The Society for Wind Vigilance (The Society) opinion on the issue
The NHS critique is based on “the best scientific knowledge currently available”.
To read the NHS editorial policy visit. http://www.nhs.uk/aboutNHSChoices/aboutnhschoices/Aboutus/Pages/Editorialpolicy.aspx
What the NHS said
The NHS critique highlights that this industry commissioned document is a non-systematic review of literature which will probably not resolve the controversy of wind turbines and associated adverse health effects.
The NHS critique provides examples of the deficiencies contained in the A/CanWEA Review and concludes by stating:
The Society for Wind Vigilance (The Society) weighs in on the NHS critique
The Society supports the NHS call for third party study which incorporates control groups.
On January 11, 2010 The Society independently released a detailed analysis which also documented deficiencies contained in the A/CanWEA Review.
To read The Society’s analysis visit http://windvigilance.com/awea_media
Wind turbine sound ‘needs research’
Thursday January 28, 2010
“The noise caused by wind farms can make some people ill”, reported The Daily Telegraph. It said experts have dismissed the idea of a "wind turbine syndrome" as a special cause of headaches, nausea and panic attacks, but have acknowledged that the irritation caused by the noise can affect certain individuals.
The story is based on an industry commissioned review of the current research on the possible health effects of wind turbine noise. It found that the sound (including subaudible sound) is not unique, and does not pose a risk to human health. Although the sound may cause ‘annoyance’ for some people, this in itself is not an adverse health effect.
This research is unlikely to resolve the controversy over the potential health effects from wind turbines. This is mainly because the research on which the review was based is not sufficient to prove or disprove that there are health effects. The review itself also had some methodological shortcomings, and the reviewing group did not include an epidemiologist, usually a given for assessing potential environmental health hazards.
Further research on this issue is needed. Ideally this would involve comparing people exposed to wind turbine noise with well-matched control subjects who have not had that exposure. These studies should also carefully evaluate the psychological harms of noise exposure.
The news report is centred around a review by a panel of independent experts looking into the issue of Wind Turbine Syndrome. Their review, called “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects”, was presented at a meeting of the Institute of Acoustics Wind Turbine Noise in Cardiff on Wednesday January 27. The presentation was made by one of the experts on the panel, Dr Geoff Leventhall, a UK-based noise and vibration consultant.
Dr Leventhall carried out the review with Dr David Colby, an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario, and other independent experts in medicine, public health, audiology and acoustics. The panel aimed to “provide an authoritative reference document for legislators, regulators, and anyone who wants to make sense of the conflicting information about wind turbine sound”. The review was commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association.
This was a non-systematic literature review of the available literature on the perceived health effects of wind turbines.
The panel of experts began their literature review by searching the scientific database PubMed for studies under the heading “Wind Turbines and Health Effects” and “vibroacoustic disease”. They provide an extensive reference list of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.
The researchers reviewed the studies that looked at infrasound (a low frequency sound wave that cannot usually be heard) sounds that can be heard, and the vibration produced by wind turbines. The researchers were looking for answers to the following questions:
The researchers say that infrasound is defined as acoustic oscillations with frequencies below audible sound levels (about 16 Hz). Low-frequency sound, they say, is typically considered as sound that can be heard in the 10 Hz to 200 Hz range, but it is not closely defined.
They also considered how to define ‘annoyance’, which is a subjective response to many types of sounds, which varies among people. They acknowledge that constant low frequency sounds can be a frustrating experience for people, but say it is not considered an adverse health effect or disease. They say that annoyance from airports, road traffic, etc. cannot be predicted easily with a sound level meter.
The researchers give an overview of the evidence on the effects of noise exposure in general. They also give detailed descriptions of the research they found on the effects of wind turbine noise. They say these case series, though important for raising suspicion of harm, cannot show causation. For this, repeated case-control studies or cohort studies are needed.
The researchers describe the effect of various sounds on ‘annoyance’. They say that as sound gets louder, more people who hear it will become distressed until nearly everybody is affected. But this will occur to varying degrees. They say it is not clear why some people continue to be adversely affected by sound when it reverts to a low level. This occurs at all frequencies, although there seems to be more subjective variability at the lower frequencies.
The ‘nocebo’ effect is discussed, which is the opposite of the ‘placebo’ effect. This is where an adverse outcome, a worsening of mental or physical health is based on fear or belief in adverse effects.
The researchers also describe the studies they identified that looked at ‘wind turbine syndrome’, where symptoms are said to include sleep disturbance, headache, ringing in the ears, ear pressure, dizziness, nausea, visual blurring, fast heart beats, irritability, poor concentration, memory, panic attacks, internal pulsation, and quivering. They say that the syndrome has no physiological or pathological mechanism behind it, but is an example of the well-known stress effects of exposure to noise, as displayed by a small proportion of the population.
The panel reached agreement on three key points:
They conclude that the collective symptoms in some people exposed to wind turbines are more likely to be associated with annoyance at the low sound levels from wind turbines, rather than directly caused by them.
This is a non-systematic review of literature. There are several points to be made about this research:
Overall, this review will probably not resolve this controversy as there was a lack of high-level evidence on which to base any solid conclusions. What is now needed are studies that compare people exposed to turbine noise with well-matched control subjects who have not had that exposure. These studies should also carefully evaluate the psychological harms of noise exposure.