Wind farms don’t make people sick, so why the complaints?

Last update: June 20, 2014

In Canada, the U.S., Australia and Great Britain, people have reported similar symptoms including headaches, ringing ears, trouble sleeping, loss of focus, etc. after wind-turbines were built close to their homes.

Some have blamed audible sound, inaudible sound, ‘dirty electricity’ and psychosomatic distress.

What scientific evidence best explains these phenomena?

Short Answer:

The best scientific evidence indicates that anti-wind lobbyists raise health fears which increase significantly the number of people living near wind turbine farms who get stress-related illnesses due to noise-related annoyance.

  • 20 major  health reviews world wide all clear wind turbines of negative health impacts
  • Ailments are likely psychogenic in nature, not organic.
  • Studies finding negative health impacts are flawed and performed by biased researchers.
  • People are more annoyed by wind noise if they can see a wind turbine and aren’t getting any money from its operation.
  • People with negative attitudes to wind and negative personalities in general report many more symptoms than people with positive attitudes and personalities.
  • If there is a noise problem, interventions such as white-noise generators and closing windows are extremely cheap and practical, yet anti-wind campaigners suggest radical changes to policy and wind-turbine siting instead.
  • In many cases, symptoms of serious chronic conditions such as diabetes, arthritis and sleep apnea are being falsely attributed to wind energy in large part due to anti-wind health campaigning.

Long Answer:

Treat this situation and complainants with respect

While a subset of complaints are clearly frivolous, there is definitely a group of people living near wind farms who are experiencing degraded qualities of life due to the health scares raised by anti-wind campaigners. That the symptoms they are feeling have no physiological relationship to wind power does not mean that they are not real and does not mean that they do not impact the individuals and their loved ones. Be respectful, sympathetic to their conditions, but also be clear, accurate and firm that it is not wind power that is to blame, but the people who have created health scares.


There are four aspects to considering health and wind turbines, and this material is broken into sections pertaining to them:

  1. Findings of all reviews concerning wind power and health
  2. Support for the psychogenic hypothesis, or nocebo effect, for health complaints
  3. Quality of evidence for physiological explanations for health complaints
  4. Mitigations for minor environmental noise, the only factual impact

1.  20 independent literature reviews find no causative correlation between wind turbines and negative health impacts

A major independent study [1] was commissioned and performed by Public Health Officers of Ontario.  The study reviewed all available literature on wind health effects and associated disciplines including epidemiology and noise safety.  The study concluded that some people living near wind turbines experienced heightened stress levels which caused related stress issues and that these issues had no physical basis.

Screen Shot 2013-02-17 at 11.22.13 AM

The review concludes that while:

some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.

The Ontario government went further and had additional assessments and reviews [8] done recently and concluded:

there is no direct health risk from wind turbine sound at Ontario’s regulated setback distance.

The study analyzed the latest findings on low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines.  In addition, three experts in the field of noise, vibration and acoustics reviewed and validated the report.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection performed a study by independent experts [9] that reached identical conclusions:

There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a “Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Screen Shot 2013-02-17 at 11.26.42 AM

And this:

None of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine

And finally this:

Whether annoyance from wind turbines leads to sleep issues or stress has not been sufficiently quantified

These findings exactly mirror the results of a study [2] commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). This study was performed by an independent panel of experts including Doctors, Ph.Ds and scientists who were experts in the fields associated with ailments associated with wind turbines.  The study reviewed all available literature on wind turbines, noise health impacts, infrasound and reported health impacts of wind turbines.  This study concluded that some people living near wind turbines found their presence stressful, and identified stress-related ailments unrelated to any physical cause.

Following review, analysis, and discussion, the panel reached agreement on three key points:
• There is nothing unique about the sounds and vibrations emitted by wind turbines.
• The body of accumulated knowledge about sound and health is substantial.
• The body of accumulated knowledge provides no evidence that the audible or subaudible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.

In fact, there have been a total of 20 reviews world-wide of the dozens of pieces of peer-reviewed research related to wind energy, noise and health, as well as the anecdotal health complaints. Each of these reviews has found the same thing: no health impacts attributable to wind power and no physiological mechanism for health impacts. For the full list of reviews including key finds and links, please see the referenced material maintained by the University of Sydney.[19]

The evidence is clear. Credible, independent professionals time and again have reviewed the literature and the situation and found no credibility to claims of wind farms causing physiological harm.

2.  ‘Wind turbine syndrome’ is a psychogenic illness without organic causes

In epidemiology and public health, there are concepts of psychogenic and sociogenic illnesses:

  • Psychogenic illness: A constellation of symptoms suggestive of organic illness, but without an identifiable cause, that occurs between two or more people who share beliefs about those symptoms
  • Sociogenic illness: a medical condition that occurs to multiple individuals within a social group, but does not seem to have a common organic cause.

Public health expert Dr. Simon Chapman, Ph.D. [10] and his team have done and are continuing to perform research that shows that wind turbine-related ailments are almost certainly psychogenic in nature.  He maintains a list of  200+ unique ailments blamed on wind farms, which would be entertaining reading — vibrating lips at 10 km for example –, if it weren’t so disturbing that so many people were willing to ascribe so many completed unrelated complaints to wind turbines. [18]

Professor Chapman published in March 2013 a major analysis of health complaints related to wind farms in Australia, relating both time of complaints and geographical closeness to large and small wind farms to media and anti-wind campaigners promotion of health issues: Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, “communicated disease” hypothesis. [24]

The study tested four hypotheses which, if proved to be accurate, would show that the psychogenic explanation was the correct one:

  1. Many wind farms of comparable power would have no history of health or noise complaints from nearby residents (suggesting that exogenous factors to the turbines may explain the presence or absence of complaints)
  2. 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”)
  3. Few wind farms would have any history of complaints consistent with claims that turbines cause acute health problems (suggesting that explanations beyond turbines are needed to explain why acute problems are reported).
  4. 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 organized 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).

All four hypotheses were strongly supported by the data providing strong support for the psychogenic hypothesis.

Professor Chapman’s study was available on UofSydney’s escholarship site as of March 2013 and has been peer-reviewed and published in PLOS One as of October 16, 2013.

Researcher Fiona Crichton and her co-authors studied the nocebo effect on infrasound in a carefully designed trial. [23] They separated the study group and exposed one subset to internet literature claiming health impacts from infrasound. The control group did not read the infrasound literature. They exposed both groups to both infrasound and no infrasound while telling them that they were being exposed to infrasound.  Here is their conclusion:

Conclusions: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms that aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the Internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints.

A further study by Chricton et al found that if people were exposed to positive messages about wind noise and infrasound, their mood and symptoms actually improved.Screen Shot 2013-11-28 at 4.29.47 PM

Conclusions: The study demonstrates that expectations can influence symptom and mood reports in both positive and negative directions. The results suggest that if expectations about infrasound are framed in more neutral or benign ways, then it is likely reports of symptoms or negative effects could be nullified. [26]

A UK study by Claire Lawrence et al from the University of Nottingham on people with negatively oriented personalities and their perception of wind noise and reporting of negative health impacts has been published.[17]  The study builds upon work already done around perception of noise and negatively oriented personality traits. The studies take into account the work done by Pederson et al around wind farm noise annoyance and anecdotal reports of wind-related symptoms reported by Pierpont.

The UK study modelled actual noise in dwellings using industry standard approaches.  The study surveyed residents within three ranges of actual noise near the wind turbines.  The study included questions from standard and proven questionnaires on negatively oriented personality traits.

The study found:

  1. No correlation between actual noise and reported symptoms.
  2. Perception of noise was strongly related to negative attitudes to wind turbines, much more so than actual noise from wind turbines.
  3. A strong correlation between perception of noise and reported symptoms.
  4. A strong correlation between negatively oriented personality traits and reported symptoms.
  5. No relationship between attitude to wind turbines and actual noise; those who really could hear them more weren’t disposed to dislike them more.

These two graphs from the UK study show the very strong correlation between negatively oriented personality traits and both perception of noise and reporting of symptoms.  The simple way to read these is that the solid black line are people with negative traits, and the dotted line are people without those negative traits.  The vertical axis is reported symptoms.  The horizontal axis is perception of noise from the wind turbines (not actual noise).

It is very worth noting the findings [5], [6] of Drs. Frits van den Berg and Eja Pederson, Dutch wind energy impacts researchers.  In one analysis, they had several hundred people answer a survey on noise annoyance due to wind, and included several other questions.  They correlated the results and found that annoyance due to wind noise was very highly correlated to two factors:  whether the person could see the wind turbine and whether the person was receiving any economic benefit from the wind turbine.  In other words, people tended to find turbines that they could see noisier and more annoying than turbines that they couldn’t see, and were annoyed if their neighbours were making money from them and they weren’t.  In a related study, they assessed the impacts of annoyance due to wind on people and found that it increased stress leading in some cases to loss of sleep and that in addition to the factors above, the unique characteristics of wind turbine noise made it more annoying to some people.  This strongly supports the stress related hypothesis for health impacts and is worth understanding for wind turbine regulatory policy and wind turbine community engagement.
Screen Shot 2013-02-17 at 11.37.33 AM

The evidence is clear: while there is virtually no support for a physiological explanation for health complaints about wind farms, there is very strong support for a psychogenic explanation for the health complaints.  Anti-wind lobbyists are making people sick.

Not only anti-wind campaigners are vectors of this communicated disease. Research in Ontario shows that newspapers, especially small community papers, contain language very likely to cause fear and stress in readers in their articles about benign wind energy. [22]

3.  Health studies supporting ‘wind turbine syndrome’ are very weak

As most wind farm opponents tend to rapidly find material by authors such as Dr. Nina Pierpoint on “wind turbine syndrome” [4] , they inject statements about negative health impacts in local peoples’ minds.  These tend to amplify stress related to changes in their physical environment and concerns over real estate values.  Note that Dr. Pierpoint’s sample size was 23 direct phone interviews from people self-identified as suffering negative health impacts due to wind and assertions by those on the health impacts on an addition 15 people.  From this skewed sample of 38, Dr. Pierpoint generated 60+ pages of charts and graphs on over a dozen symptoms associated with wind turbines.  In other words, bogus statistics from what was at best anecdotal information from a self-selected sample.  Similar studies have been performed with equally suspect methodologies that specifically queried individuals with a list of purported symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” in egregious breaches of study design.[16]

Dr. Pierpont and her husband were, unsurprisingly, long-term opponents of a proposed wind farm near their home in New England before her study was performed.

A recent study published in Noise and Health, a peer-reviewed acoustics journal garnered some attention in late 2012.  [21]  Its reliability is low.  This is a flawed and misleadingly titled study by long-time anti-wind campaigners.

  • Their data does not support a correlation between wind turbine placement and sleep; the correlation is far too weak
  • According to PSQI and Epworth sleep scales, both the control and study groups suffer from poor sleeping; this is the much more significant finding yet it isn’t mentioned
  • It downplays or ignores long-understood impacts of both bias and impacts of change in creating annoyance
  • There are significant unstated conflicts-of-interest, biases and allegiances to the anti-wind lobby group The Society for Wind Vigilance among the six authors and reviewers
  • One of the authors has been actively involved in creating anti-wind bias and annoyance in these sites for years [26]

A small group of Portuguese researchers is claiming that wind power is causing their favourite problem, Vibro-acoustic disease. However, the only people using the term VAD are the 3-4 researchers who write about it and anti-wind groups. The following analysis of the research on VAD is highly telling:

Of the 35 papers on VAD, 34 had a first author from a single Portuguese research group. Seventy four per cent of citations to these papers were self-citations by the group. [25]

Similar weakness exists in the work of Alec Salt, who has extrapolated from guinea pig ears to human impacts at very different levels of sound intensity. Once again, the only references to his work are in his own work and anti-wind blogs.[25]

The evidence for a physiological explanation for wind farm health complaints is extremely weak. Solitary researchers with prior histories of anti-wind campaigning have published a small handful of weak papers in low-impact journals or self-published them, avoiding peer-review entirely.

4.  Noise experienced by rural dwellers near wind turbines is quieter than that experienced by urban dwellers and easily mitigated

All 20 reviews and all researchers into wind farms and health agree that a small subset of people very close to wind farms find the noise annoying. As this review of the major material shows, the annoyance is much more related to the individual who is annoyed than to the actual noise, but that said, environmental noise is a concern.

The World Health Organization has published community guidelines on noise [7] intended to reduce health impacts.  These guidelines call for 35 dB in bedrooms at night for best sleeping and have numerous other categories for schools etc, and set the bar for annoyance at above 40 dB.  Anti-wind advocates point out that most wind turbine guidelines and regulations such as Ontario’s Regulation 359/09 call for 40 dB in inhabited homes near wind turbines (translating into a 1500 m setback for more than one large wind turbine in the majority of cases) and use this as an argument against wind farm placement.  Of course, wind turbine noise annoyance impacts a very small percentage of any populace mostly determined by psychological traits as shown above, and what is more interesting about the WHO guidelines is that no one living in a town of larger than 10,000 people has living conditions that adhere to them due to traffic noise, industrial noise, air traffic and the necessary machinery of cities.

If those concerned with wind turbine noise were truly focussed on health impacts, they would be promoting low-cost, effective noise annoyance reduction measures.

  • For example, a white noise generator can be purchased for less than $30 USD. This provides masking noise which would eliminate any impact from nearby wind turbines.  In fact, there’s a free app for that. [12]
  • Similarly, comfortable foam earplugs would also be reasonable interventions for occasional noisy nights. These can be purchased in bulk for cents per ear plug. [13]
  • There are many stress reduction and annoyance distraction techniques available with the click of a button on the internet. Most of these can be studied and practiced free of charge by anyone interested in dealing with ultimately trivial annoyances that they are over-focussing upon. [14]
  • Finally, closing windows and installing quilted blinds would not only significantly decrease noise, but would also decrease light, improving sleep as well. [15]

All of these techniques are in use today in households around the world to deal with traffic noise, sirens, airplane noise, noisy neighbours, nearby industrial works, streetcars, bird cannons and dawn tractor startups. Urban and rural dwellers depend on them to ensure a comfortable and uninterrupted sleep.

By comparison, increasing setbacks of wind turbines by hundreds of meters is an extraordinary and societally expensive measure.

That those concerned with health impacts only suggested interventions are greater setbacks for or complete elimination of wind turbines betrays their agenda. Their solution is vastly out of proportion to the problem.

Rural dwellers exposed to wind turbine noise are exposed to a much lower level of all forms of noise than city dwellers, yet the vast majority of city dwellers do not suffer significant adverse health effects or find it stressful.  Those who do mitigate the impact with the use of sound proofing and white noise generators, and find other ways to subsume the stress.


The evidence is clear. Credible, independent and professional groups have reviewed the literature and found no health impacts or mechanism for them. The evidence for a psychogenic or nocebo effect causing health impacts is very strong. The evidence for physiological impacts is very weak. Where minor environmental noise is an issue, it is easily dealt with.

Health fears raised by anti-wind campaigners are the cause of health complaints near wind farms.

[1] The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, May 20, 2010,
[4] Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment, Nina Pierpont, K Selected Books, 2009, Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (9780984182701): Nina Pierpont: Books
[6]  Noise annoyance from wind turbines – a review, Eja Pedersen, Högskolan i Halmstad, Report 5308, August 2003,
[9]  Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of the Independent Expert Panel, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Updated April 2012,
[16] “Wind turbine syndrome” is more wind than syndrome
[17]  The influence of negative oriented personality traits on the effects of wind turbine noise, Jennifer Taylor, Carol Eastwick, Robin Wilson, Claire Lawrence, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 54, Issue 3, February 2013, Pages 338–343,
[19]  Full list of all Wind Health Reviews maintained by Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health, University of Sydney,

[20] Wind Turbines, Noise and Health, February 2007, Dr Amanda Harry http://M.B.Ch.B. P.G.Dip.E.N.T.,
[21] Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health, Michael A Nissenbaum, Jeffery J Aramini, Christopher D Hanning, Noise and Health, 2012,
[22] Benjamin Deignan , Erin Harvey & Laurie Hoffman-Goetz (2013): Fright factors about wind turbines and health in Ontario newspapers before and after the Green Energy Act, Health, Risk & Society, DOI:10.1080/13698575.2013.776015
23] Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines? Crichton, Fiona; Dodd, George; Schmid, Gian; Gamble, Greg; Petrie, Keith J. Health Psychology, Mar 11 , 2013, No Pagination Specified. doi: 10.1037/a0031760,
24] The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, ‘Communicated Disease’ Hypothesis , Simon Chapman, Alexis St. George, Karen Waller, Vince Cakic, PLOS One, Oct 2013,
25] Humans evolved with infrasound; is there any truth to health concerns about it?

[26] The Power of Positive and Negative Expectations to Influence Reported Symptoms and Mood During Exposure to Wind Farm Sound., Crichton, Fiona; Dodd, George; Schmid, Gian; Gamble, Greg; Cundy, Tim; Petrie, Keith J., Health Psychology, Nov 25 , 2013, No Pagination Specified. doi: 10.1037/hea0000037,


  1. [...] read more here: Wind farms don’t harm human health: 17 major reviews world wide of all of the available research b… [...]

  2. Genie81 · · Reply

    You obviously are one of the 24% that do not get affected. There are over 600 wind farm victims associations from 27 countries so how can you say there are no issues? Go speak to residents or better still go live within two kilometres of MacCarthur Wind Farm with 127 industrial turbines.

    1. Ketan Joshi does an excellent analysis of the “opposition groups”. Here’s an excerpt and the link:

      France serves as a great case study. Of the 201 signatories listed for France only 54 included links to websites. Of the 54 URLs listed, there were seven dead links, a link to a wiki page, a link to a website about the ocean (they provide ‘rentals, watersports, scuba diving, windsurf, kite, sailing, snorkeling, brokers, marinas, provisoning, shipchandlers, schools, boatyards etc..’), and a website about horses (an organisation that seemingly once opposed a nearby wind development):

  3. Genie81 · · Reply

    I would like to know the 17 major studies that say no concerns as there are over 72 world experts with various medical and acoustic qualifications that are voicing their worries over these INDUSTRIAL wind turbines. Turbines are a constant noise both audible and inaudible and ear plugs will not help the vibrations from infrasound which has been used as a form of torture and crowd control.

    1. I refer to Ketan Joshi again for his amusing analysis of those medical practitioners you are so enamoured of. As Ketan points out:

      The evidence that ‘wind turbine syndrome’ is simply the product of anti-wind groups spreading non-scientific health fears is compelling. As this evidence grows, I hope public awareness of the impacts of pseudoscience and scare-mongering grow too.

      As for the 17 health reviews, I guide you to citation [19] of my material, which you obviously read in depth before your responses.

      [19] Full list of all Wind Health Reviews maintained by Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health, University of Sydney,

  4. Shin · · Reply

    It should be noted in Ontario (Canada), there is a major wind farm (its second largest) located on Wolfe Island. This wind farm has about 80 large wind turbines, all visible from the city of Kingston, Ontario, and only about 1.5 kilometers from the city centre and a major residential area, a major prison and a military base. Public complaints from residents: 0, prisoners: 0, personel from the military base: 0.

    In Pickering Ontario, there is a large wind turbine by the Pickering Nuclear plant within 300 metres of a subdivision with thousands of households. Complaints: 0

    In Downtown Toronto, there is a 700 kilowatt wind turbine operated by windshare located near a major downtown low rise residential area. Within 1000 metres of this wind turbine: over 10,000 homes and a population of over 25,000. Complaints about the noise or other effects of the wind turbine from residents: 0.

    If the effects of wind turbines are real, should they not affect dense population centres near these urban wind turbines? Should there not be complaints at the same rates as in rural areas? Or are we saying city dwellers are just plain stupid?

  5. Thanks for sharing Mike. I don’t live by a wind farm so its hard for me to pass judgement, but I am surprised at the amount of problems I have heard from large wind farms cause local residents, including sickness. Could it all be mental? Sure, but mental or not they are causing problems. Now I am very pro wind turbine and alternate energy, but I think we should be careful regardless.

    I think re-looking at our approach would solve a lot of the problem and lift type. The common HAWTs may not be the best in all cases. Lift VAWTs (as opposed drag type) have many advantages for both commercial and residential applications. This site has a great breakdown:‎

    This is only one approach. Changing zoneing and putting ethics code in place for wind farm companies might go a long way too. I watched a documentary the other day about how they would try to keep neighbors in the dark with NDAs so they could ‘divide and conquer’ so to speak.

    1. The VAWT myth is dealt with here:

      Zoning already exists. The wind industry in most major geographies already operates by codes of conduct of a variety of types, some from national organizations, some imposed from without. More of these are not required.

      The documentary is likely one of the 2-3 anti-wind and very one-side docs which did not ask for any balancing comments. Windfall, for example, had exactly one technical advisor, Lisa Linowes, who has been leading antiwind fights for a decade. The NDAs you refer to are for disclosure to other wind companies and my review of the clauses indicates that they are standard business language in any type of preparatory agreement for longer term prospects; there is nothing insidious about them at all.

  6. What is the most efficient design for a Darrieus wind turbine?

    Regarding noise, there are a few things to understand about the comparisons being made. The first is that annoyance due to noise has almost nothing to do with the levels of noise. Studies over the past decade regarding wind farms and noise show that th…

  7. You say: ‘Treat this situation and complainants with respect’ – Yet your answer is that anyone affected is merely imagining it, based on their ‘dislike’ of turbines. I seriously doubt that anyone had a dislike of these machines until they were affected by them – in fact many of us were hoodwinked into believing they were a viable source of clean energy. Reversing your argument on financial gain from the machines – Most would keep quiet about the noise if they were gaining financially – and they do, wind companies don’t seem to have a problem with the noise! I will not overlook the possibility that a small percentage are angry at having to pay so much to subsidise the machines however. Time will tell, but believe me, the symptoms are not psychosomatic, not imaginary, not the product of a negative or uneducated mind, are clinically confirmed – and they DO disappear if one relocates away from the turbines. Thanks for your research (you’re clearly passionate about turbines!) however I feel your time would have been better spent researching viable alternative energies that are not harmful to ourselves and our environment.

    1. It’s clear from the studies done over the past fifteen years that people complaining about wind energy health impacts have real impacts, but the impacts are not caused by the wind turbines in the vast majority of cases. Whether they are misattributing commonly experienced symptoms — tinnitus, interrupted sleep –, or serious concerns caused by other health issues — obesity, hypertension, diabetes — or are worrying themselves sick, these people are feeling unwell. The link to wind turbines isn’t physical however.

      I’ve read all of the studies. I’ve read the victim impact statements. I’ve read the health surveys and their results. Wind turbines are completely safe at 400 meters or so. I’ve also looked at pictures of diseased lungs from coal smoke, looked at lakes and forests killed by acid rain from coal emissions and understand the health impacts of global warming. Those are real health impacts that are reduced by wind energy. That’s reality.

      I also assess potential alternatives. They just don’t fly. I encourage you to read further in my blog. Challenge your beliefs on this.

      1. While I don’t doubt that in many cases, turbines simply get blamed for other noise issues – this is definitely not in all cases. I have tried to rule out any other possible sources of noise, complete area blackout of electricity – noise remains, complete disconnection of local area water supply – noise remains. Traffic noise, although I am far from major roads, the noise is too constant to be linked to irregular traffic flow. It does however disappear when I am away from the area. I previously slept soundly, am not obese, did not suffer from hypertension or diabetes, nor do I allow worry to make me feel unwell, indeed I look for a positive in every situation. I have received medical testing, my hearing is not outside of the ‘normal’ range, examinations show no physical cause and internal tinnitus can be ruled out as earplugs DO help to a degree – but more so the fact that noise disappears when away from turbine zones. The consultant DID ask me if there were turbines nearby.

        The link to LFN and vibration is very real – If it’s not from the turbines, then, from your exhaustive studies, what is it? Believe me, I would love to dismiss the turbines as the cause, but the evidence is overwhelming – remove the turbines from the equation = removal of the noise/vibration/symptoms. In ONE case, I escaped to a location that DID have a turbine nearby (within 5 miles) where the symptoms were not present – perhaps this was down to the structure resonating less – or perhaps the turbine wasn’t in operation.

        Perhaps we need to acknowledge that there is a problem, map out the areas where the issues are present, and compare it to location of wind turbines? Then whatever the cause is, we can work on alleviating the problem, be it turbine or otherwise.

        Consider that once upon a time, Asbestos was considered amazing and safe – many also denied that it was detrimental to health.

        You mention that turbines are ‘completely safe at 400 meters or so’ – you’re saying they’re not if they’re closer? Also, we must take into account the fact that LFN does travel a LOT further than regular audible sound, and due to the nature of sound waves, there could easily be a larger impact at say 600 metres than there would be at 400. I would suggest it is the resonation on structures that make the LFN perceptable to us rather than the LFN directly.

        Solar isn’t viable in your opinion then? Why would you consider wind turbines more viable? The sun shines every day, yet you’d rather rely on wind?

        As for ‘global warming’ – which was renamed as ‘climate change’ when we realised temperatures weren’t rising. Perhaps we should plant some trees – they did a good job of transforming carbon dioxide in the past, when temperatures were way higher than current. I have no doubt that acid content of rain is damaging, nor that coal smoke will have a negative impact on lungs.

        Do you have turbines near where you live? What distance?

      2. For concerns related to low frequency noise and infrasound, please see this detailed and complete assessment:

        Regarding solar, why would you assume that? I assume you didn’t read the reference I provided assessing alternative wind generation schemes? And why would you assume solar is adequate by itself? No source of generation has all of the characteristics necessary to make it a single form of generation.

        Regarding 400 meters, noise modelling, noise testing and World Health organization guidelines align to 400 meters as about the right distance for setbacks. Most jurisdictions require more for safety; Ontario for example requires 550 meters. Audible noise is the concern, and it’s well understood.

        Regarding global warming, please review my moderation policy, available from the main page. Like the LA Times, global warming denial has no place on Further comments will not pass moderation.

        Your subjective experience is just that, your subjective experience. It has no value in informed decision making.

  8. Marie · · Reply

    [Comment was not relevant to the topic of the post. Moderation policy is summarized as be nice, be respectful, be relevant.]

Be nice, be respectful, be relevant.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,229 other followers

%d bloggers like this: