Mar 4, 2011

Editor’s introduction:  It’s been over a year since Nina Pierpont published, “Wind Turbine Syndrome:  A report on a natural experiment” (K-Selected Books, 2009).  In those 16 months, the book has riveted people’s attention around the world—as this website amply illustrates.  It’s been translated into 6 foreign languages, with Danish and Czech translations currently underway.  Making it 8.  It’s sold thousands of copies.  And it has been featured in countless newspapers (including the Wall St Journal, France’s Le monde, and The Huffington Post), magazines, TV newscasts, radio programs, and so on.  And, increasingly, it’s appearing in clinical articles.

In short, it has become the benchmark analysis of what is now uniformly called Wind Turbine Syndrome (a term Pierpont coined).

Last fall, Nina was the keynote speaker at the First International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects and Industrial Wind Turbines (Ontario, Canada).  Here, the Society for Wind Vigilance, an international association of scientists and clinicians, with loud huzzahs presented her with its ”Excellence in Research & Leadership” award.

There is another side to this story.  If you can imagine this story as the equivalent of the biblical David & Goliath fable, then everything said, above, is “David’s” side.  The “little guy” armed only with slingshot and, as it happened, one heck of a well-aimed stone.

Then there’s Goliath, the blustering bellowing larger-than-life multi-billion-dollar overblown corporate object of that well-aimed stone.  The Global Wind Industry.  ”Clean, Green, Renewable” Big Wind.

Big Wind has tried its damnest to bury Pierpont and her book.  The American Wind Energy Association, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, the British Wind Energy Association, endless hirelings and shills and self-styled environmental blogs and Global Warmist Jeremiahs & Jihadists—have ridiculed, scorned, assailed, crucified, pilloried, twisted, tarred & feathered, pummeled, huffed & puffed, and otherwise endeavored to discredit both book and author.  (A spectacle at once appalling and hilarious.  The Great Wind Energy Opera, as it’s known in our household.)

The stone hit home.

In her first chapter, Nina explains the scholarly process known as “peer review.”  (Big Wind’s bombast regarding “peer review” has been the most entertaining aspect of this whole comedy.  These guys wouldn’t know a “peer review” from a beer can.) Pierpont notes that the report, in fact, was peer reviewed.  What’s more, the reviewers (called “referees,” in academia) prompted her to change, elaborate on, further examine and flesh out issues she had not originally intended and was frankly unaware of.  It was because of a rigorous peer review process that the report took at least another 6 months to complete.

Be that as it may, Nina ended her discussion with a caution:

That said, the litmus test of scientific validity is not peer review, which, after all, is not infallible, as the history of science amply demonstrates. Peer review is an important first step in judging scientific or scholarly merit. Still, the ultimate test is whether other scientists can follow the author’s research protocol and get the same results, or if different lines of research point to the same conclusions.

That, of course, remains to be seen with this report.

—Nina Pierpont, “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (2009), p. 16.

That no longer remains to be seen.  Dr. Sarah Laurie’s submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry on Rural Wind Farms confirms Pierpont’s data in spades!  Many times over!  Peer review is merely a predictor or value; independent research which turns up the identical data is confirmatory.  Let there be no more whining by Big Wind that Wind Turbine Syndrome is a NIMBY myth, an anecdote, a nocebo.

Now, let the lawsuits begin in earnest.

Meanwhile, here is Dr. Laurie’s magisterial report.  Short, succinct, not a wasted word throughout, on point, passionate, professional, brilliant—and appalling.  The story she tells of WTS victims throughout rural Australia is nothing short of horrendous.  Read and weep.

Read this and hope the Australia Federal Senate has the courage to end this nightmare.  Stupid, foolish, egregious, criminal nightmare.  It’s time to ring down the curtain on The Great Wind Energy Opera insofar as it insists on taking place in people’s backyards.

A final word.  Pierpont ended her report with a 2 km punchline.  ”Industrial turbines,” she concluded from her data, “need to be setback a minimum of 2 km from people’s homes.”

Dr. Laurie disagrees.  Her data leads her to call for 10 km.

Sarah Laurie, MD, Medical Director
The Waubra Foundation

·

The following is a selection of key sections from Dr. Sarah Laurie’s Submission to the Australian Federal Senate. For the complete report, click here (35 pp).  Note that highlighted and underscored passages in the text, below, faithfully reproduce Laurie’s highlighting throughout her original text.  Readers can find the author’s references at the end of her report (see “click here,” above).
·

» Executive Summary

1. There are reports from around the world of people living adjacent to wind turbine developments becoming unwell with the same range of symptoms
2. The few studies which have been done by concerned medical clinicians have consistently found these problems
3. The medical evidence which exists from Dr Pierpont’s landmark peer reviewed case series cross over study clearly links exposure to turbines with the symptoms being described
4. Not all adjacent residents are affected
5. Some developments appear to have more seriously affected residents than others
6. Some residents are affected immediately, others are progressively affected over weeks to months of constant exposure
7. Chronic exposure appears to have a cumulative effect
8. The time taken to achieve full resolution of symptoms is proportional to the time exposed to turbines
9. Not all symptoms are reversible after chronic exposure, when affected residents move away
10. Some extremely ill residents in desperation have signed confidentiality agreements with wind developers, who have purchased their properties, in exchange for agreeing not to talk publicly about their health problems, in order to leave their homes and regain their health.
11. Residents are describing symptoms from a distance of up to 10km away from the nearest turbine
12. Elevations of blood pressure associated with proximity to operating turbines are an emerging issue
13. Some people appear particularly vulnerable to developing wind turbine syndrome symptoms, and they include children and the elderly
14. There a number of possible mechanisms for these symptoms and they include but are not limited to:
    • Audible noise causing chronic sleep deprivation (we know from affected residents that wind turbines can be very noisy, both upwind and downwind)
    • Wind turbine specific pulsatile infrasound and low frequency noise causing many of the symptoms of wind turbine syndrome (probable, based on current but limited experimental evidence, and recent measurement of wind turbine specific pulsatile infrasound )
    • Possible health effects from electromagnetic radiation issues in a few specific cases—in situ measurement required initially in these homes to determine if this is an issue for further investigation

» Recommendations

1. There is an urgent need for further INDEPENDENT medical, acoustic and scientific research, looking specifically at the populations affected by the currently constructed and operating wind developments in Australia
2. An immediate temporary halt in construction of wind turbines closer than 10 km to human habitation until adequate research is completed, in order to determine what is a safe setback of turbines from homes and workplaces
3. Current planning and noise guidelines will need to be updated on the basis of this new knowledge
4. There should be an immediate ban on the operation of wind turbines on days of high, extreme and catastrophic fire danger, because of the difficulties in fighting such fires, and the risk to lives should such a fire occur
5. Measurement of wind turbine specific infrasound and low frequency sound needs to be included in post construction noise assessments, and ALL these assessments MUST be performed by experienced Acousticians who are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the wind developers

» Relevant Literature

I will not go into the details of my personal literature review here, but instead refer everyone to the recent scholarly work on this topic submitted to this inquiry by my Canadian colleague, Dr Robert McMurtry, with which I concur. Dr McMurtry is the cofounder of an organization with similar aims to the Waubra Foundation in Canada, called the Society for Wind Vigilance (windvigilance.com). The Society convened the first International Symposium of the Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines in Ontario, in late October last year, which I attended.

Nor will I comment specifically on the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council document entitled the “Rapid Review of the Evidence” relating to the adverse health effects of wind turbines which was released in July 2010. This document has been extensively critiqued by others, including the Society for Wind Vigilance (please see Haste Makes Waste, on windvigilance.com). I will say that after reading that NH&MRC document when it was released in July 2010, I became extremely concerned for a number of reasons:

• Its heavy reliance on what were obviously wind industry sponsored “reports/reviews/studies” where there was an obvious conflict of interest, without the author(s) appearing to perceive this.
• The way in which the unknown author(s) dismissed Dr Pierpont’s work – it was not clear to me that the author(s) had actually read and understood Dr Pierpont’s study, or read the detailed case study / raw data section of her book.  Their criticisms of her work appeared to mimic wind industry comments, rather than a thorough critical analysis of the one detailed peer reviewed study available, by a qualified medical practitioner.
• There did not seem to be any understanding that there was “no evidence” because so little research had been done, rather than that there was “no problem”.
• The lack of identity of the author(s). I am particularly interested to find out if a medical practitioner or practitioners, experienced in taking clinical histories from patients, were part of this rapid review. To date, the author(s) of this review remain a mystery.

Despite these and other serious inadequacies which have been highlighted by many nationally and internationally, this NH&MRC report in particular has been extensively relied upon publicly by the wind industry, despite employees in the industry clearly being aware of these health problems when they have signed agreements with ‘gag’ clauses, with affected residents. Some wind industry employees have privately admitted this to me, and encouraged me with the Waubra Foundation’s work, as they also know this current situation is wrong, and should not be allowed to continue.

This NH&MRC document has also been extensively relied upon by politicians and public servants at all levels of Government in Australia. In particular, the respective health and planning politicians and public servants have kept referring to it, concurrently ignoring the escalating reports of ill health they are directly receiving from affected residents, without making any plans to commission or fund any independent research to investigate these serious health concerns, or any plans to change current planning guidelines which determine appropriate siting of wind turbine developments. In my opinion, this situation cannot be allowed to continue.

» Studies by Medical Clinicians Involving Affected Residents

There have been an increasing number of reports from around the world particularly in the last 10 years, of people adjacent to wind developments developing a range of symptoms not previously described in the medical literature. At the same time the turbines are getting taller, the blades longer, both factors increasing their power output but also their noise emissions, and they are being built closer to larger rural populations, in order to be close to transmission lines.

The first Medical Practitioner to describe the new illness in a formal study was a UK rural GP (Dr Amanda Harry), who carried out a community survey after her patients presented to her with new symptoms and health problems, which they developed after large wind turbines commenced operation near her village in Cornwall.

Subsequently an Australian GP Dr David Iser (Toora, Victoria) documented the same range of conditions, using Dr Harry’s initial survey form. Follow up work by the Canadian Wind Vigilance Society’s WindVOICE, cofounded by Dr Robert McMurtry, used Dr Amanda Harry’s survey as a basis for their self reporting survey, and found exactly the same range of symptoms being reported, in rural Ontario (please see windvigilanc.com for the WindVOICE survey reports).

Dr Nina Pierpont (an American Rural Paediatrician) progressed the research by performing the landmark study which examined the individual case histories of the members of 10 families from around the world, who had lived adjacent to wind developments, and become so unwell that they needed to leave their homes.

She meticulously recorded details of their health prior to, during, and after exposure to the turbines, after they had left their homes because of severe ill health in one or more family members. What she described was a pattern of symptoms which developed or were exacerbated by the operation of the turbines, and which disappeared when the subjects left their homes, only to return again when they returned back to their homes. She called the constellation of symptoms “Wind Turbine Syndrome”. Her study, together with the raw data / case histories, has been published in a book with the same name, available from windturbinesyndrome.com, and submitted by her to the Senate Inquiry.

Unfortunately, these practicing clinician’s reports and studies to date have been completely ignored by health authorities globally, who continue to prefer to rely particularly on wind industry sponsored reviews or “independent” studies, for example the AWEA/CanWEA funded review by Colby et al (2009), without seeming to understand there is a major conflict of interest. Dr Robert McMurtry also highlights this important point, in his submission to the Senate.

Other researchers including acousticians and medical sociologists have completed large studies on noise and annoyance, (particularly in Scandinavia). At times, they have purported to examine “health effects”. I refer readers again to Dr McMurtry’s report to the Senate for his discussion of this literature.

I note Dr Pierpont’s letter to Dr Leventhall on the matter of acousticians commenting on medical diagnoses, submitted as part of her evidence. I can only concur with her words. Acousticians and Medical Sociologists are not medical practitioners, they are not trained to elicit symptoms or detect new illnesses. As they do not have the requisite specific training in taking a symptom history from a patient, and assessing the meaning of those symptom descriptions, they are in no position to make any comments on the accuracy or otherwise of the diagnostic and symptom descriptions of Dr Harry, Dr Iser, or Dr Pierpont’s work, nor are they in a position to accurately and thoroughly carry out such an assessment themselves.

Dr Pierpont’s detractors claim her study is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes, which is untrue—it is a case series cross over design, which clearly shows the changes which occurred in those subjects with exposure to the turbines, and what happened after they left (almost complete resolution of the symptoms).

Detractors claim it is not peer reviewed, which is also untrue, it has been extensively reviewed and refereed by a number of eminent peers, experts in their particular field (also published in the book, and submitted by Dr Pierpont in her evidence to this Senate Inquiry).

Detractors also denigrate it for being self published. Dr Pierpont’s reasons for doing this were multiple; the study itself was too long to be published in a peer reviewed medical journal, and it was impossible to cut it down further without compromising the completeness of the study. PhD papers are in a similar position—they are far too long to be published in a journal, but they are important bodies of work which are also peer reviewed, and contribute to new knowledge about a particular subject.

She was also keen to make it freely available to the many affected people across the world, who were contacting her for information, at the lowest possible price. After seeking advice from colleagues, Dr Pierpont decided her study was most valuable accompanied with the case histories or raw data, as much of the description of these new symptoms needed to be in the subject’s own words to retain maximum accuracy.

Dr Pierpont was also keen for her work to be accessible to lay people with no understanding of medical concepts. This was to help affected residents understand as much as possible about the illness they or their relatives were experiencing; including the symptoms, and the known science at the time which could help to explain the symptoms.

Dr Pierpont did not claim her work was the only work required on the topic, she clearly outlined the need for further research, to determine the exact mechanisms for causation of these symptoms, particularly involving low frequency sound (20 ‐ 200 Hz) and infrasound (0‐20 Hz). Her book has now been published in multiple different languages, testament to both the importance of her clinical research, and the extent of the increasing epidemic of wind turbine syndrome across the world.

After listening now to many affected residents in Australia and some in Canada, it is my experience that Dr Pierpont’s reports of patient’s own descriptions of their symptoms in her study are identical to those being described to me by affected residents in Australia; most of whom had no prior knowledge of her, or her work.

Other Medical Practitioners who have subsequently become concerned and involved in the international research effort include Dr Robert McMurtry (Canada), Dr Michael Nissenbaum (USA), Dr Christopher Hanning (UK), and Dr Noel Kerin (Canada).

Some of the Acousticians with extensive experience in this field of work who are independent of the wind industry and very concerned about what is going on include Dr Bob Thorne (Australia & NZ), Mr Rick James (USA), Mr George Kamperman(USA), and Dr Daniel Shepherd (New Zealand). There are other Acousticians, similarly independent of the wind industry, who are also very concerned.

The most recent completed clinical research done was done by Dr Michael Nissenbaum, and involved data collected from two wind turbine developments in North America, at Maine and Vinalhaven. Dr Nissenbaum presented some of this research at the conference in Ontario in October. It is now awaiting publication in a peer reviewed journal, and hence is not yet in the public domain.

In it he showed that there is a clear relationship between the distance a turbine is from a home, and various health indicators of residents, which included sleep quality, depression, and quality of life (using internationally validated questionnaires).

» My Field Observations in Australia

The symptoms and health problems well described by the doctors mentioned above, are absolutely identical to the symptoms which have been described to me, in my interviews with over 60 affected residents from wind developments in NSW (Cullerin, Crookwell and Capital), Victoria (Toora, Cape Bridgewater and Waubra) and South Australia (Mt Bryan & Waterloo). Information from those interviews have been provided to this Senate Inquiry confidentially in a deidentified state, in order to further protect individual privacy.

Many of these individuals I have interviewed had never heard of Dr Nina Pierpont, or Wind Turbine Syndrome. Indeed, I too had not read her book before I interviewed the first thirty residents, but this was deliberate, so I was able to approach their interviews with a completely open mind. My first question was “Have you noticed any changes since the turbines started operating in your area?”. Further clarification was sought as necessary. Some of these interviews have been conducted over the phone, and on multiple occasions. They are an ongoing work in progress, and are being used to determine future research priorities for independent researchers to pursue.

Many people I have interviewed had no idea that these symptoms they had individually noticed were in any way related to the turbines. Their knowledge of their symptoms has been greatly informed by starting to keep personal health journals, which have enabled them to see the connections between turbine operation and their symptoms.

This has had the additional benefit of assisting some of their GP’s to also see the connections, in particular with blood pressure changes.

I have now spoken directly with Rural Medical Practitioners (General Practitioners and Specialists) from Portland, Ballarat, Clunes, Toora, and Bungendore, who are concerned about the symptoms being experienced and the deteriorating health and sleep patterns of their patients.

The symptoms are characterised by developing after the turbines commence operating in their neighbourhood, and are being noted up to 10km away from the nearest turbines in both South Australia (Mt Bryan & Waterloo) and New South Wales (Cullerin).

Sometimes people develop symptoms straight away, but more commonly nothing is noticed for a few weeks to months apart from the audible noise, and the general pattern is that slowly, symptoms seem to progress in severity.

Sometimes people have described a particular event of exposure where they felt very unwell, and after that they seem to become rapidly worse in terms of symptoms experienced. Often people describe only realizing how unwell they have felt when they go away for over a week, and it is when they return that they suddenly notice the symptoms return, seemingly worse than before.

Some preexisting conditions such as migraines, high blood pressure and tinnitus are noted by affected residents to get worse, with exposure to turbines. It is important to note that not everyone is adversely affected by the turbines. This individual variability is also noted in laboratory experiments which examine the effect of infrasound on blood pressure and heart rate (Qibai & Shi), and work performance (Perrson Waye et al).

The longer people are exposed to the turbines (months – years), the longer it is taking for their symptoms to disappear, if they move away. Disturbingly, some people are reporting that some symptoms appear to be persisting, even after they have not lived at their homes for over a year. These particularly include tinnitus, extreme noise sensitivity (hyperacusis) and impaired memory.

In my experience, residents who are affected and have lived near turbine developments for more than 6 months, are generally able to accurately predict which direction the wind is blowing from by the symptoms they are experiencing, and can also tell without looking whether or not the turbines are operating, on the basis of the symptoms they are experiencing, even when they cannot hear or see the turbines.

Symptoms which have been described to me by Australian affected residents include but are not limited to the following:

Severe chronic sleep deprivation:

• • from the audible turbine noise,
  • from waking up anxious and hyperalert, in a panicked state, for no good reason, and often a number of times a night. They describe being so instantly awake that it takes a long time to get back to sleep again. These residents often tell me that they cannot hear the audible turbine noise at the time
  • from markedly increased nocturnal urination – often experienced by many people at the same time in the same household
  • for parents, newly disturbed sleep of their children is an additional contributor to their own sleep deprivation, and this can include regular bedwetting (when previously dry at night for some years) and waking up with night terrors
  • waking up in the morning not remembering that they had woken up, but nevertheless not feeling at all refreshed
  • trying to get to sleep, or back to sleep having been woken up during the night, in a bed which is literally vibrating

Severe frequent headaches:

• • describing their head feeling as if it was “in a vice”, or with a “tight swimming cap on” (some children also badly affected by this, having previously rarely suffered from headaches)
  • significant exacerbation of the frequency and severity of their migraines, particularly but not exclusively from shadow flicker. Some people describe their migraines being triggered by just a few seconds of shadow flicker, enough to put them out of action for 24 hours
  • frequent severe headaches in children who have never previously complained of them

tinnitus (buzzing/ringing in one or both ears, both new onset and exacerbation of a pre-existing condition)

ear pressure sensations (in one or both ears, uncomfortable and sometimes painful, especially if previous tympanic membrane surgery & scarring)

hyperacusis (extreme noise sensitivity to ‘normal’ sounds)

nausea (sometimes severe)

motion sickness, vertigo symptoms, and balance disturbances, particularly with residents aged over 60 with chronic exposure

visual blurring, which only occurs with turbine operation. Some are also describing sensitivity to flouro lights, particularly in supermarkets, where they are unable to see detail in people’s faces

irritability, extreme anger, and other mood disturbances

• • this is also being described by current and former workers on the turbines, or is being observed by their partners. These individuals do not generally have the additional night time exposure to operating turbines, unless they also live adjacent to the turbine development.

memory and cognitive deficits,

• • increase with prolonged exposure, and do not always completely resolve with relocation away from the turbines
  • particularly being noted in relation to school children living and/or attending school close to turbines, by parents and by teachers. Appear to resolve (according to parents) with relocation of home and attending a different school in an area not exposed to turbines

depression, sometimes severe, with suicidal ideation

anxiety, sometimes acutely severe, with episodes of extreme panic, sometimes waking them up at night (as mentioned previously, children are waking with night terrors, and bed wetting, never previously experienced)

high blood pressure (hypertension) which can be a new problem, or an exacerbation of a previous condition, and which is sometimes occurring in conjunction with other symptoms suggestive of an acute hypertensive crisis

tachycardia, coinciding with turbine operation

body vibrations, which people describe particularly in their chest, their abdomen, their lower limbs whilst in bed, and also their upper lip. Sometimes this upper lip vibration is visible to others

» Recent Developments

Most recently in Australia and in Canada I have heard multiple descriptions of angina, chest tightness, and heart attacks occurring when the turbines are operating. These have occurred at a number of different wind developments, in all three states, and require urgent further thorough investigation and analysis. I am hearing from my Canadian colleagues that the same reports are emerging there, in addition to the ones I heard about directly from affected residents in Ontario in October 2010.

Some heart attacks are occurring in patients who do not appear to have any signs of arterial blockage from subsequent angiograms, performed by their treating cardiologists. There is a condition which is now described as Tako Tsubo, in which sudden shock is causing myocardial dysfunction, and recent Japanese research has highlighted the role which stress hormones including adrenaline appear to be playing in this condition. There is also experimental research which has shown an increase in secretion of stress hormones including cortisol and adrenaline, and also evidence of myocardial damage in animals subjected to infrasound exposure. (NIEHS Toxicology of Infrasound review, 2001)

At Waubra particularly, a number of affected residents have started measuring their blood pressures at multiple times during the day and overnight, and some are finding that both their blood pressures and their heart rates are markedly elevated when the turbines are operating, but decrease when either they are away from home, or when the turbines are turned off for any length of time (days). Many of these patients did not have high blood pressure prior to the turbines operating, as measured by their GPs in their surgeries. Some of the blood pressure increases being reported to me include an increase in systolic blood pressure of up to 80mm Hg when the turbines are operating.

Below is an extract from an email sent to me recently by an affected resident, who has realized that his blood pressure problems could be connected with the turbines:

Last night was the first night for a month that we had constant westerlies. Noise was low to average. However the BP readings are of interest. 6 weeks ago at my regular medical, my blood pressure was 120/75. Last night on arriving home from a day out, it was 107/78; and 12 hours later after a night of constant turbine noise, 150/79.

I have also been told of episodes of extremely high blood pressure in conjunction with severe headaches and nausea, a sensation of one’s heart leaping out of one’s chest, and a “sense of impending doom”.  This clinical description is identical to that described by patients experiencing acute hypertensive crises.

Such a clinical condition has previously been described in conjunction with the clinical use of excess adrenaline, and with a very rare adrenal tumour called a phaeochromocytoma. In some of the affected residents where this clinical situation has been described, both these explanations for their symptoms have been positively excluded. The cause of these episodes is still unknown. One affected resident has had five episodes of this, only ever occurring when the turbines are turning.

Further independent research is urgently required, as some of these clinical effects are occurring at greater distances than previously described (especially some of the body vibrations). Specifically, hypertension in conjunction with turbine operation has been reported up to 5km away, and body vibrations and nocturnal wakening in a panicked state up to 10km.

Acousticians independent of the wind industry have confirmed to me that when these large modern turbines are placed on ridges, and there is a temperature inversion effect or cloudy weather, sound waves (audible and infrasound) they generate could certainly travel that distance, particularly in the weather conditions described.

» Observed Mental Health Issues

Specific mention needs to be made of the extent and severity of psychiatric morbidity being described by affected residents. This is very noticeable, and is evident both in the populations currently exposed to turbines, but also those who are the subject of proposed developments. I believe the social division which is created and amplified by the activities and strategies of the wind developers (including specifically the confidentiality agreements and the secrecy which surrounds the proposals) is directly responsible for much of this morbidity.

I have been told on many occasions by affected residents that it has destroyed the long standing close knit fabric of all the small communities I have been to, and has set family members and old friends against each other, divided church congregations and school communities, and created rifts in important rural social and service networks such as the CWA, the CFA/CFS, to name just a few examples.

Residents of rural communities in Australia already have significant stressors, including the effect of the long term drought which has recently been experienced in much of south eastern Australia, followed by the recent floods. They are significantly disadvantaged with respect to access to health care, particularly mental health care. They do not need the extra burden of serious psychiatric illness which these turbine developments are currently contributing to. There is an urgent need to properly assess, measure and describe what is actually going on in these communities with respect to mental health issues, and to ensure that the appropriate help is made available.

The most positive start would be formal acknowledgement that these are serious psychiatric illnesses, rather than being dismissed as “psychosomatic”. For too long, non medical professionals (medical sociologists and acousticians particularly) with no clinical diagnostic expertise or training have dominated the analysis, discussion, and study of these problems.

» The Nocebo Argument

There is no experimental or study data which support the wind industry assertion that these symptoms are due to the “nocebo” effect.

In my experience, many of the affected residents currently living adjacent to turbine developments actually supported the turbines coming in to their community, and some worked on the turbine construction.

In my judgement, assertions of the nocebo effect in these circumstances is evidence of a culture of victim blaming which is pervasive within the industry, rather than a valid scientific hypothesis.

» Why has this research not yet been done, anywhere in the world?

I believe the issue of the adverse health effects of wind turbines has not yet been properly examined by my Medical colleagues with the exception of the people already mentioned, because they have been unaware that there was a problem.

I believe there has been an organized effort on the part of the wind industry to keep this issue of adverse health effects out of the public arena, by the combined use of:

1. Deliberate ‘spin’ and misinformation, particularly on the part of the wind industry bodies e.g. the Clean Energy Council in Australia (for example comments such as “after 20 years and 100,000 turbines there have been no problems” despite members of this industry being party to ‘gag’ agreements
2. ‘Shooting the messenger’ in the form of attempting to intimidate or discredit the clinicians who have identified problems. I have experienced both, on multiple occasions, from wind industry and government representatives
3. By the use of confidentiality agreements with some of the affected residents, who have signed these agreements which prevent them from speaking publicly about their health problems.

I have direct knowledge of these confidentiality agreements occurring in multiple sites with different developers in Australia, and in Canada, and have been advised by my colleagues internationally of this widespread and longstanding industry practice elsewhere.

» Failures of Process & Regulation and the consequent effects on mental health of affected residents

In my experiences listening to the stories of affected residents across south eastern Australia, the overwhelming impression I have is one of collective anger and deep despair at being lied to, ignored, or arrogantly dismissed, by both wind developers, their consultants, their lawyers, and politicians and bureaucrats, particularly those in health, environment and planning departments at all layers of government (Federal, State and Local).

There are a few notable exceptions, where individuals have taken affected residents seriously, but they are very few indeed.

The direct health consequence of this failure has been an escalation of the significant mental health problems which have previously been described. These are occurring in people already living adjacent to the turbines, but they are also occurring in significant numbers in those populations who are confronted with a proposed development in their “backyard”.

Many people I have spoken to in such situations describe it as being “akin to a war”, consuming every waking moment, not to mention considerable financial resources, if available. They also describe feeling utterly abandoned by the authorities such as the health department and the EPA, who are meant to be there to protect the health and well being of all individuals, but particularly those vulnerable individuals such as the elderly, and the children.

For example, I am told by all the affected residents I have spoken with that they have never been contacted by any state or federal health bureaucrat, apart from receiving letters telling them “there is no evidence” that they could be suffering from the health problems they describe. Some have also been told this by their doctors. I understand how this situation has arisen, given the lack of research, with the exception of the studies previously mentioned, but such disbelief has only perpetuated the trauma of their experiences.

I have met with such health bureaucrats, or have sometimes received correspondence from them. None of the health officials I have met with to date had actually read the studies I have referred to, particularly Dr Nina Pierpont’s study.

I have been told by them they will “monitor developments” and “it is only a few people anyway”. Another response has been that it is “for the greater good” of the community – this has also been enshrined in some Australian court judgements, and planning decisions.

Consequently affected rural residents are feeling utterly abandoned, desperate, and very angry, as well as feeling very unwell, mentally and physically. Many have been significantly financially impoverished by their experiences. One couple I know of are effectively homeless, as they become so sick within minutes to hours of returning home, if the turbines are turning. They would be homeless if it wasn’t for the kindness of friends and relations.

I sincerely hope that the deliberations of this Senate Committee will result in their voices being heard, and significant and urgent action being taken.

I believe independent scientifically conducted research is the ONLY way to progress this issue, with the competing and conflicting interests of all the parties involved.

3 Comments »