The question of infrasound from wind turbines has arisen again lately with the appearance of Melvin Grosvenor, John Yelland, Mariana Alves-Pereira and Patrick Dugast giving a seminar in Glasgow in September. I’ve spent much of the last 15 years helping Councils and people generally to object to inappropriately sited wind farms, but the infrasound argument has made that increasingly difficult. Let me explain.

Who is the debate between in the UK? On the one side are Melvin Grosvenor and John Yelland. Their expertise in turbine noise is recent. Melvin, says he spent much of his life as a Financial Advisor and John as an electronics engineer specialising in microwave equipment. They both became wind turbine acoustic specialists a few years ago when they had wind farm applications near their homes. They tell us that wind turbine infrasound makes people ill with a wide range of symptoms up to a distance of many kilometres.
On the other side of the debate we have the Department of Business Energy & Industrial Strategy, the National Health Service, the Scottish Energy and Climate Change Directorate and Health Protection Scotland amongst others. They say there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound generated by wind turbines.

Now, sit down for a moment and pour yourself a cup of tea and think about this. Ask yourself the simple question – who is most likely to be right?

There are two serious problems with the infrasound argument. The first is that it makes it almost impossible to argue that a wind farm will be too loud. The proponents of the infrasound argument have complete faith in its truth. They do not realise that, to the other 99% of the population including planning decision makers, it is crystal clear that they are speaking complete nonsense. That means that when you or I try to run an argument at a public inquiry that there will be too much audible sound at a proposed wind farm and someone on the same side brings up infrasound, we are all labelled as “cranks”, and our good argument is rejected with the infrasound. Or might it be a conspiracy dreamed up by the wind industry? It is not, of course, but the industry could not have thought of a better way of preventing serious scrutiny of wind farm noise.

The second problem is the potential effect the argument itself has on people. John listed some of the effects as nausea, headaches, vertigo, high volume nosebleeds, loss of balance, coordination problems, bedwetting and bed soiling in previously clean children and epilepsy. People near wind farms are ill and believe it is due to infrasound. If it is not, then they are in danger of not being properly treated for their illness.

I’m not going to tell you what to believe, I just want to set out the facts.

Dick Bowdler. 6th October 2017

Categories: SAS Blog

SAS Volunteer

We publish content from 3rd party sources for educational purposes. We operate as a not-for-profit and do not make any revenue from the website. If you have content published on this site that you feel infringes your copyright please contact: webmaster@scotlandagainstspin.org to have the appropriate credit provided or the offending article removed.

34 Comments

Kim Terry · October 6, 2017 at 1:19 pm

The facts are clear to see. Audible noise is something nobody should have to endure if it becomes a nuisance. Living as I do amongst wind turbines I know of nobody suffering from infrasound and it’s strange that none of the farmers whose land the turbines are on, suffer from any ill effects and neither do their families. I wish these people that keep trying to put the frighteners on the government and health authorities would go away as they are making things worse for everyone. Get in the real world. Our GP has said there are no cases of anyone suffering with any of these symptoms in our area and with turbines close to Girvan now I would think there would be a mass of people presenting themselves at the doctors surgery with symptoms described by these idiots.

    Rita Holmes · October 7, 2017 at 5:33 pm

    Your comment is true in part…nobody should have to endure audible noise that is a nuisance to them. However, you need to understand that inaudible noise ( sound pressure waves) below 20Hertz although not perceived audibly are present and people like Dick Bowdler should know that the lower the frequency the more energy it contains. How do you think low frequency weapons work. They were produced by governments to disable enemy troops? Such a weapon, tested in Germany in the 1980`s inadvertently killed a herd of cows. Infrasound and ELF can be deadly to the receptors exposed . Such frequencies are currently being blamed for the American and Canadian diplomats deafness and ill health in Cuba. The Hunterston Wind turbines are huge offshore ones….. they emit audible and inaudible frequencies .and are inappropriately sited too close to our village. People are suffering from the noise nuisance as well as having the debilitating neurological effects from the infrasound.and ELF. You need to get real. Wake up and smell Dick`s b——-. He is a friend of the Wind Industry and has no interest in the truth coming out.

    Karen Brodie · October 8, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    There are many people ill in South Ayrshire due to Infrasound!!

      Kim Terry · October 8, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      Karen, perhaps you could present the evidence?? Which doctor has diagnosed problems and verified that it is wind turbines causing the problems? My GP has no evidence of any effects. I am in contact with many people who live amongst turbines here and I have not heard anything.

        Aileen Jackson · October 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm

        Yes Karen, if there is a GP in the area who has made such a diagnosis then I’m sure the organisers of the Infrasound Seminar, Kim’s GP and many other health professionals will want to contact him/her urgently.

    Melvin Grosvenor · December 15, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    In answer to Mr Bowdler’s note, maybe he should seek to be better informed of the worldwide reality of an increasing number of innocent victims across the globe.. This article from the USA is just one of many…
    This is precisely why the Glasgow Wind Turbine noise presentation was arranged and supported by affected residents in Scotland.

    http://gatehousenews.com/windfarms/home/

    LIKE MOTION SICKNESS

    These acoustic impulses – or low-frequency sound waves – stimulate parts of the inner ear responsible for balance, motion and spatial orientation and that they provoke symptoms similar to motion sickness, some researchers say.

    “If you’re sitting still and something is causing the same fluids to move, your brain doesn’t know that it’s a false signal,” said Rick James, an acoustical engineer who has written papers on the subject. “But you open your eyes and say, ‘I’m sitting still, but I feel like I’m moving.’”

    The Minnesota Department of Health noted the phenomenon in 2009 paper. It found low-frequency waves cause more problems inside a house than outside because, rather than block the pulsations, the walls amplify them.

    Darlene Mueller wept as she described how turbines in the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, sickened her inside her home.

    “I would pace the house like a lion in a cage,” she said. “I would leave the house at 2 or 3 in the morning and go to Walmart just to escape the noise. You go days and days and days without sleep, and it’s just madness.”

    Other experts dispute the low-frequency claim. The Department of Energy, which hired Kelley for its North Carolina study, now says on its website that wind turbine sounds – including low-frequency and infrasound – have no direct human health impact.

    Humans are biologically unique individuals, said physician Robert McCunney, an MIT researcher who has researched the issue. Perhaps some people suffer from noise sensitivity, he said, but that doesn’t mean wind turbines pose a human health hazard the way asbestos or lead does.

    “Not to dismiss their complaints, because I believe these people are sincere,” McCunney said, “but there are other things that can cause these symptoms.”

    Despite the lack of scientific consensus, acoustical engineer Paul Schomer said he believes wind turbines genuinely cause human suffering.

    He also thinks wind companies truly believe their turbines are safe.

    “I think there are enough people that work for the industry that have put out papers and stuff that the waters are muddy,” said Schomer, who has conducted work both for the wind industry and its opponents.

    Instead of waiting for science to settle the debate – which Schomer said may never happen – the engineer thinks it’s time for a compromise.

    Wind companies should admit turbine noise hurts some people and agree to greater setbacks and lower decibel limits, Schomer said. And wind farm opponents should accept reasonable sound limits and buffer distances instead of trying to outright ban turbines.

    DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD

    But some wind farm residents who spoke out about their problems said the industry belittles them. It dismisses their complaints as unfounded or labels them troublemakers, multiple people said.

    It has silenced many of their neighbors whom they said suffer the same symptoms but fear the consequences of speaking out.

    Falmouth, Massachusetts, resident Todd Drummey bemoaned the problem in 2012 at a public meeting about the town’s controversial wind turbines.

    “I have spoken to several people who have watched the events of the last two years,” Drummey told the board at the time, “and simply concluded no point in subjecting themselves to this type of punishment.”

    After Cary Shineldecker went public about his experience in Michigan’s Lake Winds Energy Park, an energy company executive singled him out at a meeting several states away.

    Mike Blazer of Chicago-based Invenergy claimed to know Shineldecker’s medical history. He told a crowd in Clear Lake, South Dakota, that Shineldecker’s health woes stemmed from alcohol use, obstructive sleep apnea and an irregular heartbeat – not wind turbines.

    Blazer shared the information at a December 2016 city meeting about his company’s proposed wind farm. He did it to quell fears about wind turbines and to provide “an example of the impact of the type of misinformation that is spread by wind opponents,” Blazer said in an email.

    Shineldecker said he was stunned to learn about the incident from an attorney who attended the meeting. He said he has neither sleep apnea nor alcohol problems and never received a diagnosis for those problems.

    “All I ever had to go on was my integrity and honesty and work ethic,” Shineldecker said, “and then to be belittled and treated like some whack-job psycho liar is kind of unbelievable.”

    Iowa wind farm resident Terry McGovern said he faced disparagement by Apex Clean Energy.

    The Virginia-based company accused McGovern of holding “a personal anti-wind agenda” and claimed he would spread misinformation and generate unfounded fear of wind energy ahead of a public presentation he gave.

    Apex made the claims in a July 2017 letter it sent to landowners discouraging them from attending the presentation, held near the site of its proposed Upland Prairie Wind farm in northwest Iowa.

    McGovern denies holding an anti-wind agenda but is publicly critical of the industry and its business practices. His Iowa Wind Action Group calls for greater setbacks for industrial turbines to protect human health.

    “Instead of focusing on the issues, they try to discredit the person,” McGovern said. “That way, they can avoid talking about the facts.”

    Apex sent the letter to clear up confusion about the presentation, not to disparage McGovern, company spokeswoman Dahvi Wilson said.

    “It was not our intent to attack the speaker, as it appears he has suggested,” Wilson said, “but to explain that the presenter was unaffiliated with Apex and provide project participants with some information about his credentials, which we believe to be accurate.”

    A Minnesota lawmaker recently criticized the industry for dismissing wind farm residents’ concerns, saying it hurts its own credibility.

    “What’s frustrating to me is when we take the taxpayer money and use it for these projects and then turn around to the taxpayer and completely blow off their concerns,” said Republican state Sen. Andrew Mathews at an October legislative hearing on wind turbine siting.

    To hear the industry say “it’s all bias and not based on facts or science and it’s fear and annoyance and rumors, I have tough time then trying to decide how much to consider is credible” from these companies.

    Mathews wants the industry to work on solutions to these problems instead of denying they exist. He said it’s time the state and its regulatory agencies do more to protect residents from harm.

William Jackson · October 6, 2017 at 1:52 pm

It’s strange that it is the people who don’t actually live with audible noise from windfarms who seem to make the most (forgive the pun) noise about infrasound. Given that I live in East Renfrewshire which is one of the smallest local authority areas in Scotland and which has the highest density of industrial wind turbines per square km in the UK, you would think I would of heard of someone suffering health effects from w/t infrasound. Nope! Plenty of moans about audible noise though.

    Rita Holmes · October 7, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    g

    Rita Holmes · October 7, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I disagree that it is the people who don`t live with WT noise that make the most noise. We live with both here at Hunterston, because SSE have a site with two offshore wind turbines onshore 2.5km from our village. The equivalent in Japan is sited 22miles away from the Japanese coast. The reason we know that it is the infrasound and ELF affecting 17 of us is that when the Mitsubishi is off we are all healthy .When it is on we are not. It is well known the larger WT`s produce more of the injurious extremely low frequencies and infrasound..
    None of us oppose wind power, we oppose inappropriate siting of wind turbines that cause noise nuisance and damage to health….

B. Gray · October 6, 2017 at 2:54 pm

I note the comment by DB that the various authorities are saying there is no evidence of problems to health from infrasound. Anyone wishing to check will find it is a quote from the wind industry itself stating there is no evidence of infrasound problems. This statement is also made with NO research by the industry (in the public domain) to prove it. The fact this comment is being used as ‘evidence’ by the various authorites without checking its authenticity, or the evidence behind it, is far more concerning I would suggest. Methinks DB protesteth too much.

Charmaine Dean · October 6, 2017 at 6:12 pm

It’s refreshing to see an article written in plain English for the general public to read and understand.
Wind Turbine noise occurs when the wind blows, which sadly is most of the time in Scotland.
It’s not a 9-5 operation, it can last 24 hours a day for several weeks blighting turbine neighbours life’s for most of the year,
The noise emanating from the turbines causes stress and sleep deprivation. Real issues affecting real people.
Neither myself nor my neighbours have suffered any of the health effects caused by Infrasound mentioned in Mr Bowdlers letter.
The problem is the NOISE.

    Rita Holmes · October 7, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    I sympathise with those suffering from WT noise or unwanted noise nuisance from any facility. At Hunterston, we have been subjected to day and night audible noise which is bad enough , but the frequencies below 20 hertz are also causing debilitating and adverse health effects. Why is it so difficult to understand that the extremely low frequencies, which are well known to cause damage to organs and disrupt neurological systems and are emitted by different types of machinery including wind turbines is the cause of our ill health. Mr Bowdler seems more interested in protecting the wind industry than those of us exposed to noise ( all frequencies) from offshore turbines which were never meant to be near human receptors.

      Aileen Jackson · October 7, 2017 at 8:03 pm

      Methinks Rita, you are doing yourself no favours with your unprovoked and unfair comments.
      Dick Bowdler is well respected by everyone on both sides of the great windfarm noise debate, not just for his experience and professionalism but also for his kindness and generosity to those with wind turbine noise problems. There are many in the UK and beyond who will be indebted to him for the rest of their lives for the help and support he has given. I’ll put your objectionable comments down to the fact you don’t know anything about the man and have been deceived by others.
      If the noise is a nuisance then why hasn’t someone claimed their legal expenses on their household insurance to pursue a private nuisance case or submitted a public petition to the Scottish Parliament? Of course the insurance company won’t entertain you unless you have more than a 50% chance of success and the Public Petitions Committee will take years to come to a decision but you will gain respect for your efforts.

Les Huson · October 7, 2017 at 1:39 am

It is unethical and unprofessional for a member of the Institute of Acoustics to question the expertise of a fellow member publicly in such an article. The article is light on facts. If readers wished to make themselves aware of some actual facts then perhaps another cup of tea and a read of the NHS Shetland report (2013) will be illuminating. It is not available as a resource on this website but can be found at: http://www.shb.scot.nhs.uk/board/publichealth/documents/Summary_Report_on_Health_Impacts_Wind_Farms.pdf
The reader should also be aware of “Evidence of absence” that can be found on Wikipedia. It is disappointing that the author has decided that the issue of possible adverse effects from infrasound is ‘complete nonsense’. The author has decided to side with the spin offered by barristers advocating for wind farm developments in planning proceedings, rather than to defend the current situation, which is; that the epidemiological impacts from wind turbine generated infrasound have yet to be investigated properly (the reason why there is currently conflicting evidence). This situation is acknowledged by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia that is currently funding (about £1.9 million) two university studies into the human response to infrasound from wind turbines to gather evidence that is currently lacking. The findings are due in 2019. In the mean time there is no definitive answer to the debate over infrasound impacts and it may be more appropriate to use the precautionary principal, defined as follows: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” – Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998 http://sehn.org/wingspread-conference-on-the-precautionary-principle/
The article author is welcome to use any of this text in preparation for his next public inquiry and I hope the comment reader’s tea does not go cold.

    Karen Brodie · October 8, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    Thank you for your reply very well said@

Douglas West · October 7, 2017 at 9:20 am

The entire infrasound argument is pointless. It is impossible to prove that the symptoms mentioned are due to infrasound from turbines. I agree with Dick Bowdler when he says that objectors raising this issue at Inquiries play into the hands of the developer. Their lawyers and noise consultants smirk and chuckle with glee every time an infrasound hugger gives evidence because they know the Reporter will smile politely but hold it against them for wasting his/her time. The only reference that will be made to infrasound concerns in his/her decision will be to the effect there is no evidence to suggest it affects public health.

If there was genuine concern about this issue then there would have been a high turnout at the recent seminar. That was not the case. People who are surrounded by turbines are only interested in audible noise and those with real problems are spending their lives and their money doing something about it by pursuing nuisance cases of their own when their local authority won’t support them.

Why don’t those complaining about ill health caused by infrasound do the same if they are so convinced of their facts? I think we know the answer to that.

S Jane Miller · October 7, 2017 at 8:34 pm

The problem with proponents of infrasound is the ridiculous comments they post on Facebook without supplying any evidence to back them up, such as the picture of the “dead” horse lying in a field which was allegedly killed by infrasound! It looked in peak condition with a shiny coat and as anyone who has ever owned a horse knows, they often lie stretched out flat for short periods of time in warm weather.

Even supposing it had expired, which I seriously doubt, how could they possibly tell it was because of infrasound? Obviously no post mortem had been performed at that point. Where’s the evidence?

That’s the sort of thing which gives all objectors a bad name and I certainly don’t want to be associated with it.

Douglas West · October 8, 2017 at 11:13 am

Agreed. Reminds me of the time Trump gave evidence to MSPs at Holyrood. When asked to produce his evidence he replied “I’m the evidence”. I think we all know the story from there on in.

David Nairn · October 8, 2017 at 6:19 pm

I live close to the massive offshore wind turbines at Hunterston. They are very loud when spinning, can hear them in the house and little doubt that they are producing a substantial amount of Infrasound. We know that mammalian cortisone levels are elevated by infrasound sources. We also know there is a pathway for infrasound to produce pathogenic effects in brain tissue etc. These are so called ‘experimental’ turbines but have not given my consent to be experimented apon. I do not believe I have sensitivities to the noise created by these turbines but have been observing people within my community suffering with very real detrimental health issues which are heightened when turbines are spinning, I object to being experimented upon!

George Lindsay · October 9, 2017 at 9:37 am

This article by DB is not a presentation of facts he claims – it consists of personal slights at fellow acousticians plus his personal opinion. There is a fast growing body of medical opinion clearly showing the link between infrasound and health – try Googling “Waubra Foundation” as an example. The Institute of Acoustics is also wakening up to the issue and has recently issued a method of measuring it. Finally, dismissing those who suffer healthwise from this problem as cranks is pathetic and wholly inappropriate.
By the way, the publication of this “opinion” and airing such disagreements will be seen as the holy grail by wind developers and their lobby groups

Dick Bowdler · October 9, 2017 at 10:35 am

Just a few responses to the comments.

In answer to Bev and Les. I didn’t define the debate, it comes straight from Melvin. That’s what he said at the seminar and you can find it reported on the Winds of Justice website in a bit more detail. Indeed, the fact that all the authorities denied a link was one of the main planks of his argument. So if you are concerned about the lack of research and lack of evidence in what I said you will need to talk to Melvin.

I think you misread my piece, George. I’m not dismissing people who are ill as cranks, I’m saying I am labelled as a crank because I become associated with those running the infrasound argument. I’ve said many times that people who are ill near wind farms need to be properly diagnosed and treated – the infrasound argument is preventing that happening. And the IOA has not produced a method of measuring infrasound, you are thinking of amplitude modulation.

A word about sonic weapons. Most, like the LRAD or The Scream are actually audible sound. That’s how they work – they are so loud that they frighten people with high pitched noise and cause temporary deafness. If they do have any non-audible element it will be ultrasound not infrasound because you can create a narrow beam with the former but not the latter. From press reports, the recent Cuban incident is also audible sound (they heard it). Again the reports are of intense beaming (step out of bed and it goes away) which is high frequency, not low frequency.

And finally in the same vein, on the “enormous energy of infrasound”. I thought John did an excellent demonstration of infrasound in his talk, showing how it gently flickered candles at a sound level requiring ear defenders (if you are quick you can see it on iPlayer – “Sound Waves: The Symphony of Physics. 1:1 Making Sound” starting 4 minutes in). That is exactly the impact it has when it “bombards” your body, minute changes of pressure like a tiny breeze through an open window. And that causes all this illness? That’s why the other 99% think the infrasound argument is nonsense.

George Lindsay · October 9, 2017 at 11:41 am

Evidence of the Adverse Health Impacts of Industrial Wind Turbines
This is a supporting document for the report “Wind Turbines – The Untold Story” to provide more information in support of the comment: “There is a growing body of evidence that adverse health impacts are real and that they are occurring at greater distances from turbines than previously recorded.”
Following is an outline of some of the science and references:
1.
Ms Krogh’s summary of peer reviewed articles with their abstracts and citations regarding adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines, March 2012.
Ms Krogh is a former adviser to Health Canada, and a senior Pharmacist, and edited the compendium used by doctors and nurses in Canada for prescribing drugs. Her summary shows clearly that there is now mounting evidence of a serious problem, which has led health professionals and noise consultants around the world to author seventeen peer reviewed articles on the adverse health effects caused by wind turbines. Health Canada made an announcement last week that they are commissioning a multidisciplinary study into the reported adverse health problems in Canada.
2.
Leventhall, G., Pelmear, P., and Benton, S. 2003, A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK; 2003.
The DEFRA Literature Review was based on peer reviewed and published literature available in 2003, and page 49 lists the symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” which were known in 2003 by Leventhall and his colleagues to occur in some people exposed to low frequency noise. Professor Leventhall confirmed his knowledge of these symptoms at the NHMRC workshop in June 2011 during his presentation, and specifically confirmed that he had known about them “for some years.” Professor Leventhall was also aware in 2003 of the link between low frequency noise exposure and cortisol / physiological stress. Professor Leventhall did not share that crucial information with the authors of the NHMRC 2010 Rapid Review, despite him being one of two peer reviewers.
3.
Shepherd, D. McBride, D. Welch, D et.al, 2011, Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life, Noise and Health, vol 13; 54, 333 – 339.
4.
Hanning, C. and Evans, A. 2012, Wind Turbine Noise – Seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed, British Medical Journal, 344: e1527.
Page 1 of 5
5.
Carl V. Phillips, 2011, Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence about the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents, Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (August 2011), pp. 303‐315.
Abstract:
“There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress‐disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically‐gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case‐crossover data. Proponents of turbines have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that the evidence does not “count”, the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’ own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the problems must not exist. These claims appeared to have swayed many non‐expert observers, though they are easily debunked. Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects. There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias.”
See also Dr Philips submission number 897 to the 2011 Senate Inquiry into the Social and Economic Effect of Rural Wind Farms.
6.
Dr Nina Pierpont, Executive summary and peer reviews, Wind Turbine Syndrome, 2009.
Dr Amanda Harry (UK), Dr David Iser (Australia) and Dr Nina Pierpont (USA) were the first doctors to systematically collect and report clinical data, followed by the Society for Wind Vigilance in Ontario.
7.
Styles, P. Stimpson, I. et al, 2005, Microseismic and Infrasound monitoring of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations from Windfarms – Recommendations on the siting of windfarms in the vicinity of Eskdalemuir, Scotland, Keele University.
Regarding the UK seismic monitoring site situated at Eskdalemuir near Langholm in the Scottish Borders. It can detect nuclear testing at great distances. This research was done as they had to establish the vibration level from wind farms and whether this would effect the monitoring at Eskdalemuir. It concludes that there is a clear seismic vibration issue out to distances of greater than 18km coming from relatively small turbines that have a generating capacity of 660kW. Further the research found that vibration is proportional to power generating capacity. Therefore a single 2.5 to 3.0MW turbine will produce a significant seismic vibration. A number of turbines combined will have a very significant impact out to Page 2 of 5
a great distance, and the long term effects of chronic exposure to this vibration are unknown. Some sites where residents are reporting this vibration overnight have become ill very quickly (Waterloo, Glenthompson, Cape Bridgewater and Capital). Note that this urgently required scientific research with large turbines is yet to be instigated.
8.
Oral testimony of Professor Anderson, NHMRC, to the Senate Inquiry 31st of March, 2011. “…we are very aware that the high‐quality scientific literature in this area is very thin. That is why we were at pains to point out that we believe that a precautionary approach should be taken to this, because, as you would understand, the absence of evidence does not mean that there might not be evidence in the future”.
9.
Recommendations from the 2011 Senate Inquiry into the Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. That the NHMRC held a public forum to review recent evidence does suggest that the public statement, the rapid review and the peer review have not held up under the spotlight of the 2011 Senate Inquiry and Senate Estimates.
10.
The Falmouth Board of Health requested on June 11, 2012 that the Massachusetts Department of Health (USA) immediately initiate a health assessment of the impacts of the operation of wind turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts. It reads: “This appeal is compelled by two years of consistent and persistent complaints of health impacts during turbine operation. We realise that this is an atypical health assessment study. The suspected agent of harm is not a food borne, waterborne, or airborne contaminant. Yet the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study recently completed by the state suggests certain elements of wind turbine operation propagate to health impacts potentially as harmful as those caused by organic agents.”
A growing number of Australian doctors are speaking out publicly about their concerns, and urging research. These doctors include:

Dr David Iser, (GP who reported problems in 2004, Toora, VIC)

Dr Sarah Laurie (Medical Director of the Waubra Foundation)

Dr Wayne Spring, (Specialist Sleep Physician, Ballarat, VIC)

Dr Mitric‐Andjic, (Daylesford, VIC)

Dr Alan Watts (retired rural GP from Carcoar, NSW)

Dr Max Whisson (retired medical researcher and Pathologist, WA).
Page 3 of 5
Other concerned health practitioners and acousticians locally and internationally who have experience in the area or spoken out publicly include:
Acousticians/Engineers:

Dr Malcolm Swinbanks, (UK)

Professor Rick James, (USA)

Rob Rand (USA)

Stephen Ambrose (USA)

Wade Bray (USA)

Dick Horonjeff (USA)

Steven Cooper (Australia)

Dr Bob Thorne (Australia/NZ)

Professor Phillip Dickinson (NZ)

Professor Colin Hansen (Australia)

Professor Henrik Moller (Denmark)

Professor Mariana Alves Pereira (Portugal)
Physiologists

Professor Alec Salt (USA)

Dr Timothy Hullar (USA)
Psychologists

Dr Daniel Shepherd (NZ)

Professor Arline Bronzaft (USA)

Dr Helen Parker (USA)
Epidemiologists

Assoc Professor Jeffrey Aramini (Canada)

Professor Carl Phillips (USA)

Professor Alun Evans (Ireland)
Medical Practitioners

Dr Chris Hanning (UK Sleep Physician)

Dr Michael Nissenbaum (US Radiologist)

Dr Mauri Johansson (Occupation Physician, Denmark)

Dr Henning Theorell (Sweden)

Dr Noel Kerin (Occupational Physician, Ontario)

Professor Robert McMurtry (Ontario)

Dr Nina Pierpont (USA) Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

Dr Amanda Harry (UK)

Dr Herb Coussos (USA)

Dr Nuno Castelo Branco (Portugal)
Nurses

Professor Norma Schmidt (Ontario)

Jane Wilson (Ontario)

Jane Davis (UK)
Low frequency noise and infrasound as indicated in the above references, is being measured inside the homes of sick people in the USA, and in Australia, and is occurring at the times they are experiencing the specific symptoms. The data recorded clearly indicates that the symptoms and the sound energy frequencies are NOT measurable when the turbines are switched off. I am aware of completed but as yet unpublished work by Dr Bob Thorne which supports previous peer reviewed empirical data collection, from Canada, the UK and the USA, all of which involves empirical data rather than reviews which deny there is any evidence. All of this causes me to publicly question the assertions made by proponents that there are no adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines.
We cannot afford to take risks with human health. It is now 56 years since the last asbestos mine was closed in Western Australia but we are still seeing people exposed to that deadly fibre dying from mesothelioma. We don’t know if industrial wind turbines are as damaging as asbestos but it is worth remembering that the community thought that asbestos was safe ‐ they built their houses out of it. A similar case exists with carcinogens affecting firefighters by absorption through their protective clothing.
I believe we should adopt a precautionary approach. Health and independently conducted sound impact studies are vital but in the meantime we need to make sure our buffers are sufficient that the infrasound and low frequency noise impacts are not causing adverse health effects.
Dr Chris Back
Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate
Senator for Western Australia
27 July 2012
If you would like copies of the supporting documents, please contact us via the website: http://www.chrisback.com.au

Pat Spence · October 13, 2017 at 12:46 pm

I am a professional musician and music publisher. I live and work in South West Scotland. Scottish Power Renewables have unkindly surrounded my home and place of work with 3 wind turbine factories (I refuse to call them wind farms) with a total of 184 large turbines split 96;60;28. They are currently applying to double the size of the two smaller ones. The turbines are between 3 & 4.5 km away and are placed respectively to the south, west and north. No cumulative noise monitoring was carried out. All three planning applications were based on spurious noise calculations made before any of the sites were commissioned.
My property is on the highest ground within the circle and receives quite a lot of audible noise most of the time. It is also double glazed which, to an extent, alleviates the audible noise. No double glazing can keep out infrasound. My whole house vibrates. The house amplifies the low frequencies which manifest themselves as hammers beating the back of my head. I can feel my brain vibrating inside my cranium.
The result is sleep deprivation which leads to loss of concentration etc.
As a musician I deal with sound and the way it behaves all the time. A lot of what I do is instinctive but always logical when there is a need to explain it to someone else. e.g.If I need to project a solo that has to be played quietly so that it is heard over an orchestra in a large hall, I make sure that the sound is aimed at the nearest reflective surface in a corner where the sound can bounce quickly to other surfaces to amplify it. Aiming it at the back flat wall would ensure that it would be almost inaudible. My instrument is the flute – lowest note is middle C 261 htz. The lowest note on a double bass is 21htz. stand next to it and you feel the vibration in addition to hearing it. A double bass is approximately 2 meters high. The wind turbines surrounding my home are between 135 and 147 m high and proportionally wider too. The frequency at which they vibrate is well below human hearing but the vibrations are bigger and travel further. They cannot be harmless. Neither can they be dismissed as the cause of great distress in people like me who have no choice but to live in their vicinity.

Chloe Pink · December 6, 2017 at 12:12 pm

If Dick Bowdler wanted to divide those suffering from wind turbine noise, he couldn’t have devised a better means – don’t let this happen!

As previously cited, the precautionary principle applies and decision makers should take this into account.

    SAS Volunteer · December 7, 2017 at 7:43 am

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion Chloe. It is well known that we don’t all agree on this subject. Everyone has to look at the facts, listen to both sides of the argument and take their own experience into account before making their own decision.

      Chloe Pink · December 8, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      SAS Volunteer, you write “Everyone is entitled to their opinion”.
      I agree and am not aware of having said otherwise. In fact to the contrary, I have said don’t let differences divide those suffering from wind turbine noise.

      I am one of those sufferers.

        SAS Volunteer · December 9, 2017 at 7:48 am

        I am one of those people too; that’s why I volunteer with SAS. Mr Bowdler has helped hundreds of people with wind turbine noise problems, myself included. He has never worked for a developer, only Councils and objectors. The difference in opinion arises between those who believe audible noise and those who believe inaudible noise (infrasound) is a problem and the reason for ill health.

          Chloe Pink · December 10, 2017 at 9:52 pm

          I’m a volunteer too in my area, for 12 years – lost some battles and won some – we’re 2 less wind farms better off here at least.
          I understand what you’re saying about the difference in opinion; all I’m saying is don’t let it divide us.

          Chloe Pink · December 10, 2017 at 10:07 pm

          PS Para 467 onwards, SUMMARY OF THE EFFECT OF THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in the recent Waubra ACNC judgement is worth a read, it includes some interesting statements re LFN and infrasound:
          https://stopthesethings.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/waubra-and-acnc-decision.pdf

          SAS Volunteer · December 11, 2017 at 12:28 pm

          Thanks. Yes, been through a private nuisance case myself and won and now on to my second! SAS members attend noise seminars run for EHOs and planning officers and the International Noise Conference organised by Dick Bowdler as well as contributing to Jack Pease Noise Bulletins and keeping an eye on international noise news. If you attend public inquiries and hearings you will know there is a difference of opinion and unfortunately there is nothing we can do about that. Good luck with your campaigning.

Melvin Grosvenor · January 3, 2018 at 2:32 pm

New information published in Finland….
The Finnish national association TV-KY ry has financed a pilot study about infrasound measurements at appr. 10 locations in Finland. Please see below a link to an article (in English), showing the results of the study.
Infrasound from Wind Turbines is the new signal in the environment..
http://www.auniogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/InfrasoundAunioGroupKauppaSuomiwk342017.jpg

Melvin Grosvenor · January 23, 2018 at 11:31 am

http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2018/01/18/ilfn-infrasound-low-frequency-noise-turbine-health/

Infrasound and low-frequency noise – its impact on human health.
18 January 2018.
Biomedical engineer Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira recently studied the impact of ILFN from wind turbines in Ireland, concluding that noise regulations need urgent updating to reflect noise levels that endanger human health.

On the Engineers Ireland website, a search for ‘infrasound’ or ‘low-frequency noise’ yields zero results. A search on ‘noise’, however, yields 44 results. Why is it that infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) is still such a taboo subject? While it is improbable that this particular question will be answered here, an exposé of ILFN will be provided with a brief historical account of how and why ILFN was ultimately deemed irrelevant for human health concerns.

Melvin Grosvenor · March 9, 2018 at 8:36 am

http://vind-alarm-danmark.eu/lavfrekvent-vindmoellestoej-om-natten-giver-helbredsrisici-kraeftens-bekaempelses-sundhedsundersoegelse-er-offentliggjort/
Low-frequency wind noise at night gives health risks – The Cancer Control Health Study has been published
write an answer
The Windmill Neighbors thank the Cancer Research Research Team for their careful scientific work, which gives the quiet families the right, even though the new large wind power plants are not included in the survey data. There are missing all major wind farms that have been traveling after 2013 with 3 MEGA WATT machines and more that were set up without the minimum professional assessment of any health hazards. The Ministry of Denmark had previously assessed that the country’s energy policy weighed heavier than human life and urged the municipalities to continue their planning and expansion with wind power. The results of the study can not please a responsible politician who wants to take care of his country’s population.

Short-term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events. A countrywide case-crossover study from Denmark

Link: 1-s2.0-S0160412017317889-main

The study’s introduction states:
“Nighttime noise noise exposure is considered particularly hazardous and has been associated with disturbance of sleep, from full awakenings to unconcious autonomic perturbations, such as sleep stage changes and body movements; The latter from outdoor noise levels of up to 30 dB. Nighttime noise exposure has been associated with reduced cardiac parasympathetic tone, high blood pressure, endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress and increased levels of stress hormones shortly after noise exposure or on the morning after. ”

Translation: “Exposure to night clothes is considered to be particularly dangerous and has been associated with sleep disturbances, from full awakening to unconscious autonomic disturbances, such as changes in sleep and body movements; the latter from outside noise levels down to 30 dB. Night exposure has been associated with impaired cardiac parasympathetic tone, high blood pressure, endothelial dysfunction (Wiki: Endothelium or endothelium is the layer of cells , endothelial cells covering the blood vessels ), oxidative stress and increased levels of stress hormones shortly after noise exposure or in the morning.

Traffic noise is a scientifically recognized killer. Air traffic and road traffic disturb neighbor’s night’s sleep and lead to serious illness.

What is the difference between noise from airplane and wind turbine except that wind turbine noise is most perplexing? Gradually, the latest wind turbines are gigantic and have the same wing-like grip as a jumbo jet. Their rotor blades whip around 400 km per hour, but never get away. This means that the sound pressure does not disappear in the blue air. There is no start and no landing. It has major consequences for the people living near the wind farms. Thousands of wind turbines in the Western world have complained of sleep noise from wind turbines. Many families have had to flee from their homes to survive, while others must withstand torture every night and experience their physical and mental powers crazy. Not everyone can afford to move from their homes.

The wind farm families have been waiting for the first results of the study and feared the worst that there was no evidence of the noise at all. The struggle for recognizing the families of the families has been infinitely long. Here’s an article from dr.dk:

Getting people sick of noise from wind turbines _ Know _ DR

“We must investigate whether noise from wind turbines gives people an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” says Mette Sørensen, who will be at the forefront of the project. The Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Housing and the Ministry of Health and Prevention will contribute 1.7 million kroner to the project. ”

This was stated in dr.dk’s online newspaper January 16th, 2014. A lot of the page has taken place. The subsidies from the ministries were approx. doubled, the schedule was revisited again and again and speculation about the study became more and more desperate.

Danmarks Vindmølleforening sent their energy policy senior analyst Jens Peter Hansen, also enthusiastic cyclist, to the city to mourn the affected families. Thus he wrote in Fyns Amtsavis on the Cancer Surveillance Survey in response to a reader’s letter where retired physician Peter Prinds had dared to doubt the study’s unusable results in relation to the protection of wind turbines.

On February 3, 2018, Jens Peter Hansen wrote:

“Unusable in relation to what? In the light of a recognized scientific work so far, it has not shown negative health effects in the vicinity of wind turbines, neither will this study equip windmill resistors with the “equal on the table”, they need to be able to continue their scare campaign. ” [sic]

It shows how inflamed the debate has become. Totally innocent families in Denmark’s rural areas are accused of lying about their everyday life with wind monsters. Sir. cyclist rider Jens Peter Hansen has all of Denmark’s powerful ministries and organizations, flanked by the reddish media, while the windmill monkeys have no paid lobby.

The families can only hope for proper municipal politicians who will require independent noise measurements in the home of the stunned families.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *