Chapter 3

Chapter 3

Health

Introduction

3.1        The bill being considered by the committee does not directly mention health effects of wind farm noise. However, as the second reading speech by Senator Madigan indicated, and as the submissions reflect, health issues are the rationale behind the bill.

3.2        The committee acknowledges the concerns of residents, who need to understand whether there may be health impacts of existing wind farms in their area, or of a wind facility planned for their district.

3.3        Individual witnesses, and some organisations, reported to the committee a range of symptoms they said were being experienced by people living up to ten kilometres away from wind farms. The most common reported complaint was sleep disturbance.[1] Others included headaches, nausea, anxiety and a range of other symptoms, many (though not all) common to stress-related conditions. Examples of individuals expressing concern about current health impacts included these:

members of my family have experienced various symptoms including excruciating painful ear pressure, severe headaches, severe nausea to the point of being unable to keep food down, profuse nose bleeds, dizziness, chronic and severe sleep disturbance and worrying chest pains. We have never suffered any of these symptoms before the wind farm was built too close to our home at Waubra.[2]

Once the turbines were operating I began to suffer extremely bad headaches and had a very cold body after sleeping... I can no longer work or go to the property... without suffering nausea, pains in the head, pains in the chest, and difficulty breathing...[3]

I get head aches, nervous tension, nose bleeds...angina...[another person] now has diabetes which has been brought on by those B turbines.[4]

3.4        The committee also heard from people who had not experienced health effects but were concerned about the potential for them:

I have spent hundreds of hours talking to, listening to, reading about, and corresponding with, real, normal people for whom a real, normal life is no longer possible... These are people...whose lives have been completely devastated by a wind farm development nearby. I have listened to their explanations of the impact on their lives, knowing that their experience will become our experience if the proposed development near us goes ahead.[5]

Our community has recently been involved in a proposal for an industrial wind facility in our heritage-listed Trawool Valley. Concerned about excessive noise and the potential adverse health affects as a result of infrasound, low frequency sound and vibration, our community organised an information session in August 2012. We invited some members of other wind facilities close by and two residents from the Waubra area attended. They recounted their experience of living in close proximity to a wind energy facility and also of their belief that it was creating excessive noise and that the complaints procedure was ineffective and deficient to adequately address their countless concerns.[6]

3.5        There is an extremely diverse range of adverse effects on people and on animals that have been claimed in submissions to this inquiry and in other sources.[7] It is unlikely that all of these are due to wind farms, but the issue nevertheless requires thorough attention.

3.6        As noted in Chapter 1, the National Health and Medical Research Council is considering the current literature in detail and will address this issue definitively in 2013.

Number of health complaints relating to noise

3.7        The committee heard a range of views about the scope of effects on people residing near wind turbines. The Waubra Foundation claimed it was aware of:

over 40 families from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who have left their homes because of excessive noise from the wind turbines near their former homes, and the consequent serious health problems they experienced.[8]

3.8        On the other hand, others considered the concern to be limited in geographic scope, arguing that it tends to be in particular sites and not others:

expressions of concern among residents living adjacent to wind farms only occur in relatively few places. The overwhelming majority of wind farms around the world do not have any sorts of examples of people expressing anxiety. There is something like 200,000 wind turbines around the world and most of the concern which is being expressed is in areas like Ontario, in Canada—but not in other places in Canada—several areas of the east in the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and some places in Australia.[9]

3.9        Given that as of April 2012 there were approximately 1345 turbines operating in 59 facilities around Australia,[10] the numbers expressing concern appear small compared to the numbers of residents near these turbines. The committee received just over 160 submissions, of which a little under 140 supported the bill and/or expressed concern about noise effects. Of these, the majority were from people worried about whether they might experience noise or health effects from proposed wind farms, rather than from people who claimed to have actually experienced annoyance or other adverse effects. The submissions related to a minority of Australia's wind farm operations.

3.10      Professor Chapman indicated that he had commenced gathering data from wind farm operators about numbers of complaints about noise, and numbers of residents within five kilometres of wind farms. The committee notes that the research is in its early stages and has not been peer reviewed. Nevertheless, his results to date are that in only two cases out of the 35 wind farms for which he had data at the time of making his submission, were there more than five complaints to the operator, and for the majority the number was zero.[11] These figures appear indicative of the overall level of complaint, and consistent with committee evidence.

Committee view

3.11      The number of health-related complaints about wind farms is small in proportion to the number of people living near these facilities. The numbers also vary greatly from one facility to the next, for reasons not apparently related to the number of residents in the area.

3.12      The committee believes that, while small in number, the nature and cause of the complaints must be taken seriously.

The health effects of audible sound

3.13      Noise can be annoying, and can lead to adverse health effects. This is most evident for extremely loud noise, the effects of which can include deafness. However, noise does not have to be extremely loud to have health effects: other pathways exist, such as through sleep disturbance.[12]

3.14      Health effects from wind farm noise result from the same mechanisms as from other sound sources. Dr Shepherd stated:

wind turbine noise really is no different to other forms of annoying community noise such as aviation noise, road traffic noise or nightclub or neighbourhood noise in that people do find it very annoying and it has a potency to disrupt sleep.[13]

3.15      The committee received some evidence from individuals reporting sleep disturbance from audible sound.

We have a property literally in the middle of the Waubra Wind Farm...From our residence we have... 5 [turbines] within 1.5 km. with the closest 600 metres. We are surrounded by turbines on three sides... Since the turbines were turned on in 2009, we have had on average 3-4 nights per week of disrupted sleep.[14]

We have 4200 acres at Waubra of high quality farming land...our home is 800 to 900 metres from 4 turbines...our bedroom is closest to the turbines some nights you put your head on the pillow and all that you can hear is the constant noise and the constant rotation of the turbine blades.[15]

I live [near Leonards Hill, Victoria] where there are 2 – 125mtr wind turbines which are situated between 550–650 metres from the back door. I hear the noise from the turbines day and night, inside and outside... After a week of the turbines operating I started to suffer severe tension head aches and tightness in my shoulders, neck and my lower jaw felt tight and my teeth ached. I would wake up in the morning with vertigo when I stood up out of bed and have a bad runny nose. It has been over a year now that the turbines have been operating and my symptoms are becoming worse, I still have all of the above and now I get pains in my chest, eye spasms while reading or watching TV, do not sleep as I wake up in fright two or three times and do not know why but you can just hear the turbines in the bedroom.[16]

3.16      There was no evidence to the committee of a causal link between the relatively low levels of noise that are produced by wind farm noise and the symptoms reported by those living near wind turbines. Though there is evidence linking community noise in general to health problems, there is little research on turbines in particular, and none at all testing the relationship between turbine noise and health-related quality of life.[17]

3.17      The NHMRC reviewed some of the literature available in 2010, and noted the conclusion of one of the few relevant studies, 'that no adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly correlated with noise from wind turbines'.[18]

3.18      The committee was provided with two recent publications that sought to examine the relationship between wind turbine noise and sleep or mental health.[19] Both were based on questionnaires filled out by residents, though the nature of the survey was different in each case. The study by Shepherd included 39 respondents living near wind turbines and 158 in a control group. There were no differences between the groups in self-reported illness or self-rating of general health, but the turbine group survey responses indicated lower physical health-related quality of life than the control group, and this was linked to their responses to questions on sleep quality and self-reported energy levels. The study by Nissenbaum and others included 38 respondents near two wind farms, and 41 respondents in a control group, with results that increased daytime sleepiness and reduced sleep quality was reported among those closer to turbines though, counter-intuitively, there was no difference in the use of sleep medications as a result.

3.19      The committee received commentary that questioned some key aspects of the studies. This included discussion around the noise level assessment and significance of key health indicators in the case of the paper by Nissenbaum and others,[20] and about causal factors in both papers.

3.20      The possibility that respondents were influenced by their own attitudes toward wind farms, or the views of others, was an issue. Discussing both studies, Professor Chapman commented:

Both of those studies suffer from the same problem. That is that there has been considerable activity, in both regions studied in those two papers, of anti-wind-turbine activity. For example, in the New Zealand paper there had been, for a large number of years, a resident group called 'something guardians'. I cannot remember the name of the area now but they were the local landscape guardians group over there. They have a website which lists all of their activities against wind turbines and so forth. So the idea that this was an environment which was unpolluted by people going around saying, 'These wind turbines are going to cause health problems—will probably make you unable to sleep well and will affect your quality of life in a detrimental way—was not mentioned in that paper at all. I think that the failure to mention that was really a very severe problem. It was also absent in the other paper—the more recent one.[21]

3.21      The New Zealand study notes that, by concealing the questionnaire's specific purpose, such effects should be minimised, and Dr Shepherd wrote to the committee noting that the website of the local landscape guardians had not been updated for a long period before the survey was conducted.[22] However, the committee was later advised by another researcher that there had been a television broadcast featuring wind farm opponents, specifically mentioning sleep disturbance effects, in August 2009.[23] This was quite close to the date of the survey, and also indicated that critics of the facility were active at that time.

3.22      The committee is unable to form a view about how this discussion will ultimately play out. It expects that information, including these two recent studies, will be considered by the NHMRC in the course of its review. As the NHMRC noted in 2010, 'the measurement of health effects attributable to wind turbines is...very complex'.

Committee view

3.23      There is limited, and contested, published evidence that wind farm noise may be associated with annoyance and sleep disturbance in some individuals, but the causes are not clear; this is also considered further below. State governments and planning authorities currently have in place guidelines that are intended to address audible noise pollution, including from wind farms. Some aspects of these are discussed in subsequent chapters.

Proposed causes of health effects: infrasound

3.24      The effects of audible and mid-frequency noise are relatively well-known and understood. However, most inquiry participants appeared to refer not to normal audible noise issues, but to possible health effects from low frequency sound, or infrasound. It has been suggested by some inquiry participants, including some researchers or professionals,[24] that there may be pathways by which infrasound may be creating symptoms of health problems, even though the sound is not audible. The Waubra Foundation, while referring to the 'full spectrum' of noise, commented:

Currently, there are a growing number of Australian residents who are experiencing serious health problems resulting directly from exposure to excessive noise from operating wind turbines...This pattern of exposure related symptoms has been long known to acousticians working in the field of both infrasound and low frequency noise...[25]

3.25      This is often referred to as 'wind turbine syndrome'. One witness observed:

I shall leave the scientific and/or neurological theories and explanations to the experts. Nevertheless, the existence of low frequency sound energy, produced by wind turbines, and inaudible to the human ear, may be the reason for this syndrome. While this low frequency noise or sound energy (aka infrasound) may be inaudible and thus not able to be consciously perceived by the human ear, it does appear that the ear's vestibular system is still capable of perceiving the presence of this infrasound, and so send signals to the central nervous system for processing, in this case without the conscious awareness of the affected individual.[26]

The potential health impacts of low frequency noise

3.26      Professor Alec Salt in his written and oral evidence to the committee asserted that the human ear perceives sounds that may be inaudible to most people.  According to Professor Salt the inner ear 'does respond to low-frequency sounds at levels well below those that are heard' through outer hair cells that:

...respond well to low frequencies and infrasound, and if you measure the ear's responses to an infrasound stimulus, they can be four- to five-times larger than to any sounds you normally hear. So, the ear is extremely sensitive and responds very strongly to infrasound stimuli.[27]  

3.27      The key question for Professor Salt is 'whether these responses stay confined just to the ear and do not have any effect on you at all, but I think this is very, very unlikely'.[28]

3.28      Dr Levanthall commented specifically on Professor Salt's arguments by stating that:

In contrast to the unproven claims made by Professor Salt, my own belief continues to be that infrasound from wind turbines is just another sound, which you hear if it is above your hearing threshold and you don’t hear if it is below. There is no mystery about infrasound, but it has been falsely used by those opposed to wind turbines in order to alarm others, and also as a distraction, which they know will be difficult and time consuming to work on, whilst at the same time they ask for a moratorium on further constructions until the work is done.[29] 

3.29      Dr Leventhall argued that people are not affected by sounds they cannot hear.  He cited studies on deaf people to see if exposure to infrasound caused any effects.  The conclusion of the studies according to Dr Leventhall was that:

Work with deaf people shows that they are not influenced by infrasound which they cannot hear. (Landström and Byström 1984, Landström 1987).[30] This work showed that infrasound just below the hearing threshold had no effect on either hearing or deaf people. That which was just above the normal threshold made hearing people sleepy but had no effect on deaf people. People were not affected by sound which they could not hear.[31]

3.30      Other research has shown no brain response in subjects exposed to 90dB sound at 12Hz, a level that, while higher than typical for wind farm infrasound, is below the generally accepted threshold for hearing at that frequency.[32] Dr Leventhall described this:

There is recent confirmation in the work of Dommes et al, who used functional magnetic resonance imaging fMRI to investigate brain activity of subjects listening to infrasound and low frequency sound...It was shown that infrasound above the threshold level i.e. which was audible, activated the auditory cortex, which is the part of the brain associated with hearing. Infrasound below the threshold level i.e. inaudible, did not excite the auditory cortex.[33]

3.31      In drawing attention to what it considered the neglect of infrasound as a health issue, the Waubra Foundation made reference to a literature review A Review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects (2003). The Waubra Foundation was critical of the NHMRC and others for not considering this report when reaching conclusions in this area.[34]

3.32      The Waubra Foundation drew attention to this document as demonstrating 'the adverse health effects of low frequency noise on human health'.[35] However, the 2003 report does not appear relevant to wind turbine noise. That report points out that most of what is written in popular sources is misleading and 'should be discounted'.[36] It concluded that 'No medical condition has been reported in the literature... to be associated with the perception of infrasound or its enhancement'.[37]

3.33      Dr Leventhall was the principal author of that report. He wrote to the committee, indicating that low frequency noise 'and infrasound from wind turbines were not considered in the report as they were not believed to be a problem. A belief which I still hold'.[38] He rejected the idea that infrasound presented an issue different in nature from other sounds. While the report focussed on low frequency noise, this was because that was the brief he was given, and did not imply that it was qualitatively different from other noise.[39] He pointed out that the review cited peer reviewed research showing that, in an experiment during which some subjects were exposed to low frequency noise and others were not, there was 'no significant difference in medical or psycho-social symptoms between the groups'.[40] Finally, Dr Leventhall was critical of reference made by some witnesses including Dr Laurie to the NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) report Infrasound Brief Review of Toxicological Literature (2001). He noted that that review in fact only showed health effects from low frequency sounds at levels typically around one million times higher than those generally involved in the case of wind farm noise.[41]

3.34      In its answers to questions on notice and elsewhere, the Waubra Foundation has also drawn attention to the results of a 2004 published study by Chen Yuan Huang Qibai and Hanmin Shi.[42] The Waubra Foundation claimed that this showed that exposure to low frequency sound 'causes increases in heart rate and blood pressure as well as symptoms such as nausea'.[43] However, the study in fact exposed subjects to these sounds at 110 and 120dB, levels several orders of magnitude higher than those involved in wind farms. This research also therefore appears not relevant in considering possible effects of low frequency sounds from wind turbines.

3.35      Professor Seligman pointed out that people are exposed to a great deal of infrasound. Its presence is ubiquitous and this raised questions for the committee about how it would be possible that inaudible infrasound could cause health problems in one particular setting and not in others. Professor Seligman indicated that he and colleagues were planning some research in this area:

My first comment is that the environment is awash with infrasound, which is both from natural and man-made sources and which is often far in excess of what is produced by wind farms.

The second point is that there is a claim that it is modulation of low-frequency noise that can produce the symptoms that have been described. The Melbourne Energy Institute, in combination with the Department of Psychology, are planning to do a double-blind study with this type of noise to see if we can actually induce the symptoms that have been described.[44]

3.36      The Public Health Association of Australia commented on the current literature in the field, stating:

It is important to note though that reviews of all the literature to date have failed to identify any adverse physiological effects attributed to exposure to wind turbines, with the exception of those mediated by noise in a small proportion of exposed people whose symptoms may or may not be related to perception, annoyance and other psychosocial factors related to the uptake of the new technology.[45]

Proposed causes of health effects: Psychogenesis and Nocebo effect

3.37      Late in the inquiry process, the committee was provided with recent research, peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the leading journal Health Psychology, but not yet released.[46] The research comprises a controlled double blind study, in which subjects were exposed to infrasound and sham infrasound.

Fifty-four participants were randomised to high or low expectancy groups, and presented audiovisual information, integrating material from the internet, designed to invoke either high or low expectations that exposure to infrasound causes specified symptoms.[47]

3.38      The authors' results and conclusions were:

High expectancy participants reported significant increases, from pre-exposure assessment, in the number and intensity of symptoms experienced during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. There were no symptomatic changes in the low expectancy group.

Conclusion: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms which aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints.[48]

3.39      This research is consistent with the views expressed by Professor Chapman, that one of the factors likely to be involved in symptom reports from people near wind farms is the nocebo response (the opposite of a placebo response). A medical journal review published this year explains the response:

A nocebo effect is the induction of a symptom perceived as negative by sham treatment and/or by the suggestion of negative expectations. A nocebo response is a negative symptom induced by the patient’s own negative expectations and/or by negative suggestions from clinical staff in the absence of any treatment. The underlying mechanisms include learning by Pavlovian conditioning and reaction to expectations induced by verbal information or suggestion. Nocebo responses may come about through unintentional negative suggestion on the part of physicians and nurses. Information about possible complications and negative expectations on the patient’s part increases the likelihood of adverse effects.[49]

3.40      Nocebo responses produce real symptoms, but the cause is psychological rather than physical in origin:

CHAIR: Professor Chapman, if people do suffer the nocebo effect, do they actually feel ill?

Prof. Chapman: Yes, very much so. There is no suggestion that they are making it up or that they do not feel ill or that, in many cases, you cannot physiologically measure the problems that they are having—they do... I want to emphasise that, by talking about nocebo effects or psychogenic effects, I am not saying at all that people who say that they are feeling nauseous or have any of the other 207 diseases or symptoms I have seen on the internet are making it up. They very often genuinely do have those symptoms, but it is whether or not they are actually being caused by the turbines or by the anxiety which is being spread about the turbines.[50]

3.41      The possibility that psychological factors, rather than infrasound, are a key 'link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints' is also consistent with some of the anecdotal evidence received by the committee. Significant numbers of submissions came from people who were being informed and becoming worried about the claimed effects of a wind farm prior to one commencing operation near them, expressing fear or anxiety about negative health effects:

I will be close to proposed wind development if it is built, and don’t want to be getting sick in my own home and unable to sleep just like the people at Waubra who came and told me about their situation.[51]

[From a resident 3.4 kms from a proposed development] There is already enough evidence to prove people are suffering from the effects of low frequency noise, infrasound and vibration from industrial wind turbines, these noise levels can affect people living up to and beyond 10KM from industrial wind turbines.[52]

I was told of side effects of other people from other wind farms before the Waterloo windfarm was built and thought that it would not get me, but it has.[53]

I live 9kms away, within the 5km to 10km zone of the potential effects of a proposed wind farm... IF the proposed wind farm is built near me I will have my symptoms [of pre-existing fibromyalgia] exacerbated and my recovery jeopardised, but not the data to confirm the cause.[54]

From my reading and research it appears that sleep disturbance, nausea, irregular heartbeat and headaches have been reported by people living in close proximity to wind turbines. I will see and hear 46 turbines from my house, currently under construction. Excessive noise is a major concern for me.[55]

My serious concerns of being impacted by excessive noise by the Proposed ...Wind Farm as i live approximately 4k from the nearest (Proposed ) Wind Turbine. As I already have suffered from Mental Illness for 20+ years. The impact of of this will undoubtedly force myself to leave this Tranquil Valley.[56]

There is currently a proposal for a wind development close to my home. I have major concerns regarding health problems caused by noise emissions from turbines. I am alarmed by reports of sleep disturbance, tinnitus, and headaches by people living in the vicinity of wind farms.[57]

This letter is to request an initial and ongoing review of The Bald Hills Wind farm that is currently under construction, I am deeply concerned about the severe impact this will have on our young family, our business and our lifestyle.[58]

3.42      There was some evidence to suggest that psychological expectations may have played a role in the reporting of symptoms. Anecdotal evidence submitted to the committee includes symptoms being associated with phenomena other than wind farms, symptoms not occurring coincident with the start of wind farm operation, not being related to whether there is wind blowing, or being at distances far greater than those usually reported:

About five kilometres west of us is the Macarthur Wind Farm...Upon returning from an overseas trip, I immediately noticed adverse health effects. I am restless and not sleeping well. In the short time I have been home, I am noticing a pattern already. When the wind is in the west, and also if it is very mild, with no or little wind, I have trouble sleeping, and pressure in my ears builds up. I am really alarmed at how quickly I have noticed these symptoms, as the Macarthur Wind Farm is only in the testing phase with a small number of turbines turning.[59]

I have problems daily that are only happening when I am near a wind farm or high voltage electricity... I began noticing the noise when the wind farm had been operating for several months.[60]

Some people may not be affected but [others are]... People who stand underneath them cannot hear anything and up to 10 km away in some cases further they are heard...[61]

3.43      Another submitter described symptoms that she associated with the turbines, but also said there was no pattern to their occurrence.[62] A further submitter identified a precise date on which she believes she became sensitive to low frequency sound, but it was long after turbines were built in her area, and she experiences symptoms wherever she goes, not only near the turbines in her region.[63]

Committee view

3.44      The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating health problems. In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases.

3.45      The committee wishes to emphasise that it does not doubt that the symptoms are real. It also does not doubt that some people may be affected by audible noise. It is concerned, as Dr Tait from Doctors for the Environment Australia expressed, that the discussion about a purported wind turbine syndrome is hampering progress on the issue:

Part of the problem, I think, of going around and promoting a wind turbine syndrome and going into communities and getting people scared about wind turbines is that it has muddied the water and it is distracting us from actually dealing with those small groups of people who have got a legitimate problem and do need us to be having some sort of debate about how we as a society work to help them with the issues that they are experiencing.[64]

3.46      As Dr Shepherd pointed out, some individuals may be particularly sensitive to noise, though the underlying causes of the sensitivity are not well understood.[65] The needs of these individuals should be addressed, but in the context of established medical research.

Health and wind farm noise: future research

3.47      The NHMRC have set out the timetable for their wind farms and human health project, which is included in Appendix 3. Doctors for the Environment Australia supported this work.[66] And both they and the Public Health Association of Australia argued that to support the current bill would be to pre-empt the NHMRC's work.[67]

3.48      The committee notes the strong academic record of the NHMRC's Wind Farms and Human Health Reference Group, established to 'ensure a thorough and robust evaluation of the evidence occurs'. It notes the inclusion of two external observers, from the Waubra Foundation and the Clean Energy Council, 'to ensure transparency of processes and to assist the Reference Group fulfil their Terms of Reference'.[68]

3.49      The committee notes Professor Seligman's plans, in conjunction with others, to conduct research to test whether modulation of low-frequency noise can produce the some of the symptoms heard about in this inquiry.[69]

Committee comment

3.50      This committee is not a group of experts, and does not draw any conclusions about the experiences of any particular individual reporting effects from wind turbine operation. However, the wide range of symptoms, the regular expression of anxiety about wind farm construction, and the widely varying relationship between the facilities and the symptoms experienced, all suggest a complex situation that cannot obviously be ascribed to the operation of wind turbines alone. The committee concurs with Dr Tait that recurring claims of a wind turbine syndrome, for which there is no peer-reviewed evidence, are obscuring the focus on assisting properly the small number of people whose cases do need attention. The committee is also concerned that a nocebo response is developing, caused by the reproduction and dissemination of claims about adverse health impacts – claims not grounded in the peer-reviewed literature currently available.

Recommendation 2

3.51      The committee recommends that there should be no regulatory changes prior to the release of the NHMRC's assessment in 2013, as this would be premature.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page