement_wind_farms_human_health_0.pdf">February 2015 statement</a>, which said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given [people’s] reported experiences [of ill health] and the limited reliable evidence, NHMRC considers that further, higher-quality research is warranted.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the nation’s largest, most respected and most trustworthy medical research funding body actually agrees that more research is a good idea.</p>
<h2>Down tools?</h2>
<p>Tempting though it is, this piece isn’t about rehashing the current evidence of the health impacts – real or imagined – of wind turbines. That’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-studies-how-to-sort-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-36548">been done already</a> and will clearly <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh57_nhmrc_statement_wind_farms_human_health_0.pdf">continue</a> for a while yet.</p>
<p>What’s more interesting, to me at least, is this appeal for a moratorium, and the more general question of how useful a tool it is for making decisions about overtly science-based issues.</p>
<p>Madigan’s call is a typical invocation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a>. This asserts that if there are reasonable (that is, evidence-based, scientific) grounds to believe something new might be unsafe – or at least presents risks that unacceptably outweigh the potential benefits – then we should not proceed with the new thing.</p>
<p>On the surface, it’s hard to argue with that.</p>
<p>But when it comes to wind turbines, there is nothing to suggest that Madigan, Back and like-minded folks will consider any level of risk acceptable. </p>
<p>Imagine for a moment that these new studies find no statistically defensible evidence to link infrasound to human ill-health. Will those calling for a moratorium accept the results and declare wind turbines safe (or at least safe enough to lift a ban)? </p>
<p>I suspect not. It looks to me as if what they are actually demanding is “proof of safety”, rather than evidence of “acceptable risk”. This is, of course, impossible. To use an oft-quoted example, we can’t prove that orange juice is 100% safe, yet it remains defiantly on our supermarket shelves. </p>
<p>I’d wager a year’s salary that Madigan and friends would declare any “acceptable risk” results to be insufficient, too short-term, or generally just biased and inadequate, and demand that yet more research is done. </p>
<p>The naysayers are not looking for counter-evidence to their claims, most probably because there are things about wind farms that they simply do not like. If they have been unswayed by the research showing no evidence of harm so far, it seems unlikely two more studies will change their minds.</p>
<p>But what about us down at the science end of town? As noted on The Conversation last year by my colleagues <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-studies-how-to-sort-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-36548">Jacqui Hoepner and Will Grant</a>, “if a credible, scientifically rigorous study were to show a link between wind turbine operation and health effects, it should absolutely be taken seriously”. Agreed!</p>
<p>So for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that these new studies do end up producing empirically valid results that clearly suggest that infrasound from wind turbines can cause people harm. Would we science-loving citizens be prepared to bow our heads and accept the evidence; to admit that Madigan and his cohorts did the right thing by calling for a moratorium? </p>
<p>I’d like to think that I would. But I also imagine myself demanding more research, and I’m confident most other science-positive folks would, too. In our defence, though, we would of course be looking for evidence confirming the existence and likely extent of the harm, rather than seeking proof of some mythical, absolute guarantee of safety. </p>
<h2>Precautionary tale</h2>
<p>So what good will more, precautionary-principle-inspired science do? In reality, probably very little. </p>
<p>For one thing, practical, policy-related action can rarely wait for “all” the evidence to be in before decisions are made and actions taken (assuming such a magical, perfect-evidence situation could ever arise). Invoking the precautionary principle is not likely to simplify this situation.</p>
<p>Far from making decisions more evidence-based, the calls for a precautionary approach are liable to entangle us more deeply in the politics of decision-making. It’s blisteringly naïve to believe that when applied “correctly”, the precautionary principle will refocus warring factions’ attention on noble considerations like gathering sufficient, acceptable evidence and using this to guide us to the most objective solutions. </p>
<p>In fact, it’s arguments over what constitutes the right kind – and sufficient amounts – of evidence that lie at the heart of such disagreements, not what the evidence itself shows. Many people call for evidence-based policy – but when it’s the evidence itself that is up for debate, it’s important (as my colleague Will Grant has quipped) actually to have evidence-based evidence. </p>
<p>So how will this issue play out from here? Here’s my guess:</p>
<p>• a moratorium will probably not be called</p>
<p>• the new research projects will be conducted</p>
<p>• based on current available evidence, they will probably find little to support the idea that wind turbines located more than than 1,500 metres from humans have measurable negative health effects</p>
<p>• scientists will say “I told you so”</p>
<p>• Senators Madigan et al, <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">should they still be around</a>, will call for yet more research.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Rod will be on hand for an Author Q&A between 11:15 and 12:15am AEDT on Thursday, March 31, 2016. Post your questions in the comments section below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has in the past received funding from the ARC. </span></em></p>A moratorium on wind turbines until we know they’re safe sounds like a good idea, but it’s likely that those calling for a ban will never be satisfied with the evidence.Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436142015-06-22T20:17:51Z2015-06-22T20:17:51ZIf you don’t like looking at wind farms, why not build them at sea?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85825/original/image-20150622-3377-ay8qge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could offshore wind be a solution to onshore wind's problems? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/statkraft/14719848219/">Statkraft/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian government appears to be intent on scaling back wind farms in Australia. A <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-commissioner-lets-have-a-coal-commissioner-too-43538">Senate inquiry</a> has recommended increasing regulation for wind farms in response to health concerns, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/windfarms-may-have-potential-health-impacts-tony-abbott-says">recently commented</a> to radio host Alan Jones that his government has managed to reduce the number of “these things” [wind turbines], but he personally would have preferred “to have reduced the number a whole lot more”.</p>
<p>But there’s another solution that would continue to build the capacity of wind energy while removing possible impacts on land-holders: put wind farms out to sea. </p>
<h2>Terrible turbines?</h2>
<p>The primary drivers for the government’s hostility to wind farms centre around the alleged socio-cultural and health impacts of wind turbines. </p>
<p>In the view of opponents, wind turbines represent an unsightly blight upon the landscape and cause intolerable noise pollution.</p>
<p>Concerns over their potential impacts on human health have also been raised although here it can be observed that the National Health and Medical Research Council recently stated that there is <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-evidence-wind-farms-directly-impact-health-nhmrc-37470">no direct evidence that turbines affect physical or mental health</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian government’s stance is, however, increasingly out of step with the international community - both economically and morally. </p>
<p>In recent weeks the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-can-quibble-over-timescales-but-real-climate-progress-is-afoot-43251">G7 group of nations</a> announced their commitment to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to 40-70% below current levels by 2050, and to eliminate the use of fossil fuels altogether by 2100. As a renewable energy source, wind farms can help to displace the use of fossil fuel generation in the electricity network. </p>
<p>And last week Pope Francis and his 183-page encyclical made a <a href="https://theconversation.com/popes-climate-letter-is-a-radical-attack-on-the-logic-of-the-market-43437">radical call to decarbonise</a> and address climate change as a major existential issue. </p>
<p>The government-led attack on wind farms is therefore at odds with a global shift in the development of renewable energy with wind a leading technology in the renewable picture.</p>
<h2>Stepping offshore</h2>
<p>One approach that would serve to sidestep the problems of terrestrial wind farms (real or perceived) is to send the turbines offshore. Marine renewable energy, whether from wind, wave or tidal sources, is set to become a major supplier to global energy needs. </p>
<p>Among the differing technologies, offshore wind is emerging as the most efficient and competitive player with significant expansion in Europe and Asia. </p>
<p>In Europe more than 2,080 offshore turbines have been installed and connected to the grid in 11 European countries with a cumulative total of 6,562 megawatts (6.562 gigawatts, or GW) in 69 wind farms. Wind energy (both offshore and terrestrial) is a small but growing part of renewables produciton in the EU, consisting of 10.5 % of the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics">EU-28’s renewable energy produced in 2013</a>. The United Kingdom is the leading producer of offshore wind energy, with installed capacity of 4.5 GW, a further 12.6 GW in construction or approval, and 5.2 GW in planning. </p>
<p>Ambitious future forecasts include 40 GW of European offshore wind by 2020, meeting 4% of the EU’s electricity demand with a further 110GW to be installed between 2020 and 2030 that would meet 14% of EU demand.</p>
<p>In China 0.67 GW of offshore wind capacity is installed, with more on the way as renewable energy is increasingly recognised as an important and growing element of <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-shows-theres-more-to-renewable-energy-than-fighting-climate-change-31471">China’s energy mix</a>. China produced 450 GW of renewable energy in 2014. </p>
<p>Meanwhile South Korea is forecast to become a major strategic player with numerous offshore wind farm sites in the planning phase, investing US$9 billion into a massive 2.5 GW wind power development led by Korea Electric, one of the world’s leaders in tidal energy production.</p>
<h2>Small-scale but growing</h2>
<p>In terms of the overall energy picture the amount of installed capacity from marine sources - wind, wave and tidal - is presently small. Of the 369 GW of global wind production, only 8.7 GW (2.3%) is from offshore wind. </p>
<p>Total ocean renewable energy as a proportion of the global renewable capacity (which includes hydropower and onshore wind) is also tiny, currently just 0.5%.</p>
<p>This situation is expected to substantially shift in coming years as terrestrial systems reach capacity in terms of competition for space, social opposition or in limits to generative capacity and the concept of the blue economy gains momentum in coastal states and regional clusters such as the European Union and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries.</p>
<h2>Opportunities and challenges</h2>
<p>Australia has a long coastline and abundant offshore wind, wave and tidal energy resources at its disposal. Pushing wind farms offshore would seem to circumvent the main objections to wind turbines on land whilst enabling the renewable energy sector an opportunity to grow.</p>
<p>Providing such an avenue for the renewable energy sector would grow the innovation and manufacturing base providing an avenue for a high skilled and technical workforce and giving Australia a stake in a growing global market. </p>
<p>Emerging technologies such as wave and tidal, while presently small, have been recently supported by coalition ministers including a recent world-first connection of a <a href="http://arena.gov.au/media/australias-first-renewable-energy-from-a-wave-power-array/">wave hub in Western Australia</a>.</p>
<p>Arguably moving wind turbines offshore merely transfers the burden of their visual impacts to sea. Crucially though, few people (indeed, vocal voters) live where such turbines might be located. </p>
<p>Offshore wind turbines represent proven technology but are likely to be more expensive both to build and maintain, but recent estimates highlight that costs are falling, and are potentially <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/the-myth-of-expensive-offshore-wind-its-already-cheaper-than-gas-fired-and-nuclear-99353">cheaper than gas fired or nuclear options</a>. </p>
<p>It can also be anticipated that existing marine users such as fishermen, are unlikely to welcome such a “new” and potentially competing offshore activity. That said, there are ways and means to overcome such apparently conflicting uses, for instance through processes of marine spatial planning that are emerging worldwide.</p>
<p>While implementation challenges exist for offshore wind energy developments, this option offers a pathway for Australia to stay in the renewable energy game, reduce our carbon emissions and develop innovative new industries.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43614/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Schofield receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tavis Potts receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council and has previously been funded through the UK Economic and Social Research Council, Scottish Government Center for Expertise in Water, and the European Union.</span></em></p>One approach that would serve to sidestep the problems of wind farms on land (real or perceived) is to send the turbines offshore.Clive Schofield, Professor and Challenge Lead, Sustaining Coastal and Marine Zones, University of WollongongTavis Potts, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436252015-06-22T04:39:39Z2015-06-22T04:39:39ZMore research is good, but not if wind experts are told what to find<p>It is said that the solution to the ills of democracy is more democracy, and the same goes for science too. Generally speaking, it’s never a problem to bring more science to bear on an issue.</p>
<p>In those terms, the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Interim%20Report/c01">interim report</a> released last week by the Senate’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/select_windturbines">Select Committee on Wind Turbines</a> appears entirely reasonable. Drawing on an earlier finding by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that “the body of direct evidence” on the possible impacts of wind farms on human health is <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2015/targeted-call-research-wind-farms-and-human-health-now-open">“small and of poor quality”</a>, the Senate committee concluded that “independent, multi-disciplinary and high quality research into this field is an urgent priority”. And that’s not, on the face of it, a bad thing.</p>
<p>After all, what scientist worth their salt would reject the idea of doing more and better research on a possible problem? When the Senate Committee asks “why are there so many people who live in close proximity to wind turbines complaining of similar physiological and psychological symptoms?”, who would deny that it’s important and legitimate to try and find out the answer?</p>
<p>But here’s the thing. Research on this topic doesn’t exist in a political or economic vacuum. It is well established that renewable energy broadly, and wind turbines in particular, are matters of significant political debate. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/windfarms-may-have-potential-health-impacts-tony-abbott-says">last week asserted</a> that his intention when renegotiating the Renewable Energy Target was to “reduce the number of these things (wind turbines) that we are going to get in the future”, while his government is also considering appointing a “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/18/abbott-government-pledges-to-appoint-a-windfarm-commissioner-in-leaked-letter">wind commissioner</a>” to address complaints about the industry. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, key members of the Senate Committee – including <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/madigan-defends-wind-farm-commissioner-proposal/6557634">John Madigan</a>, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-david-leyonhjelm-wants-government-to-monitor-wind-turbine-noise-20150523-gh812j.html">David Leyonhjelm</a>, <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/cross-bench-starting-make-demands-of-tony-abbotts-government/story-fnu2pwk8-1227406160609">Bob Day</a>, <a href="http://chrisback.com.au/HotIssues/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/252/categoryId/4/Wind-turbines--the-untold-story.aspx">Chris Back</a>, and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewable-energy-a-big-punt-nationals-senator-matt-canavan-20150615-ghoqyn.html">Matthew Canavan</a> – have used their positions to speak stridently against wind energy. Against this backdrop, is it really possible to pause the world to undertake entirely neutral research?</p>
<h2>Telling researchers how to research</h2>
<p>There are <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/611698301490966534">allegations</a> that suggest the Senate Committee is less interested in truly independent, high-quality research than its members might claim, and is instead recommending to the NHMRC the researchers whose work they would like to see included in future assessments. </p>
<p>Those allegations would seem to be supported by the following exchange from the committee’s <a href="http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=265567&operation_mode=parlview">hearings on Friday</a>, between Senator Back and the NHMRC’s executive director for evidence, advice and governance, Samantha Robertson:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Back: Are you familiar with [Simon] Carlile and the work he does in neurophysiology?</p>
<p>Robertson: Not personally, no. </p>
<p>Back: Ok, [he is] at the University of Sydney, so perhaps I could urge that you do.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is not what I would call independent, and nor do I think it is likely to lead to high-quality science. This is nothing to do with the quality of Carlile’s research, but rather the principle of scientific advice to government. It is the NHMRC’s job to select the most relevant science and present it to government, not the other way around.</p>
<p>But more importantly, when we’ve had <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/eh57">inquiry</a> after <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/eh53">inquiry</a> into this topic – with <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-studies-how-to-sort-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-36548">no rigorous scientific process finding any evidence of a human health impact</a> – at what stage do we accept that calling for yet more research is likely to yield only diminishing returns, and that harassing the research community to keep going until it produces a different answer isn’t a great way to do science? </p>
<h2>Uncertainty is the game</h2>
<p>The Senate committee has called for the Commonwealth to create an “independent expert scientific committee on industrial sound”, responsible for providing research and advice to the environment minister on the impact on human health of audible noise (including low-frequency) and infrasound from wind turbines, and that this scientific committee develop measures for infrasound and noise that can feed into the governance of the wind turbine industry. </p>
<p>It has also recommended the Commonwealth impose a levy on wind turbine operators to fund the costs, both of the new scientific committee and of the proposed new wind commissioner. </p>
<p>Last year, when the Abbott government began renegotiating the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/renewable-energy-target-review">Renewable Energy Target</a> we learned a significant lesson in energy economics. Without any new policy announcement, and before the target had actually been reduced, investment in renewable energy in Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-has-investment-in-renewable-energy-projects-stalled-34197">fell off a cliff</a>. Uncertainty, not hard financial facts, was enough to kill investment.</p>
<p>The continued call for research raised by the Senate committee fits well within this pattern. You don’t need to remove a policy to kill investment. You only need to make things uncertain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43625/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“More research needed” is a familiar cry in science. But in the case of the Senate’s call for yet more scrutiny of wind farms, there are signs that experts are being ushered in a preconceived direction.Will J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435382015-06-19T06:23:53Z2015-06-19T06:23:53ZWind commissioner? Let’s have a coal commissioner too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85683/original/image-20150619-10024-ui5976.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The senate's wind inquiry has recommended increasing regulation for wind farms. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/amos/2179512837/">Éamonn Lawlor/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Wind turbines have got Canberra in a spin this week, with hearings underway from the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines">senate inquiry</a> into wind turbines and their possible health impacts. The committee yesterday released an <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Interim%20Report/c01">interim report</a> from chair John Madigan with seven recommendations to increase regulation around the wind industry. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Interim%20Report/d01">dissenting report</a> from Labor senator Anne Urquhart questioned the political timing of the report. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/18/abbott-governments-windfarm-commissioner-pledge-a-new-low">leaked email</a> from environment minister Greg Hunt has offered crossbench senators a “wind farm commissioner” in return for support for the passage of renewable energy legislation. </p>
<p>But behind the politics, how do the report’s recommendations stack up? </p>
<h2>The recommendations</h2>
<p>The interim report’s recommendations include: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>a scientific committee to look into industrial sound</p></li>
<li><p>the drafting of national infrasound and noise measures</p></li>
<li><p>the development of National Wind Farm Guidelines for planning</p></li>
<li><p>making wind’s accreditation under the Renewable Energy Target (RET) dependent on adherance to guidelines and measures (old projects would have five years to comply)</p></li>
<li><p>a national ombudsman to handle complaints</p></li>
<li><p>a levy on wind farms to fund the scientific committee and ombudsman</p></li>
<li><p>data to be made freely and publicly available.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>If implemented, these rigorous and extensive recommendations will create wide-ranging monitoring, compliance and review obligations. They are likely to produce a strong national health review framework for the sector. They will, however, also alter the operational dynamics of the industry. This has the potential to affect market progression. </p>
<p>Wind energy accounts for almost a quarter of Australia’s clean energy generation. Investment in wind has the capacity to return fuel savings that significantly outweigh the initial investment cost over the lifetime of the purchase. </p>
<p>This, combined with technological innovations and market subsidies such as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/renewable-energy-target">RET</a>, has given the sector a reasonable degree of market force. Fostering wind energy has been crucial for the creation of a greater energy mix in response to growing climate change imperatives. </p>
<h2>Health impacts compared</h2>
<p>The Senate committee noted that it was “concerned” that the health consequences of wind turbines, in particular, dizziness, nausea, migraine, high blood pressure, tinnitus, chronic sleep deprivation and depression, had been ignored or derided. But how do these compare to other energy industries? </p>
<p>The health consequences of the fossil fuel industry have been ignored for many years. On any comparison, it is unfair to focus exclusively on the health implications of wind turbines and, at the same time, ignore the health implications of other forms of energy production. </p>
<p>Global energy demand is <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12251">increasing</a> with world energy consumption expected to increase 56% by 2040. Mitigating climate change demands a shift to renewable energy. Subjecting wind energy to a forensic degree of health regulation and ignoring the health risks of other (renewable and non-renewable) forms of energy production is disproportionate. It is unfair.</p>
<p>In Victoria, the Hazelwood Coal Fire Inquiry <a href="https://4a5b508b5f92124e39ff-ccd8d0b92a93a9c1ab1bc91ad6c9bfdb.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/2015/05/150526-Hazelwood-Mine-Fire-Inquiry-Reopened.pdf">has been reopened</a>, given the enormity of the health consequences associated with the coal fire last year. </p>
<p>Some of these very serious health issues: respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis, long-term chronic health affects from pollutants including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, and the longer term chronic health effects if the coal undergoes significant distillation and produces measurable amounts of toxic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. </p>
<p>The likelihood of escalating chronic health conditions and an increase in mortality rates occurring as a consequence of the coal fire is significant. Whilst the coal fire is a catastrophic event rather than an ordinary consequence of the generation of coal-fired electricity, it nevertheless represents an example of the risks associated with the generation of fossil fuel energy. </p>
<p>Compared to the recommendations by the senate committee on wind turbines, the recommendations from the <a href="http://report.hazelwoodinquiry.vic.gov.au/">Hazelwood Coal Fire Inquiry</a> were relatively tame. The Victorian government made A$25.4 million available to fund a range of initiatives that include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a long-term health study in the Latrobe Valley</p></li>
<li><p>new air quality equipment to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency, which can be deployed across the state</p></li>
<li><p>a boost to the mine regulator’s capacity to assess and monitor mine planning for fire prevention, mitigation and suppression</p></li>
<li><p>development of the state smoke framework.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>There was no recommendation to appoint a coal ombudsman or to create an Independent Expert Scientific Review of the Health Impacts of the Coal Industry which would be funded by the imposition of a coal levy. </p>
<h2>CSG concerns</h2>
<p>Things are a little different in the gas sector. There has been significant review and regulatory development for coal seam gas extraction at both the state and the federal level. </p>
<p>However, the recommendations proposed have largely centred around the management of resource conflict, environmental assessment and risk allocation. The actual health impacts of coal seam gas extraction upon residents have not been the subject of review in either Queensland or New South Wales. </p>
<p>Indeed, the 2014 <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/coal-seam-gas-review">Chief Scientists report on coal seam gas (CSG)</a> in New South Wales expressly omitted an examination of the health implications of CSG extraction.</p>
<p>This is despite the fact that toxins in CSG produced water include such volatile organic compounds as benzene, methane, heavy metals and radioactive materials and exposure can potentially have an enormous impact upon the respiratory, endocrine, nervous and cardiovascular systems, can affect foetal development in pregnant woman and may cause cancer. </p>
<p>The health risks of the wind industry need to be reviewed in balance with other social, environmental and economic factors. This is exactly what has occurred in the context of the numerous reviews and reports prepared for CSG across the country. The extraction and production of many forms of energy have health impacts. </p>
<p>A spotlight focus on the health implications of one sector in the absence of context and sector comparability, lacks balance and perspective. </p>
<p>The Australian wind industry is one of the most rapidly growing renewable energy markets given improved technology, relatively low operating costs and minimal environmental impacts. The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Pages/default.aspx">has predicted</a> that onshore wind and solar will eventually have the lowest cost of electricity of all the renewable options in Australia leading up to 2030.</p>
<p>Despite this, the wind industry remains highly susceptible to cognitive barriers; the recommendations and proposals of the Senate Committee are likely to exacerbate this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43538/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samantha Hepburn consults to parties involved in the resources sector through EMI Partners which she co-founded in 2015. EMI Partners consults to governments, land owners, commercial organisations and NGOs.</span></em></p>Wind turbines have got Canberra in a spin this week. But does the industry need more regulation?Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/431122015-06-11T05:23:36Z2015-06-11T05:23:36ZThe real science on wind farms, noise, infrasound and health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84660/original/image-20150611-11413-1dp9r1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wind turbines do produce infrasound - but the link to ill-health is far from clear. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/danni_m/2219784370/">Danielle Martineau/Flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a radio interview this morning, Prime Minister Tony Abbott raised what he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/windfarms-may-have-potential-health-impacts-tony-abbott-says">described</a> as the “potential health impacts” of wind farms.</p>
<p>Yesterday’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/end-the-smug-untouchability-of-the-wind-industry/story-e6frg6zo-1227390301649">article in The Australian</a> by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonjhelm highlighted some very good points about wind turbine noise and its effect on people living near them. People are complaining of a range of health related problems and are attributing them to wind turbines. The question is: what is the cause of these health problems?</p>
<p>Many blame the production of infrasound from wind turbines, yet this has not been proven to date. What is needed is new, comprehensive research to determine the true cause.</p>
<p>These concerns are currently being aired through a Senate Committee on <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines">wind farms and regulations</a>, chaired by independent senator John Madigan.</p>
<p>Earlier this year the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-evidence-wind-farms-directly-impact-health-nhmrc-37470">National Health and Medical Research Council found</a> that there was no evidence that wind turbines directly affect health, but called for further research, particularly on the effects within 1.5 km of turbines.</p>
<p>I have been interested in how wind turbines produce noise, through a variety of research projects spanning several years. The most recent was an ARC Discovery project focusing on the <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Branko_Zajamsek2/publication/269397808_Experimental_measurements_of_rotating_and_stationary_wind_turbine_rotor_blade_noise/links/5489617e0cf268d28f0925bc.pdf">fundamental noise-producing physics of wind turbine blades</a> and the development of <a href="http://www.acoustics.asn.au/journal/2014/Vol42No1_Doolan.pdf">techniques to link personal annoyance with noise levels inside homes</a>. My group and I have also investigated ways to reduce wind turbine noise by <a href="http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.J052436">changing the shape of the blades</a> and to steal ideas from owls, who have the ability to fly and hunt silently.</p>
<p>So are Leyonjhelm’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/end-the-smug-untouchability-of-the-wind-industry/story-e6frg6zo-1227390301649">claims</a> correct? Let’s run through them.</p>
<p><strong>Claim: “Wind turbines emit infrasound and low-frequency noise.”</strong></p>
<p>Wind turbines undoubtedly create infrasound. It is created by the movement of the blades through the air, as the blades pass the tower and, depending on the construction of the turbine, by the gearbox. </p>
<p><strong>Claim: “Inappropriate levels of infrasound, regardless of the source, cause adverse health impacts.”</strong></p>
<p>However, most experts believe that the level of infrasound produced by wind turbines is too low to be heard or create health problems. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kristy_Hansen/publication/262581771_Identification_of_low_frequency_wind_turbine_noise_using_secondary_windscreens_of_various_geometries/links/0a85e53b34d48974a4000000.pdf">Recent measurements</a> show that infrasound can propagate many kilometres from a wind farm – what we don’t know is if these very low level sounds can cause health effects.</p>
<p><a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/99/5/10.1121/1.414863">Previous studies</a> on the effects of infrasound on health have focused on the exposure of high levels of infrasound from industrial sources. These studies show that perception or physiological effects occur at levels that are many times those generated by wind farms. </p>
<p><strong>Claim: “Research by NASA … established wind turbines could generate surprisingly high levels of infrasound and low frequency noise.”</strong></p>
<p>While it is true that early designs of wind turbines created large amounts of low-frequency noise that was annoying (the so-called “downwind” turbines of the 1980s which were reported on by NASA), modern designs that place the rotors upwind of the tower have greatly reduced this problem and made wind turbines quiet enough for widespread use. </p>
<p>There have also been many years of intensive research and development into the design of quiet wind turbine rotors and operational methods to reduce noise. This is not to say that wind farm noise is not responsible for reported health problems. </p>
<p>The effect of sensitization after long exposure to low-level noise, the effects on sleep and the role of moderating factors must be considered along with noise generation and propagation effects to properly understand why so many people are complaining of health problems near wind farms.</p>
<p><strong>Claim: “Wind farms are not required to limit or even monitor their infrasound emissions.”</strong></p>
<p>There are no requirements for infrasound to be monitored near wind farms because it occurs at a very low level and is not expected to be heard by most people. It is also very difficult to measure, especially in the presence of wind that will also generate infrasound of the same or higher level when it passes through trees or blows over a house. </p>
<p>Even when we do record it, we don’t yet know what level is responsible for causing health problems. </p>
<p>What is needed is new multi-disciplinary research linking engineers with medical and health scientists where noise data and health information are recorded simultaneously for people living close to and far from wind farms. Only such detailed research can help provide an answer to this challenging and perplexing problem.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Con Doolan receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>People are complaining of a range of health related problems and are attributing them to wind turbines. The question is: what is the cause of these health problems?Con Doolan, Associate Professor, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/384832015-03-06T06:07:55Z2015-03-06T06:07:55ZA $2.5m investment in wind farms and health won’t solve anything<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74046/original/image-20150306-3301-1tpe7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In even the best of studies, it will be impossible to separate out 'nocebo' effects from direct effects.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/89228431@N06/11080409645/in/photolist-pULMU5-hT8ZKB-4t35qt-4RqGYD-8qbjCv-dgdPuv-4RuSPw-nPRNGZ-5xxjEN-5JbPM-gKF7R-8hFwPw-brkvTr-7pMwLr-a3nXy-8GbfHm-8hFwFL-57njL4-4pxLe-pnYDVC">reynermedia/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The out-going head of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Warwick Anderson confirmed in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7P7UM7z1j8">Senate Estimates</a> recently that calls for research proposals for up to a total of A$2.5 million over five years will soon be made to investigate questions about wind farms and health.</p>
<p>Under questioning from Greens Senator Richard Di Natale, Anderson told the committee A$2.5m was a paltry fraction of the agency’s total research budget, which in 2014 stood at A$802.42m. So A$2.5m is the equivalent of less than 0.06% of a projected five-year research budget on today’s allocations. </p>
<p>But researchers’ success obtaining grants has never been lower in Australia, with many strong grants falling below the cut-off score, which is ultimately budget determined. In 2014, researchers submitted <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/research-funding-statistics-and-data/nhmrc-project-grants-success-rate-broad-research">3,700 applications</a> for project grants, with only one in 6.7 of these (14.9%) being funded. In the health services research field, 91.8% if applications were not funded.</p>
<p>Anderson has been emphatic that research standards will not be compromised in all this, and that only high-quality applications from suitably experienced researchers will be funded. It is not clear yet whether only one or more applications will be funded, if indeed any are. </p>
<p>The main debate in this area is between those who are adamant that wind turbines emit sounds and vibrations that upset and harm some of those exposed, and those who argue that the available evidence points strongly to health problems and complaints being psychogenic. </p>
<p>Nocebo phenomena – the idea that fear about wind turbines will cause some people to get symptoms – seem to be at the heart of both complaints and claims of illness.</p>
<p>I have documented an <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/10501/4/Wind_Disease_List.pdf">Old Testament-length list</a> of 244 different symptoms and diseases alleged by wind farm opponents to be caused by the pestilence of wind farm exposure. The most bizarre of these include herpes, haemorrhoids, lung skin cancer and disoriented echidnas.</p>
<h2>Study limitations</h2>
<p>In even the best of studies, it will be impossible to separate out <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00220/abstract">nocebo effects</a> from putative direct effects. Here’s why. Ideally, researchers could select a location where a wind farm was being planned and conduct symptom- and illness-prevalence studies well before the wind farm was constructed and operational. </p>
<p>They would then repeat those measures at different times after the turbines began, analysing the influence of variables such as noise levels, economic benefit, pre-existing levels of antipathy to wind farms and “<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004783">negatively oriented personality</a>”. They could also request the production of medical records to see whether reported health problems long preceded the commencement of the turbines.</p>
<p>But this sort of research design will always be corrupted by wind farm opponents who, at the first hint of any wind farm development, move into a local area with the express purpose of alarming and frightening as many local residents as possible about what’s down the track. </p>
<p>No wind farm developer could ever commence construction without a long and open period of community consultation. These trigger the alarmists to turn on their best efforts to worry residents sick. This nocebo-priming <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00279/abstract">case study</a> I published recently describes in detail how they operate.</p>
<p>Residents fully sworn against wind farms are highly biased and can game such studies where self-reports of symptoms are central.</p>
<h2>Lessons from Canada</h2>
<p>Canada has already conducted the sort of study that might be proposed in Australia. In response to agitation from anti-wind groups, starting in 2012, it undertook the largest study of wind turbines and health ever attempted. </p>
<p>The study involved 1,235 houses in Ontario and Prince Edward Island, where randomly selected residents of all houses within 600m of 399 turbines on 18 wind farms were compared with those living 600m to 10km away. </p>
<p>In October 2014, Health Canada published the <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php">top-line results</a> from the $CAN2.2 million study of the very sort that the NHMRC might well be asked to replicate.</p>
<p>It found the following were not associated with wind turbine noise:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>self-reported sleep (such as general disturbance, use of sleep medication, diagnosed sleep disorders)</p></li>
<li><p>self-reported illnesses (such as dizziness, tinnitus, prevalence of frequent migraines and headaches) and chronic health conditions (such as heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes) </p></li>
<li><p>self-reported perceived stress and quality of life.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>It did find that “annoyance” was related to wind turbine noise, with 16.5% of houses in Ontario and 6.3% on Prince Edward Island being annoyed. </p>
<p>Ontario is the epicentre of Canadian anti-wind farm activism, while Price Edward Island has seen little of this. So this major difference in the prevalence of annoyance lends support to the idea that wind farm annoyance is a “communicated disease” spread by anti-wind farm agitators.</p>
<p>The Canadian study also found that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>annoyance was significantly lower among the 110 participants who received personal benefit, which could include rent, payments or other indirect benefits of having wind turbines in the area e.g., community improvements. However, there were other factors that were found to be more strongly associated with annoyance, such as the visual appearance, concern for physical safety due to the presence of wind turbines and reporting to be sensitive to noise in general.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These findings are consistent with conclusions reached in what is now <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/10559">24 reviews</a> of the evidence.</p>
<p>Predictably, anti-wind farm groups in Canada <a href="http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2014/12/11/anti-turbine-group-rejects-health-canada-study">rejected</a> the Canadian study’s conclusions. It seems obvious that the only reports that such groups will ever accept are those which confirm their agenda. This is not a debate which will ever be resolved by research.</p>
<h2>Political interests</h2>
<p>Disturbingly, the NHMRC has allowed itself to be influenced by what reported internal <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-victorian-health-officials-objected-to-federal-wind-farm-study-conclusion-20150213-13e8go.html">email</a> described as “the macro policy environment” – bureaucratic code for sensitivity to political interests. </p>
<p>Instead, Warwick Anderson and the Council should have stated clearly and emphatically to the parliament and the public that any researcher wanting to investigate wind farms and health was at perfect liberty to submit such a proposal to compete with all those being submitted by researchers considering any other topic. Such proposals would stand or fall on their competitiveness as determined by peer review.</p>
<p>There is no dedicated research funding being set aside by the NHMRC to further investigate the known massive risks to human health from <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-health-care-burden-of-fossil-fuels/">fossil fuel</a> extraction and burning. And it would be unimaginable for the NHMRC to quarantine money for any other non-disease like <a href="http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/10-shocking-facts-health-dangers-wifi/">wifi sensitivity</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4HsxNG2-4M">smart electricity meter</a> dangers or “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death">fan death</a>”. But this is what it has done here. </p>
<p>The money allocated is not much. But the real damage will be that in having this issue thus elevated to privileged research status, its political apostles will be greatly encouraged.</p>
<p><strong><em>Editor’s note: please ensure your comments are <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/community-standards">courteous and on-topic</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38483/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The out-going head of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Warwick Anderson confirmed in Senate Estimates recently that calls for research proposals for up to a total of A$2.5 million…Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/365482015-01-21T19:10:19Z2015-01-21T19:10:19ZWind turbine studies: how to sort the good, the bad, and the ugly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69601/original/image-20150121-29720-ivx5hi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C2%2C1597%2C1063&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Blowhards? The debate over wind turbines is heated, so it's best to rely on solid science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fir0002/Flagstaffotos/Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday, The Australian ran a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/turbines-may-well-blow-an-ill-wind-over-locals-first-study-shows/story-e6frg6xf-1227191416797">front-page article</a> about what it called a “groundbreaking” new study on wind turbines and their associated health impacts.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/files/2015/01/Cape-Bridgewater-Acoustic-Report.pdf">study</a> supposedly found a trend between participants’ perceived “sensations” and “offending sound pressure”.</p>
<p>The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd claimed the (non-peer-reviewed) study shows that “people living near wind farms face a greater risk of suffering health complaints caused by the low-frequency noise generated by turbines”, adding that it may help to “resolve the contentious debate about the health impact of wind farms”.</p>
<p>Carried out by Steven Cooper of <a href="http://acoustics.com.au/">The Acoustic Group</a>, the study was commissioned by energy company <a href="http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/">Pacific Hydro</a> near its <a href="http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/english/projects/operations/capebridgewater/?language=en">Cape Bridgewater wind farm</a> in southwest Victoria.</p>
<p>But this study is an exemplary case of what we consider to be bad science and bad science reporting. Far from “resolving the contentious debate”, it’s much more likely inflame an already fractious and fraught situation. </p>
<p>Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you read this and similar studies.</p>
<h2>Is it a good study or a bad study?</h2>
<p>This study asked six specifically selected participants from three houses in the Cape Bridgewater area, all within 1.6 km of a wind turbine, to keep a diary of “perceived noise impacts”. Objective sound measures were also taken inside and outside homes. Though Cooper has said he is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vmFkox5z4k">“not qualified in any shape or form to discuss the illness side”</a>, the symptoms described in the diaries were assessed against the sound measure differences between periods when turbines were in normal operation and shut down. All participants had previously complained to Pacific Hydro about health effects related to the nearby wind farm.</p>
<p>So what do we have?</p>
<p>We have a study with a very small group of specifically selected participants, with no control group for comparison and based on self-reported data - without medical research supervision - when participants were well aware of the experimental conditions (that is, when turbines were turning or not). </p>
<p>And what does this mean?</p>
<p>It is virtually impossible to validly extrapolate these findings to other residents of Cape Bridgewater, or to those living near other wind farms around Australia. </p>
<p>It is impossible to meaningfully compare their experience with a control group of other residents. </p>
<p>Even if all six of these participants experienced their symptoms legitimately, we can’t establish cause and effect. Though Lloyd reported Cooper as claiming his study showed a clear “cause and effect” relationship, it just can’t.</p>
<p>But most importantly, you can’t trust the data. These participants were all clearly unfavourably disposed towards the wind farm beforehand, and were motivated to perceive and report symptoms in line with the wind turbine syndrome theory. </p>
<p>This is not to say that the participants - and perhaps others - do not experience adverse health effects when close to a wind turbine. But it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this type of diary-style data. Last year, <a href="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005374.full">New Zealand researchers found</a> that almost 90% of the general population experienced many of the common symptoms associated with wind turbine syndrome within a given week. </p>
<p>When a study is designed with a specific, motivated sample group and a clear hypothesis from the outset, it is a bad one. </p>
<p>It’s a study that wouldn’t have done very well if put up for peer review – or submitted for assessment in an undergraduate science degree. So how did it make it to the front page of a major Australian newspaper? </p>
<h2>Crucial context</h2>
<p>The context of any study is crucial, particularly when commissioned and conducted by private companies.</p>
<p>In this case, there appears to be a level of <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/5/15/motivated-reasoning-its-cognates.html">motivated reasoning</a>, both in the findings of the study and in its coverage by The Australian. </p>
<p>Statements from study participants are revealing. One called it “confirmation of the level of severity we were and are enduring”; another felt “absolute relief” at the results. It suggests that their feelings of anger, distress and injustice have been brewing for a long time. Despite the poor quality of the study and the limited findings, they feel vindicated.</p>
<p>Lloyd has been a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3596892.htm">long-time critic of wind farms</a> and has repeatedly <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/where-eagles-dare-not-fly-waterloo-looms-as-wind-farms-power-town-revolt/story-e6frg6nf-1226334835470">reported on studies</a> that claim to show a link between wind turbines and ill health.</p>
<p>Division, personal attacks and <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/death-threats-and-finite-spiral-of.html">vitriolic rhetoric</a> from both sides have marred this issue for many years. So it is also important to note that although Pacific Hydro has since gone into damage control, with external relations manager Andrew Richards keen to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/wind-turbine-study-cape-bridgewater/6030044">emphasise the small sample size and complexity of the issue</a>, the company deserves respect for commissioning this study and allowing The Acoustics Group full access to its wind farm operation. </p>
<p>Yet any steps to build a bridge to those who are opposed to wind turbines must be taken very carefully. Giving unfettered and un-reviewed methodological control to someone <a href="http://waubrafoundation.org.au/?s=steven+cooper">endorsed by anti-wind-turbine groups</a> is a bit like giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank. It should be possible to work with opponents to investigate a shared problem scientifically - but this is not the way. </p>
<h2>Final tip</h2>
<p>If a credible, scientifically rigorous study were to show a link between wind turbine operation and health effects, it should absolutely be taken seriously. There are people throughout Australia who genuinely believe their lives, health and well being are being affected by living near wind farms. </p>
<p>If good science can prove them right, then we must take it into account. But no one benefits from bad science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Yesterday, The Australian ran a front-page article about what it called a “groundbreaking” new study on wind turbines and their associated health impacts. The study supposedly found a trend between participants…Jacqui Hoepner, PhD candidate, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityWill J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/236212014-02-24T19:10:27Z2014-02-24T19:10:27ZStudy finds no evidence wind turbines make you sick – again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42348/original/mnycb5jj-1393223098.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Proximity to wind farms may cause annoyance but not ill health.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is no reliable or consistent evidence that proximity to wind farms or wind farm noise directly causes health effects.
That’s the finding of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) much-anticipated draft <a href="http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/files/consultations/drafts/nhmrcdraftinformationpaperpublicconsultationfebruary2014.pdf">systematic review</a> of the evidence on wind farms and human health, released yesterday. </p>
<p>This report takes the number of <a href="http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindHealthReviews.pdf">reviews</a> published on the issue since 2003 to 20. And all have reached the same broad conclusions.</p>
<p>The NHMRC investigators also found consistent but poor-quality evidence that proximity to wind farms was associated with annoyance and, less consistently, with sleep disturbance and poorer quality of life. </p>
<p>But finding an association between wind farms and these health-related effects does not mean that wind farms cause these problems. These associations could be due to selection or information bias or to confounding factors. </p>
<p>Some poor-quality studies, for example, include only people with complaints, failing to consider the many who are not upset by turbines. And anti-wind farm activists’ efforts to spread fear among communities may cause people who anticipate they will be adversely affected to worry themselves sick.</p>
<p>It is unlikely that substantial wind farm noise would be heard at distances of more than 500 metres to 1500m away, the report concludes, though noise levels vary with terrain, type of turbines and weather conditions.</p>
<p>But when it can be heard, noise from wind turbines, including its content of low-frequency noise and infrasound, is similar to noise from many other natural and human made sources. There is no evidence that health or health-related effects from wind turbine noise would be any different to those from other noise sources at similar levels.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42350/original/r97xksqm-1393223324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Finding an association between poor sleep and wind farms doesn’t mean one causes the other.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>People exposed to infrasound and low frequency noise in a laboratory (at much higher levels than those to which people living near wind farms are exposed) experience few, if any, effects on body functioning.</p>
<p>On the possibility that the “shadow flicker” produced by wind turbines might trigger epilepsy, the investigators found insufficient direct evidence to draw any conclusions.</p>
<p>Flashing lights <em>can</em> trigger seizures among people with a rare form of epilepsy called photosensitive epilepsy. But the risk of shadow flicker from wind turbines triggering a seizure among people with this condition is estimated to be very low.</p>
<p>Finally, on the question of whether turbines might emit harm levels of electromagnetic radiation, the report concludes there is no direct evidence to suggest such a link. </p>
<p>Wind turbines emit extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation, which are estimated to be less than average levels measured inside and outside Australian suburban homes. There is no consistent evidence that such exposure has a harmful effect on human health.</p>
<h2>Wind farm opponents</h2>
<p>As occurred with the other 19 reviews, the anti-wind farm lobby will predictably reject these findings. Ms Sarah Laurie, the most prominent of these voices in Australia, said as much in evidence before last year’s Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s hearing into the proposed Cherry Tree wind farm:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Tim Power (lawyer for Infigen Energy): Can I take it that if the NHMRC reference group confirmed the findings that it made in July 2010 that you would accept that as being robust evidence that wind farms don’t have the health impacts being complained of?</p>
<p>Sarah Laurie: No.</p>
<p>Tim Power: So in a sense what you’re saying is you’re not going to accept the NHMRC findings unless they agree with you?</p>
<p>Sarah Laurie: No. What I’m saying is that we need to do the research first, so that we actually have something to review.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2013-05-26/4705822#transcript">interview</a> on ABC radio last year, Laurie hinted that even new, original research would still be unacceptable if it produced yet more evidence showing no harmful effects.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sarah Dingle (reporter): If federal and state governments agree to fund the research you’re calling for around the country, and it clears wind farms of any adverse impact on human health, would you accept that?</p>
<p>Sarah Laurie: Sarah, the adverse impacts have been shown by a number of studies, both overseas and in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The NHMRC has now called for public submissions on the draft report. Noting there is very little evidence of any acceptable quality available to review, the NHMRC is particularly interested in receiving high-quality evidence published since the date at which they stopped reviewing.</p>
<p>Three recently published peer-reviewed papers will certainly be jetting to the NHMRC. Two are ingenious experimental demonstrating the <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-turbines-dont-make-you-feel-sick-or-healthy-but-spin-can-20845">nocebo effects</a> caused by exposure to frightening information about wind turbines. Nocebo effects are the inverse of placebo effects: when people are warned they may become ill, and then do, even when exposed to a sham “dose” of an allegedly noxious agent.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42349/original/s9x52cj9-1393223159.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Noise from wind turbines is similar to noise from many other natural and human made sources.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The third is <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076584">my study</a> of the way that complaints are concentrated around farms targeted by anti-wind farm activists and absent from places where the lobbyists are inactive, such as Western Australia and Tasmania. A small number of wind farms saw an increase in complaints following attention from activists spreading concern. </p>
<p>Like the cultural curiosity of Korean “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death">fan death</a>, "wind turbine syndrome” is an unrecognised “disease”. It is promoted in mainly <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/diseases-that-speak-english.html">English-speaking environments</a>, often confounded by envy from rent-seeking neighbours living on land unsuitable for turbines, by wealthy landowners grimacing at the aesthetic outrage to their bucolic landscapes, and by climate change sceptics and fossil fuel mining investors keen to discredit renewable energy.</p>
<p>At a time when health and medical research into known, serious problems – including the health effects of climate change – faces serious funding challenges, the NHMRC has more important problems at which to direct its limited budget.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23621/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In late 2012 Simon Chapman was remunerated by lawyers acting for Infigen energy for providing an expert report on psychogenic aspects of wind farm noise complaints for possible use in a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing. Expert witnesses have a general duty to courts, not to any party in proceedings, as set out here: <a href="http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/cm7">http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/cm7</a></span></em></p>There is no reliable or consistent evidence that proximity to wind farms or wind farm noise directly causes health effects. That’s the finding of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC…Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/208452013-11-28T19:07:28Z2013-11-28T19:07:28ZWind turbines don’t make you feel sick or healthy, but spin can<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36354/original/zygkx48c-1385598907.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People report symptoms from wind farms even when the wind turbines aren't in operation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite at least <a href="http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindHealthReviews.pdf">19 reviews</a> of the scientific evidence universally concluding that exposure to wind farm sound doesn’t trigger adverse health effects, people continue to report feeling unwell because they live near wind turbines. </p>
<p>We’ve <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23477573">known for some time</a> that exposure to negative messages about wind farms makes people more likely to report feeling sick after exposure to turbines. And new research, published by my colleagues and I this week in the journal <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-40810-001/">Health Psychology</a>, shows positive messages about wind farms may have the opposite effect – improve perceptions of health.</p>
<h2>Infrasound</h2>
<p>Speculation in the media and on the internet often attributes the symptoms to sub-audible sound produced by operating wind farms (infrasound). But the reality is that infrasound (sound below 16 hertz) is consistently present in the environment and is caused by wind, ocean waves and traffic. Importantly, <a href="http://www.acoustics.asn.au/journal/2012/2012_40_1_Turnbull.pdf">research demonstrates</a> there is nothing unusual about the levels of infrasound produced by wind farms. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/noise/wind_farms/waterloo_wind_farm_noise_study">study released this week</a> by South Australia’s Environment Protection Authority (EPA) once again concluded there was no evidence linking noise from wind farms to sickness among residents living near the Waterloo Wind Farm. It found that noise produced by the turbines was within authority guidelines and below internationally accepted thresholds for perceiving noise. </p>
<p>Interestingly, the EPA report revealed that symptoms attributed to wind farm sound have been reported even when the turbines in question were not in operation. This presents important questions about what may be causing health complaints and how such symptom reporting can be addressed.</p>
<h2>The ‘nocebo’ effect</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076584">recent analysis</a> of noise and health complaints in Australia found that adverse health reports have coincided with negative publicity about the health effects of wind farms. Media reports about perceived environmental hazards can trigger symptom reporting, even when exposure is to something harmless or benign. </p>
<p>This is because such information can create a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo">nocebo</a> response: where it is the expectation of ill effects that lead people to report symptoms. Information about the adverse health impacts of wind turbines can elevate anxiety and create symptom expectations that prime people to notice physical symptoms and sensations.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36356/original/v3hfxyvj-1385599154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The nocebo effect occurs when harmless substances or environments make you feel sick.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/jk5854</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23477573">Previous research</a> by my laboratory group showed that providing people with information from the internet that infrasound exposure may cause health problems, prompted them to report symptoms during exposure to both sham infrasound (silence) and genuine infrasound. This indicates their experiences were provoked by symptom expectations rather than any effect of actual infrasound. </p>
<p>Curiously, there is information on the internet about the therapeutic benefits of infrasound. Various infrasound devices are currently marketed as tools to alleviate the very symptoms infrasound produced by wind farms is said to create. So we wondered whether creating positive health expectations about infrasound would have improve perceptions of health during exposure to wind farm sound. </p>
<h2>Positive and negative effects</h2>
<p>In our new study, we took 60 participants and divided them into two groups – positive and negative. We then exposed them to audible wind farm sound, overlaid with infrasound, during two seven-minute listening sessions. </p>
<p>Prior to exposure periods, participants in the negative-expectation group watched a DVD integrating television footage about the adverse health effects said to be triggered by infrasound produced by wind turbines. </p>
<p>Contrastingly, positive-expectation participants viewed a DVD with information from the internet outlining the alleged therapeutic effects of infrasound exposure, emphasising that infrasound is created by natural phenomena, such as ocean waves and the wind. </p>
<p>At baseline and during exposure sessions, participants evaluated their experience of 24 physical symptoms (including headache, ear pressure, tiredness) and the extent to which they felt 12 positive mood items (relaxed, peaceful, cheerful) and 12 negative mood items (anxious, nervous, distressed).</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36365/original/qrpdhmr2-1385600875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Creating positive health expectations about infrasound can improve perceptions of health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/abrinsky</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The results showed that the experience of symptoms and mood during exposure to audible windfarm sound and infrasound was influenced by the type of expectations provided before exposure periods. </p>
<p>Negative-expectation participants reported significant increases in the number and intensity of symptoms and a significant deterioration in mood during listening sessions. </p>
<p>And positive expectation participants had a significant reduction in the number and intensity of symptoms from baseline, as well as a significant improvement in mood.</p>
<h2>Framing expectations</h2>
<p>The fact that negative expectations in the current study were once again formed by watching television material, extracted from the internet, raises important issues about the way in which the media portrays wind farms. </p>
<p>If expectations about infrasound were framed in more neutral or benign ways, then reports of symptoms or negative effects could be ameliorated. Interestingly, framing expectations about wind farms in a positive manner could have a positive impact on the subjective experience of wind farm sound. </p>
<p>The onus falls on the media to report on health fears about wind farms cautiously, particularly given strong evidence that it is the discussion itself that may be creating and perpetuating health complaints. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20845/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Crichton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite at least 19 reviews of the scientific evidence universally concluding that exposure to wind farm sound doesn’t trigger adverse health effects, people continue to report feeling unwell because they…Fiona Crichton, PhD candidate in psychological medicine, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/198732013-11-06T19:39:50Z2013-11-06T19:39:50ZLook out for that turbine! Climate sceptics are the real Chicken Littles<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34488/original/nxbtncdy-1383702651.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The sky is falling! Oh wait, no: it's just the clouds moving...</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sarah Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Several Australian corporate figures have recently disparaged climate scientists. </p>
<p>First, former banker David Murray <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-scientists-attack-david-murray-for-serious-slur-20131101-2wqcc.html">questioned the integrity</a> of climate scientists on national TV. Casting such aspersions on scientists follows the precedent set by the tobacco industry, which referred to medical researchers as an “oligopolistic cartel” that “<a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vob81f00">manufactures alleged evidence</a>.” </p>
<p>Attacks on scientists <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/november-2013/the-subterranean-war-on-science.html">proceed according to the same playbook</a> and regardless of discipline. If there is any novelty in Murray’s slur, it is that until recently he led the Future Fund, a body that is legally tasked with delivering <a href="http://www.futurefund.gov.au/about_the_future_fund">risk-adjusted</a> returns on the Australian Government’s budget surpluses. The adjustment of a risk by denying or ignoring it is arguably not without precedent; see the 2007 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308">financial crisis</a>, for example.</p>
<p>More recently, mining figure Hugh Morgan confronted the issue of risk head-on and declared the world’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ipcc-this-centurys-chicken-little/story-e6frg6xf-1226752383735">Chicken Littles</a>” whose dire predictions would soon be cast aside, in the same way that the apocalyptic warnings of the Club of Rome from 40 years ago turned out to be false. (Except that when a CSIRO scientist reviewed those 40-year old projections, he found them to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/planetary-boundaries-limits-to-growth-and-the-climate-debate-19819">remarkably accurate</a>.)</p>
<p>Much is known in cognitive science about how people judge risks. It is now commonly accepted that those judgments are inherently subjective and subject to cultural biases, such as one’s<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637"> attitudes towards the free market</a>. </p>
<p>Thus, whereas the medical community lives up to its reputation as Chicken Littles by claiming that tobacco has adverse health effects, other institutions that arise from a different cultural background, such as <a href="http://ipa.org.au/people/hugh-morgan">Morgan’s Institute of Public Affairs</a> (IPA), take a more heroic approach by chastising such “<a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/523/smokescreen-%27passive-smoking%27-and-public-policy">corrupt science</a>” as overly alarmist. The trade-off between free-market fundamentalism and lung cancer is a matter of cultural preferences.</p>
<p>Perhaps then, mining executives are simply Courageous Real Men™ who can handle small problems like climate change — if need be with a bit of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/08/gina-rinehart-australian-mining-magnate">nuclear landscaping</a>. Their tough but experienced hands will guide us to a safe future.</p>
<p>Perhaps.</p>
<p>There is, however, one problem, which is that this culture of heroic risk-taking falters at the sight — and the sound! — of wind turbines. </p>
<p>The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), an <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation">organisation closely aligned with the IPA</a>, has been a <a href="http://aefweb.info/">leader in the fight</a> against the perfidious risk posed by wind turbines. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076584">peer reviewed paper</a> by Professor Simon Chapman and colleagues at the University of Sydney confirmed the impressive success with which the AEF has alerted people to the hazard posed by “wind turbine syndrome”. The paper concludes that health concerns about wind turbines in Australia are primarily limited to those sites that have been visited by organisations with an anti-wind agenda. It found “the dominant opposition model appears to be to foment health anxiety among residents in the planning and construction phases.”</p>
<p>This health anxiety is non-trivial because wind turbine syndrome is a disease more terrifying than smoking, climate change, vaccinations, Communism, and GM foods put together. </p>
<p>The list of symptoms ranges from minor irritations such as the vibration of people’s lips at a distance of 10km from the nearest wind turbine, to more serious issues such as accelerated aging, aggression in cattle, death in goats, aggravated ADHD in children, autism, and behavioral changes in dogs. To date, <a href="http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.pdf">216 symptoms</a> have been reported.</p>
<p>The list of symptoms also includes peculiar birth defects in chickens, such as crossed beaks. One might therefore be tempted to dismiss concern about wind turbines as merely another instance of alarmism by “Chicken Little” scientists.</p>
<p>Except that no scientists were involved, because wind turbine syndrome has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2868198.html">no presence</a> in the medical literature. The Chicken Littles are anti-wind agitators, many affiliated with the IPA that dismisses the risk from tobacco and climate change.</p>
<p>This presents us with a baffling conundrum. On the one hand, there is a cultural propensity among <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637">adherents of the free market</a> to dismiss or deny the risks from climate change, notwithstanding the overwhelming scientific evidence. On the other hand, people steeped in the same culture suffer 216 terrifying symptoms at the sight or sound of a wind turbine, thereby experiencing a risk that is unknown to medical science.</p>
<p>How can those conflicting risk perceptions be reconciled? What is so terrifying about wind turbines? What is so comforting about the many hazards associated with climate change? We cannot be sure as yet, but the answer may well <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html">lie in the shadowy world</a> of finance and corporate interests rather than the science of risk management.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19873/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Royal Society.
</span></em></p>Several Australian corporate figures have recently disparaged climate scientists. First, former banker David Murray questioned the integrity of climate scientists on national TV. Casting such aspersions…Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/128332013-03-15T03:32:34Z2013-03-15T03:32:34ZHow the power of suggestion generates wind farm symptoms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21288/original/gtjr5xtd-1363292000.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Exposure to infrasound, at the level produced by wind turbines, is an ordinary occurrence.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Wavy1</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A surge in health complaints linked to wind farms could owe more to increased discussion of health risk than the low-level sound generated by the actual turbines, according to a new study. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/8977">study</a> by University of Sydney’s Professor Simon Chapman shows health complaints in Australia were rare until reports emerged about the purported health risks of living close to wind farms. </p>
<p>Increased numbers of people reporting symptoms linked to turbines could be explained by public warnings about health effects triggering the complaints; a phenomenon known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo">nocebo effect</a>.</p>
<p>This occurs because such information can create health concerns and related symptom expectations, priming people to notice and negatively interpret common physical sensations and symptoms. </p>
<p>In an <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-07740-001/">experimental study</a> published this week in Health Psychology, our experimental team tested the potential for information about the alleged health risks presented by wind farms to trigger symptoms reports.</p>
<p>Much of the conjecture about the health effects presented by wind turbines relates to the generation of sub-audible sound (infrasound), which is said to cause physical symptoms such as headache, nausea, fatigue and ear pressure. However, exposure to infrasound, at the level produced by wind turbines, is an ordinary occurrence. Infrasound is consistently present in the environment caused by natural phenomena, such as air turbulence and ocean waves; by machinery, such as air conditioners; and is produced within the body, by processes such as respiration. </p>
<p>In this study, we exposed 60 participants to ten minutes of infrasound and ten minutes of sham infrasound (silence), within a listening room designed for subjective listening experiments. Prior to the listening sessions, half of the participants (high expectancy participants) watched a DVD presentation which contained television footage, available on the internet, in which people living in the vicinity of wind farms recounted their experience of symptoms that they believed to be caused by wind farms. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21289/original/5yrgdhd2-1363292208.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Discussion within the community about the alleged health effects of wind farms may trigger the symptoms about which residents are concerned.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Abraham</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The remaining participants (low expectancy participants) viewed a DVD in which experts put forth the scientific position that exposure to infrasound generated by wind turbines would not cause symptoms. Before and during each ten-minute exposure session participants rated their experience of 24 physical symptoms, such as dizziness, ear pressure, and headache.</p>
<p>Results showed there were no symptomatic changes before or during exposure periods in the low expectancy group. However, participants in the high expectancy group reported significant increases from pre-exposure assessment in the number and intensity of symptoms reported during exposure periods. This increase was the same whether exposure was to infrasound or to sham infrasound, indicating that exposure to infrasound did not add to the symptomatic experience. </p>
<p>Further, during both exposure periods, high expectancy participants reported more symptoms they had been told were typical of infrasound exposure, rather than symptoms they were informed were atypical.</p>
<p>The findings indicate that negative health information readily available to people living in the vicinity of wind farms has the potential to create symptom expectations, providing a possible pathway for symptoms attributed to operating wind turbines. This may have wide-reaching implications. If symptom expectations are the root cause of symptom reporting, answering calls to increase minimum wind-farm set back distances is likely to do little to assuage health complaints. </p>
<p>Ironically, discussion within the community about the alleged health effects of wind-farms may trigger the very symptoms about which residents are concerned. If this is the case, media coverage of the wind-farm debate must be balanced, so that undue emphasis is not placed on purported health risk. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698575.2013.776015">recent study</a> has shown that media reporting about health effects and wind farms in Ontario, Canada contain factors likely to induce fear, anxiety and concern. Thus the media must take particular care that they are not creating and perpetuating health complaints attributed to wind farms.</p>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-study-wind-turbine-syndrome-is-spread-by-scaremongers-12834">New study: wind turbine syndrome is spread by scaremongers</a> by Simon Chapman</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12833/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Crichton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A surge in health complaints linked to wind farms could owe more to increased discussion of health risk than the low-level sound generated by the actual turbines, according to a new study. The study by…Fiona Crichton, PhD candidate in psychological medicine, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/128342013-03-15T03:32:33Z2013-03-15T03:32:33ZNew study: wind turbine syndrome is spread by scaremongers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21280/original/h4znsnps-1363237625.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wind turbine syndrome seems to be caused by fear and anxiety spread by anti-wind farm groups.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2123/8977">study of mine</a> published last night delivers a double whammy to those who argue that wind turbines cause health problems in communities. </p>
<p>Earlier this week researchers at the University of Auckland published an <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-07740-001/">experimental study</a> showing that people primed by watching online information about health problems from wind turbines, reported more symptoms after being exposed to recorded infrasound or to sham (fake) infrasound. </p>
<p>The study provided powerful evidence for the nocebo hypothesis: the idea that anxiety and fear about wind turbines being spread about by anti-wind farm groups, will cause some people hearing this scary stuff to get those symptoms.</p>
<p>The double whammy for the scaremongers comes in the form of an historical audit of all complaints made about wind farm noise or health problems on all of Australia’s 49 wind farms. Australia’s first wind farm, which still operates today, started generating power in 1993 at Esperance in Western Australia. Twenty years on, our 49 wind farms have seen 1471 turbines turning for a cumulative total of 328 years.</p>
<p>In recent years, and particularly since 2009, we’ve heard a lot about health complaints involving wind turbines, thanks to the efforts of groups such as the <a href="http://waubrafoundation.com.au/Y2NpZD0xJmNhaWQ9MTMmYWlkPSZjcmM9MTQ0OTg1MjMyOA%3D%3D">Waubra Foundation</a> (none of whose directors live in or near the Victorian town of Waubra) and the interconnected <a href="http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/environment/the-landscape-guardians-and-the-waubra-foundation/">Landscape Guardians</a>. And, just as the nocebo hypothesis would predict, the great bulk of health and noise complaints have arisen since 2009: 82% of complainants made their first complaint after that date.</p>
<p>There are some 32,677 people living within 5km of these 49 wind farms around Australia, and just 120 – or one in 272 – of them have ever made formal complaints, appeared in news reports or sent complaining submissions to government. Moreover, 81 (68%) of these are people living near just five wind farms, each of which have been heavily targeted by wind farm opponent groups.</p>
<p>Our study tested four hypotheses relevant to the nocebo hypothesis:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many wind farms of comparable power would have no history of health or noise complaints from nearby residents (suggesting that factors that don’t relate to the turbines may explain the presence or absence of complaints)</p></li>
<li><p>Wind farms which had been subject to complaints would have only a small number of such complaining residents among those living near the farms (suggesting that individual or social factors may be required to explain different “susceptibility”)</p></li>
<li><p>Few wind farms would have any history of complaints consistent with recent claims that turbines cause acute health problems (suggesting that explanations beyond turbines are needed to explain why acute problems are reported)</p></li>
<li><p>Most health and noise complaints would date from after the advent of anti-wind farm groups beginning to foment concerns about health (from around 2009) and that wind farms subject to organised opposition would be more likely to have histories of complaint than those not exposed to such opposition (suggesting that health concerns may reflect “communicated” anxieties).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>All four hypotheses were strongly supported by our study: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Almost two thirds (63%) of all wind farms, including half of those with large (>1MW) turbines which opponents particularly demonise, have never been the subject of complaint </p></li>
<li><p>The proportion of nearby residents complaining is minuscule </p></li>
<li><p>Some complainants took many years to voice their first complaint, when wind farm opponents regularly warn that the ill effects can be almost instant </p></li>
<li><p>Health complaints were as rare as proverbial rocking horse droppings until the scare-mongering groups began megaphoning their apocalyptic, scary messages to rural residents.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21282/original/t44h8dkm-1363240823.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Health complaints were rare until the wind turbine scare-mongering began.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tejvan Photos</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The first records of claims being made that wind turbines could cause health problems date from 2003, when a British GP wrote an unpublished report about just 36 people scattered around the UK who all said the turbines made them ill. </p>
<p>A Victorian country GP followed this up with an even smaller study in 2004, where after dropping 25 questionnaires to people living near the local turbines, eight reported problems like sleep difficulties, stress and dizziness. </p>
<p>Among the many problems with this study is the fact that in any community, regardless of the presence or absence of wind turbines, about a quarter to a third will have sleep problems, nearly half will have had a headache in the last week, and nearly one in six will have felt dizzy. When someone suggests that wind turbines – which some rural people don’t much like the look of – might be causing such problems, this “rural myth” gets traction.</p>
<p>The rhino in the room for those who would dismiss the nocebo hypothesis is the small problem-ette of explaining why there are so many thousands of people living near wind farms who never complain. And of why between 1993 and 2004, there were no health complaints but 13 wind farms operating, including five with large turbines.</p>
<p>The standard response is that only some people are “susceptible”, just like only some people get motion sickness. Our data produce big problems for that explanation: it is implausible that no susceptible people would live around any wind farm in Western Australia where there have been zero complaints, around almost all older farms, nor around nearly half of the more recent farms. No credible hypotheses other than those implicating psycho-social factors have been advanced to explain this variability.</p>
<p>In the early days, those who didn’t like the turbines, complained that they looked ugly and were blots on pristine bush landscapes. A few worried that they might kill birds and bats (they do, but at a tiny fraction of the rate that plate glass, cars and feral cats kill). But as this lengthy <a href="http://www.spacountryguardians.org.au/display.php?newpageid=78">2004 report</a> shows, health problems were rarely mentioned, with the few who did being seen as doing the cause no favours. </p>
<p>But then opponents decided to push the health issue: when someone says they are ill, you are supposed to be sympathetic, not sceptical. It was always going to be a winning strategy. My collection of health problems opponents have named now numbers <a href="http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.pdf">216</a>.</p>
<p>Until now, this strategy has worked well for them, but the two studies now out should pour a large bucket of cold water on this core claim, as should even cursory consideration of the weird and wonderful claims being made by some of their leaders.</p>
<p>Australia’s high priestess of wind turbine syndrome, the unregistered doctor Sarah Laurie claimed last year that vibrations from wind turbines can “perceptibly <a href="http://docs.wind-watch.org/Laurie-Collector.pdf">rock stationary cars</a> even further than a kilometre away from the nearest wind turbine” and that turbines can make people’s <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/bad-day-in-court-for-anti-wind-campaigner-sarah-laurie">lips vibrate</a> “as from a distance of 10km away”.</p>
<p>A pharmacist from near Yass in NSW, <a href="http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-and-low-frequency-noise-implications-for-human-health/">George Papadopoulos</a>, claims to be able to experience the “problem” at remarkable distances, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Where does the problem stop? This is a difficult question to answer. On two occasions when the ILFN (infrasound and low frequency noise) nuisance was at its worst, I travelled out west. On one occasion I discovered that it appeared to have dissipated at Wee Jasper, 70km away from the closest turbines. On another occasion, and by far the worst of all days, the problem had dissipated when arriving at Young about 100km from the closest turbines.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But don’t worry – Mr Papadopoulos assures us: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Truly these figures appear subjective, outrageous, and for most, impossible to believe. However, I am reporting my findings that have taken hours and days to determine. I’m not just plucking figures out of the air.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-power-of-suggestion-generates-wind-farm-symptoms-12833">How the power of suggestion generates wind farm symptoms</a> by Fiona Crichton</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12834/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In late 2012 Simon Chapman was remunerated by lawyers acting for Infigen energy for providing an expert report on psychogenic aspects of wind farm noise complaints for possible use in a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing. Expert witnesses have a general duty to courts, not to any party in proceedings, as set out here: <a href="http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/cm7">http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/cm7</a></span></em></p>A study of mine published last night delivers a double whammy to those who argue that wind turbines cause health problems in communities. Earlier this week researchers at the University of Auckland published…Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/111022012-12-30T20:01:16Z2012-12-30T20:01:16Z2012, the year that was: Health + Medicine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18684/original/665fwdxj-1355456371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Obesity, over-diagnosis, the NDIS, vaccinations and open access for genetic information were just some of the issues covered in 2012.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kylie May; shutterstock.com; Morberg; Pranjal Mahn</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It promised to be a full year of reforms: <a href="https://theconversation.com/gillards-pokie-rethink-shows-weakness-while-wilkie-wavers-4979">pokies legislation</a>, front-of-pack <a href="https://theconversation.com/out-with-traffic-lights-in-with-stars-next-steps-for-food-labelling-11069">food labels</a> and a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-4b-dental-care-program-will-tackle-inequity-but-funding-still-in-question-6808">dental system</a> that doesn’t cost those in need an arm and a leg. But while we did see cigarette companies forced to swap their bright embossed logos for <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-olive-revolution-australias-plain-packaging-leads-the-world-8856">matt, olive green packs</a>, the results were mixed for <a href="https://theconversation.com/healthcare-reform-in-2012-whose-health-system-is-it-anyway-4905">health legislation and reform</a>. </p>
<p>The exception was the bipartisan support for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/another-step-forward-for-the-ndis-but-details-still-missing-11231">National Disability Insurance Scheme</a> (NDIS). As Deakin health economist <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ndis-is-worth-the-investment-heres-why-6685">Elizabeth Manning wrote back in May</a>, the NDIS won’t be cheap but will certainly be worth the investment for the 400,000 Australians living with disability who struggle to get the support they need from our fragmented and under-funded system. </p>
<p>While <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/climate-change">climate change</a> may have dominated the energy and environment page of The Conversation, we saw a similar debates on the health page on the health impacts of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/wind-power">wind turbines</a> and the safety of childhood <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a>, with evidence on one side and scaremongering on the other. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13137/original/ywj9z8dg-1342662145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wind turbine syndrome is a ‘commincated’ disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-syndrome-a-classic-communicated-disease-8318">Simon Chapman wrote in July</a>, “wind turbine syndrome” is a classic communicated disease – it spreads through talking and instilling fear in others. Chapman has been keeping a tally of the health problems opponents of wind turbines attribute to the energy alternative and by November he’d <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-still-no-evidence-that-wind-farms-harm-your-health-10464">listed 198 ailments</a>, including cancer, hemorrhoids, weight loss, weight gain and even death.</p>
<p>American political satirist Stephen Colbert wasn’t convinced either, picking up Chapman’s article for a segment on <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/">The Colbert Report</a> about the claims of anti-wind farm campaigners. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the vaccination debate – if you can call it that – <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-childhood-vaccinations-are-dangerous-10872">Fiona Stanley pointed out</a> that it’s easy for vaccine deniers to turn their backs on immunisation when they don’t see the devastating effects of infectious diseases. Back in 1956, 100% of Western Australian parents vaccinated their children to protect them from disease horrible diseases such as polio, which they saw paralysing other children. </p>
<p>The Conversation columnist and toxicology expert Ian Musgrave took a <a href="https://theconversation.com/toxins-in-vaccines-a-potentially-deadly-misunderstanding-11010">closer look at some of the claims</a> made by anti-vaxxers. His conclusion? The mercury from tinned tuna takes longer to expel from your body than any mercury in vaccines. And there’s at least ten times more formaldehyde in apples than there is in any vaccine. </p>
<p>So what were some of the other most-read pieces of the year?</p>
<p>Our top-rating story for the year was by Timothy Smith from the Florey Neurosciences Institute who explained <a href="https://theconversation.com/sharing-is-caring-we-need-open-access-to-genetic-information-6695">why we need open access to genetic information</a>. He argued that technical, financial and legal barriers stop the sharing of vital information in medical research. Clocking up almost 40,000 views, the article went viral after it was posted on Reddit. </p>
<p>Into its second year, our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/medical-myths">medical myths series</a> kept injecting some evidence into our Mondays – and showed us again and again that our parents weren’t always right. <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-you-cant-mix-antibiotics-with-alcohol-4407">Can’t mix antibiotics with alcohol</a>? Oh yes you can. <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-you-cant-mix-antibiotics-with-alcohol-4407">Need eight hours of continuous sleep a night</a>? Not even close. <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-shaved-hair-grows-back-faster-and-thicker-6743">Shaved hair grows back thicker and faster</a>? Nope. <a href="http://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-cutting-carbs-is-the-best-way-to-lose-weight-8711">Cutting carbs is the best way to lose weight</a>? Thankfully, another myth. </p>
<p>Some other off-pace pieces popped up in our most-read list. In August, Spring Chenoa Cooper Robins and Anthony Santella explored <a href="https://theconversation.com/bare-necessity-public-health-implications-of-removing-pubic-hair-8737">the public health implications of removing pubic hair</a>. What’s “normal” in the pubic hair landscape has changed considerably over the past 20 years, they said, with half of female undergraduates removing most or all their hair. The authors helpfully list <a href="https://theconversation.com/bare-necessity-public-health-implications-of-removing-pubic-hair-8737">five things everyone should know about pubic hair removal</a>.</p>
<p>On a more serious note, we took an in-depth look at some of the key issues in health and medicine – on the top of our list was <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/obese-nation">obesity</a>. We kicked off our a <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/obese-nation">16-part series</a> an infographic showing just how much weight we gained over the past 30 years and what will happen if we change our ways. If we all drank one less glass of wine or soft drink each day and went for a 30 minute walk, we could significantly reverse the trend. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-231" class="tc-infographic" height="511" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/231/51b510dae3dbdc335d66f9e509ae030ddc8dd8d1/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<figure><figcaption><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/231/51b510dae3dbdc335d66f9e509ae030ddc8dd8d1/site/index.html">Click here</a> to open in new window or republish.</figcaption></figure>
<p>Throughout the rest of the series, Australia’s top obesity experts explained what we need to do to stop the epidemic. </p>
<p>We also brought you extensive coverage on the issue of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/overdiagnosis-epidemic">over-diagnosis in medicine</a>. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/preventing-over-diagnosis-how-to-stop-harming-the-healthy-8569">Ray Moynihan explained in the first article of the series</a>, over-diagnosis happens when people are diagnosed with diseases that won’t actually harm them. <a href="https://theconversation.com/psa-screening-and-prostate-cancer-over-diagnosis-8568">Prostate cancer testing</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/over-diagnosis-and-breast-cancer-screening-a-case-study-7396">breast cancer screening</a> are perhaps two of the most talked-about areas of over-diagnosis, with evidence that some surgeries to remove cancers are unnecessary. </p>
<p>Other in-depth series looked at: <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/superbugs-vs-antibiotics">Superbugs vs Antibiotics</a> (December), <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/medical-histories">Medical Histories</a> (November), <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/matters-of-the-mind">the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders</a> (October), <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/motherhood">Motherhood</a> (October) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/transparency-and-medicine">Transparency and Medicine</a> (April). We also wrapped up <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/panacea-or-placebo">Panacea or Placebo</a> – our series on the history and evidence base of ten complementary therapies – last month.</p>
<p>Finally, we welcomed two new columnists to the health and medicine page: Alessandro Demaio’s column <a href="https://theconversation.com/columns/alessandro-demaio-8823">Health beyond the horizon</a> gives a snapshot of pressing issues in global health; Andrew Whitehouse’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/columns/andrew-whitehouse-5601">From placenta to play centre</a> examines the science behind child development, from pre-conception to school. Alessandro and Andrew joined columnists <a href="https://theconversation.com/columns/michael-vagg-1771">Michael Vagg</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/columns/ian-musgrave-1808">Ian Musgrave</a>. </p>
<p>Stay tuned in 2013 for our expert analysis of the federal election. We’ll also look under the covers with a series on sexual health; and examine the health and social effects of Australia’s booze culture. Have a happy and healthy new year. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Health and medicine’s most popular stories for 2012:</strong></p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/sharing-is-caring-we-need-open-access-to-genetic-information-6695">Sharing is caring: we need open access to genetic information</a></p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-you-cant-mix-antibiotics-with-alcohol-4407">Monday’s medical myth: you can’t mix antibiotics with alcohol</a> </p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> <a href="http://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-syndrome-a-classic-communicated-disease-8318">Wind turbine syndrome: a classic ‘communicated’ disease</a> </p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-perils-of-announcing-a-pregnancy-in-public-11132">The perils of announcing a pregnancy in public</a> </p>
<p><strong>5.</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-you-need-eight-hours-of-continuous-sleep-each-night-5643">Monday’s medical myth: you need eight hours of continuous sleep each night</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11102/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
It promised to be a full year of reforms: pokies legislation, front-of-pack food labels and a dental system that doesn’t cost those in need an arm and a leg. But while we did see cigarette companies forced…Fron Jackson-Webb, Deputy Editor and Senior Health EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/111222012-12-04T19:49:03Z2012-12-04T19:49:03ZVampires and wind farms: mass hysteria can be a pain in the neck<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18292/original/9gz53vtp-1354579830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Serbian villagers fear vampires, but we have our own superstitions in the Anglosphere.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Drurydrama (Len Radin)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If the latest spate of news stories coming out of Serbia are anything to go by, the tiny and otherwise unassuming village of Zarožje has <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SERBIA_VAMPIRE_ON_THE_LOOSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-01-09-07-03">something of a vampire problem</a>.</p>
<p>Local legend tells of Sava Savanović, a fearsome character said to inhabit an abandoned watermill on the banks of the Rogačica river, who had the nasty habit of drinking the blood of those who desired to mill their grain in his home.</p>
<p>The mill, long abandoned to the elements, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239072/Vampire-Sava-Savanovic-loose-Serbian-local-council-issues-public-health-warning.html">proved a hit with macabre tourists</a>, and enterprising villagers treated the area as a tourist attraction, running tours to the shack (during the day, of course). However, years of privation and lack of maintenance took their toll, and the building recently collapsed.</p>
<p>The revelation sent shockwaves through the village. Locals fear that Sava Savanović has been roused by the destruction of his home, and the malevolent spirit is now out for blood.</p>
<p>Zarožje mayor, Miodrag Vujetic, said, “People are worried, […] the thought that he is now homeless and looking for somewhere else and possibly other victims is terrifying people. We are all frightened.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the local council has enacted certain public safety measures: garlic in the windows and doorways of residents, crosses in each room of their houses. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/vampire-threat-terrorizes-serbian-village/story?id=17831327#.ULyhx5NevhM">Some residents have begun carrying stakes</a>. “I understand that people who live elsewhere in Serbia are laughing at our fears, but here most people have no doubt that vampires exist,” Mr Vujetic said.</p>
<p>It is tempting to think of these people as foolish (humblest apologies to those labouring under the delusion that vampires exist). I certainly laughed when I read the story.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, stories such as these do serve a pedagogical purpose, in that they throw into question our shared conceit that we are rational creatures.</p>
<p>After all, these villagers are, in the interest of being charitable, neither madmen nor children. They are grown men and women who, despite being in all important respects just like us, not only believe that vampires exist, but are terrified of them.</p>
<p>A psychiatrist might well consider this an instance of mass hysteria: the spontaneous manifestation of inappropriate emotional excess by more than one person. It is spontaneous because it lacks a meaningful trigger; it is inappropriate because they are afraid of something for which there is no evidence.</p>
<p>Many of us the Anglosphere might like to think that we are immune from such superstition. Certainly very few of the notable cases of mass hysteria appear in the English-speaking world; most are restricted to sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. Perhaps our chest-thumping scientism has rendered us impervious to such naïve folk beliefs?</p>
<p>Although a pleasant fiction, I am disinclined to agree with that claim. After all, though we may not believe in vampires, we certainly have our own bogeymen.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18299/original/3g37yptp-1354581074.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meet Australia’s bogeyman.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once upon a time, it was mobile phone towers and fears that the radiation would <a href="http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Media-and-Advocacy/ANZJPH-1997towers.pdf">cause brain cancer</a>. Although that particular bogeyman has been put to bed, it has instead been replaced with the spectre of “wind turbine syndrome”.</p>
<p>Unmentioned in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4394656.html">22 million peer-reviewed medical papers in PubMed</a> (the US National Library of Medicine’s repository of peer reviewed research), the “syndrome” got its name as a result of an <a href="http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/junk-science-wind-turbine-syndrome">informal</a> study that drew upon interviews with only 23 people and used anecdotal evidence from 15 others. Ever since, “wind turbine syndrome” has had an inexplicable staying power in the Australian public consciousness.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that <a href="http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/4141/1/Benton_2003.pdf">reputable scientists</a> have shown that wind turbines would have to produce noise levels approximately <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/wind-farms-and-health-the-case-of-the-absentee-victims-23464">one million times higher</a> than they currently to do to produce any adverse health effects, groups such as Wind Watch <a href="http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-and-low-frequency-noise-implications-for-human-health/">allege</a> that symptoms of wind turbine syndrome can be apparent as far as 100 kilometres away from wind farms. This would mean that the entire populations of <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-range-of-wind-turbine-syndrome.html">Melbourne</a>, <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/wind-turbine-syndrome-end-times-are-nigh.html">Adelaide and the ACT</a> are suffering, unbeknownst to themselves.</p>
<p>The wealth of <a href="http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.pdf">side effects</a> for which wind farms are supposedly responsible is enormous: <a href="http://docs.wind-watch.org/Laurie-Collector.pdf">exploding the lungs of bats</a>, <a href="http://waubrafoundation.com.au/Y2NpZD0xJmNhaWQ9MTMmYWlkPSZjcmM9MTQ0OTg1">suicidal thoughts</a>, <a href="http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Ontario%20Health%20Survey%20Abstract%20Results%20and%20Responses.pdf">herpes (cold sores)</a>, <a href="http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Ontario%20Health%20Survey%20Abstract%20Results%20and%20Responses.pdf">weight loss</a>, <a href="http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Ontario%20Health%20Survey%20Abstract%20Results%20and%20Responses.pdf">weight gain</a> and <a href="http://theballaratindependent.com.au/media/news_item_attachments/Laurie_transcript-121170505-0001.pdf">lip vibrations</a> are but a small selection. Indeed, the sheer wealth of conditions for which it is supposedly responsible lends weight to the thesis that wind farms catalyse a form of collectivised <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4028112.html">nocebo effect</a>: a form of mass hysteria.</p>
<p>It is inconceivable to me that we indulge such conceits, but indulge we have. Despite the overwhelming lack of evidence in favour of wind farm syndrome, and the overwhelming evidence in favour of wind farm syndrome being a kind of psychosomatic effect, it remains a point of contention — to the point that a Senate committee <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/renewable_energy_2012/report/index.htm">investigated the proposal</a> to impose noise restrictions on wind farms in the interest of public health.</p>
<p>Although we might laugh at Serbian villagers for believing in the ill-intent of a homeless vampire, thousands of Australians hold beliefs that are equally without merit and equally worthy of being considered folk superstitions. If we are to be consistent, we should grant wind turbine syndrome the same treatment we give Serbian vampires: laughter, derision and outright mockery.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11122/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Mitchell Wittingslow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If the latest spate of news stories coming out of Serbia are anything to go by, the tiny and otherwise unassuming village of Zarožje has something of a vampire problem. Local legend tells of Sava Savanovi…Ryan Mitchell Wittingslow, PhD student in Film and Philosophy, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.