EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Are Wind farms a Health Risk? US Scientist Identifies 'Wind Turbine Syndrome'
Noise and vibration coming from large turbines are behind an increase in heart disease, migraine, panic attacks and other health problems, according to research by an American doctor
Living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation, according to groundbreaking research to be published later this year by an American doctor.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. (Independent) Dr Nina Pierpont, a leading New York paediatrician, has been studying the symptoms displayed by people living near wind turbines in the US, the UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada for more than five years. Her findings have led her to confirm what she has identified as a new health risk, wind turbine syndrome (WTS). This is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear's vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia - increased heart rate. Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims. However, Dr Pierpont also makes it clear that not all people living close to turbines are susceptible.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. Acoustic engineers working for the wind energy companies and the Government say that aerodynamic noise produced by turbines pose no risk to health, a view endorsed recently by acousticians at Salford University. They have argued that earlier claims by Dr Pierpont are "imaginary" and are likely to argue that her latest findings are based on a sample too small to be authoritative.
At the heart of Dr Pierpont's findings is that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, rather like fish and other amphibians. That humans have the same sensitivity as fish is based on new discoveries made by scientists at Manchester University and New South Wales last year. This, she claims, overturns the medical orthodoxy of the past 70 years on which acousticians working for wind farms are using to base their noise measurements. "It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can't hear a sound, it's too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body," she said. "But this is no longer true. Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn't been shown in a well-conducted experiment."
In the UK, Dr Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society, who has also backed her research, said: "Dr Pierpont's detailed recording of the harm caused by wind turbine noise will lay firm foundations for future research. It should be required reading for all planners considering wind farms. Like so many earlier medical pioneers exposing the weaknesses of current orthodoxy, Dr Pierpont has been subject to much denigration and criticism and ... it is tribute to her strength of character and conviction that this important book is going to reach publication."
Dr Pierpont's thesis, which is to be published in October by K-Selected Books, has been peer reviewed and includes an endorsement from Professor Lord May, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government. Lord May describes her research as "impressive, interesting and important".
Her new material about the impact of turbine noise on health will be of concern to the Government given its plans for about 4,000 new wind turbines across the country. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has made wind power a central part of his new green policy to encourage renewable energy sources. Another 3,000 are planned off-shore.
Drawing on the early work of Dr Amanda Harry, a British GP in Portsmouth who had been alerted by her patients to the potential health risk, Dr Pierpont gathered together 10 further families from around the world who were living near large wind turbines, giving her a cluster of 38 people, from infants to age 75, to explore the pathophysiology of WTS for the case series. Eight of the 10 families she analysed for the study have now moved away from their homes.
In a rare interview, Dr Pierpont, a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told The Independent on Sunday: "There is no doubt that my clinical research shows that the infrasonic to ultrasonic noise and vibrations emitted by wind turbines cause the symptoms which I am calling wind turbine syndrome. There are about 12 different health problems associated with WTS and these range from tachycardia, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks with sensations of internal quivering to more general irritability.
"The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines." The IoS has a copy of the confidential manuscript which is exhaustive in its research protocol and detailed case series, drawing on the work of leading otolaryngologists and neurotologists - ear, nose and throat clinical specialists.
Some of the earliest research into the impact of low-frequency noise and vibrations was undertaken by Portuguese doctors studying the effects on military and civil personnel flying at high altitudes and at supersonic speed. They found that this exposure may also cause the rare illness, vibroacoustic disorder or VAD, which causes changes to the structure of certain organs such as the heart and lungs and may well be caused by vibrations from turbines. Another powerful side effect of turbines is the impact which the light thrown off the blades - known as flicker - has on people who suffer from migraines and epilepsy.
Campaigners have consistently argued that much research hitherto has been based on written complaints to environmental health officers and manufacturers, not on science-based research. But in Denmark, Germany and France, governments are moving towards building new wind farms off-shore because of concern over the potential health and environmental risks. In the UK there are no such controls, and a growing number of lobbyists, noise experts and government officials are also beginning to query the statutory noise levels being given to councils when deciding on planning applications from wind farm manufacturers. Lobbyists claim a new method of measuring is needed.
Dr Pierpont, who has funded all the research herself and is independent of any organisation, recommends at least a 2km set-back distance between potential wind turbines and people's homes, said: "It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies - and governments - to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.
"What I have shown in my research is that many people - not all - who have been living close to a wind turbine running near their homes display a range of health illnesses and that when they move away, many of these problems also go away."
A breakthrough into understanding more of the impact of vibrations came last year, she said, when scientists at Manchester University and Prince of Wales Clinical School and Medical Research Institute in Sydney showed that the normal human vestibular system has a fish or frog-like sensitivity to low-frequency vibration. This was a turning point in understanding the nature of the problem, Dr Pierpont added, because it overturns the orthodoxy of the current way of measuring noise. "It is clear from the new evidence that the methods being used by acousticians goes back to research first carried out in the 1930s and is now outdated."
Dr Pierpont added that the wind turbine companies constantly argue that the health problems are "imaginary, psychosomatic or malingering". But she said their claims are "rubbish" and that medical evidence supports that the reported symptoms are real.
Case study: 'My husband had pneumonia, my father-in-law had a heart attack. Nobody was ill before'
Jane Davis, 53, a retired NHS manager, and her husband, Julian, 44, a farmer, lived in Spalding, Lincolnshire, until the noise of a wind farm 930m away forced them to leave
"People describe the noise as like an aeroplane that never arrives. My husband developed pneumonia very quickly after the turbines went up, having never had chest problems before. We suffer constant headaches and ear nuisance. My mother-in-law developed pneumonia and my husband developed atrial fibrillation - a rapid heartbeat. He had no pre-existing heart disease. Our blood pressure has gone up. My father-in-law has suffered a heart attack, tinnitus and marked hearing loss.
" I understand this can be regarded as a coincidence, but nobody was ill before 2006."
The defence: 'Wind turbines are quiet and safe'
The British Wind Energy Association, UK's biggest renewable energy trade association, said last night: "One of the first things first-time visitors to wind farms usually say is that they are surprised how quiet the turbines are.
"To put things in context: the London Borough of Westminster registered around 300,000 noise complaints from residents in 2008, none from wind turbines. The total number of noise complaints to local councils across the country runs into millions.
"In contrast, an independent study on wind farms and noise in 2007 found only four complaints from about 2,000 turbines in the country, three of which were resolved by the time the report was published.
"Wind turbines are quiet, safe and sustainable. It is not surprising that, according to a DTI report, 94 per cent of people who live near wind turbines are in favour of them. There is no scientific research to suggest that wind turbines are in any way harmful, and even many of the detractors of wind energy are honest enough to admit this.
"Noise from wind farms is a non-problem, and we need to move away from this unproductive and unscientific debate, and focus on our targets on reducing carbon emissions."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

58 Comments so far
Show AllSwitch to the vertical axis systems. They're more cost-efficient anyways these days.
That is the way the Persians (ie Iranians) first developed windmills. The Persians were also good at air conditioning without heat pumps, as well as moving water around in underground tunnels. It might be a good idea to bring over some Iranian historians to help us with our energy development.
We might learn a lot from our 'enemies', if we weren't so busy torturing and killing them.
So true, and for what?
I would hardly be shocked to learn that there are many cheap, safe, easily accessed forms of energy which only the oil corporations know about.
That's interesting. So you think a corporation able to corner the market with a cheap form of energy would hide it? And why would they do it if the CAN corner the market with it?
no details, but corporations certainly would have reason to conceal or prohibit technologies or products upon which they could not corner the market...things the general public would be able to self-create or self-acquire...especially products or technologies that might directly compete with, and outperform, those of the corporation...that might even be available naturally, were they not controlled...
Going back in time. In WWI we didn't have aspirin because it came from Germany.
True. A few days ago I posted here as to how Cleveland had wind turbine generatars at the end of the NINETEENTH century feeding electrical power to the city. I'm sure Standard Oil had something to do with ending that bit of effrontry. The very idea that you can generate power without paying big oil something is un-american, don't cha know?
Can't see how vertical axis can be more cost efficient since they are typically installed at ground level, where there is only a fraction of the wind found eighty feet up.
"Mounting a turbine at ground level ... is a bit like mounting solar panels in the shade!"
A fraction of the wind means only a fraction of the electricity produced, thus virtually all commercial wind turbine installations use standard horizontal axis wind turbines at least eighty feet up a tower.
read "The Scoop on Vertical Axis Wind Turbines, Part II" at
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Energy-Matters-Vertical-Axis-Wind-Turbines-Debate.aspx
I read the article. I can't see any reason why vertical axis turbines, which can generate electricity with a 4mph wind, can't be installed 80 feet up. We are only limited by our lack of imagination.
good question. I'd also like to know why it isn't being done. I could not find a direct comparison of efficiency or noise when installed under equal conditions.
Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine vs. Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine
http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/renewable_energy/wind_turbine_axis.html
also discussions re elevating VAWT's on eighty foot poles in the comments section at end of previous article:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Energy-Matters-Vertical-Axis-Wind-Turbines-Debate.aspx#comments
Right on. And have you seen the maglev VAWT's?
http://www.magturbine.com/
One might eventually identify the fact that if it is BIG, it is probably bad for the small.
But: Much more research is needed!
Meanwhile we can carefully note how the rich isolate themselves from their MASSIVE undertakings.
Again though, caution is needed, much caution and research before we accuse the LARGE and the rich with any malfeasance.
Good will is undeniably universal and distributed equally amongst ALL humans, eg., the Constitution assures us of this. So we, who might be small, have to exercise extreme care before we do anything to them, just as they exercise such careful consideration of our rights...it's in the Constitution!
p.s. Such books as 'Small is Beautiful', by E.F. Schumacher, are heretical and should be burned.
How do wind farms compare to the sum total of everything else that provides our power today such as coal, nuclear plants etc.
Which would you rather have operating near you?
I think the choice is obvious.
But if the wind farms DID represent (ie., replaced) the SUM TOTAL of all those others, the distinct possibility exists that it (large scale wind power) might be just as disruptive and biologically harmful.
The obvious choice for me, is E): none of the above.
Wrong. Wind turbine technology is still in it's infancy. A scientist has discovered that by putiing certain types of bump shapes on turbine blades (from a study of whale fins), the efficiency increases 25% with the same rotating speed. Noise from rotating vanes is a function of speed. Make them larger so they turn slower and they are quiet. At any rate, the so called "wind farms" should be located on mountain ridges above bird flight and normally in cloud cover and far from populated areas. Most mountain ridges in the USA are on government land. Don't believe the negative hype. The wind turbine problems are easily solvable.
Excellent. Now if you ensure that the common people, perhaps coordinated through legitimate cooperative agencies (non-corporate) and much neighborly interaction, will be the ONLY ones to benefit and profit from and make use of wind power, positively I will be sold on it. A certain amount of energy of this type is essential I agree.
Good comment, AGG.
Are you citing any actual study or are you just typing off the top of your head.
Mountains generally get high, but not necessarily consistent wind - which is good, because wind development would hardly be compatible with the recreational, aesthetic, or wilderness usage typical of many mountain areas.
The best sites are plains and offshore. The Dakotas are the Saudi Arabia of wind.
Go to the US Government wind power potential map of the USA.
Google Whale fin bumps and wind power.
I can be as guilty as the next person of exagerating, but everything I said is backed up by US Government study AND the Icthyologist that discovered whale bumps increase fin efficiency.
And while I'm at it, why didn't you just do the above after reading my comment, rather than thinking I come here to bullshit people? I've commented often here and am not about to start pushing fairy stories.
Thank you Cygnus-X1-isaHole,
Wind Power = Nervous if you live right under it.
Coal Power = 75 million islanders homeless, and even more with new Lung Cancer.
I'll take door number One, thank you very much.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
It seems wind farms cause aging....
"People describe the noise as like an aeroplane that never arrives. My husband developed pneumonia very quickly after the turbines went up, having never had chest problems before. We suffer constant headaches and ear nuisance. My mother-in-law developed pneumonia and my husband developed atrial fibrillation - a rapid heartbeat. He had no pre-existing heart disease. Our blood pressure has gone up. My father-in-law has suffered a heart attack, tinnitus and marked hearing loss."
Those are all symptoms of age-related physical decline and illness. Without a reasonable number of randomly selected cases and a control this "study" is coal company propoganda. It's not even good fiction writing. Even under the turbines no sane person would describe the sound as "like an aeroplane."
Dr. Nina Pierpont has created a web site on this at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/
AFAIK, it does appear that this is an independent study, and not funded by Big-Oil, Big-Coal of Big-Nukes.
I considered wind turbines for our property and analyzed the wind patters for 12 months, but went with solar instead because I found even the small turbines to be too noisy.
Did you check out vertical axis wind turbines? They generate more energy with less wind and are quiet and safe for birds. The horizontal axis wind turbine is , relatively speaking, noisy and unstable in high winds.
Just curious . . . how did you find the wind turbines to be too noisy? Did you travel to various sites where different types were being used?
I don't know what they have in Britain, but I've stood underneath large windfarm turbines in the Midwest. They make a soft whooshing sound that you can't hear until you're very close, and no detectable vibration.
If, as is claimed, there is a negative health effect from sound frequencies and vibrations that can't be detected by the conscious mind, I'll bet it is less than the effect from living in the EMF zone near high-voltage power lines, or from living in the radiation zone near nuclear facilities.
Ther is no "radiation zone" near nuclear facilities. The radiation exposure at the plant fence is not measurably different from background. Recall that Chernobyl was first discovered in the west when Swedish nuclear plant workers set off alarms showing up to work from the tiny amounts of radionucleides on their clothing blown-in from the Chernobyl plant a few thousand miles away.
What a crock of chit. All nuke power plants vent. They have to. When a low pressure system comes into the area the 100 rubber seals may work correctly when the plant is new, and the filters may equalize pressure in the containment vessel, but just like old pressurized aircraft fuselages do when they get old, They are going to leak with age. Rancho Seco was constantly having problems and was finally shut down because all the rivers and areas downstream kept getting contaminated. The thing almost killed everybody in Sacramento:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station
All super safe systems eventually fail, if they are tended by the hand of man. The safest form of travel is the jet airliner, yet all model airliners ever designed have crashed except the brand news ones, and they will. It is insane to rely on a source of power that requires 100 percent perfect safety or else disaster befalls millions. My guess is this vibration study was paid for by the nuclear and oil industries.
Rooftop Residential solar owned by the people in the southern sunny states is the best answer (mixed with wind, geo and tidal.) Who cares what it costs? It doesn't leave the ground uninhabitable for six hundred years after a major accident like nuclear does.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
All nuclear facilities emit radioactive material during routine operation. (Not to mention failures and catastrophic events.) The closer you are to the plant, the greater your exposure. People living nearby receive a far greater dose than people living elsewhere.
Of course, industry and government say the levels are "safe." Just like fluoride, chlorine and pharmaceuticals in drinking water, pesticides in food, BPA in canned food, growth hormones, antibiotics and prions in factory-farmed meat, and genetically-modified organisms in food are said to be "safe."
Actually, I'm in New Mexico. Yes, I did get to "hear" several different designs of different capacities. Several through my work, and some installed on people's properties.
Don't get me wrong, I think windmills are great, but not in areas where silence or nature sounds predominate. Along freeways and major roads, industrial areas, close to the coast
I don't know about negative health effects of modern windmills, but I found the monotonic hum bothering, and in the smaller-sized units (2Kw or so) the RPMs do vary with wind speed, creating low-pass brown noise. If it sounded like a stream, wind in the trees or a waterfall, then it would be fine. But it is man-made, and that bothers me.
Here's an idea; how about broadcasting a soothing hum, by feathering the blades of some turbines, running them at different RPMs to other turbines on the windfarm. Kinda like making the strings of a violin vibrate at different frequencies.
wow, that's a good idea. they may be able to 'tune' the harmonics to cancle each other out.
i think we really need wind power too, but yea, there may very well be health effects. our industires love to be afarid of any negitvity rather then research and solve issues. But i don't trust this study either.
"...according to groundbreaking research to be published later this year by an American doctor."
The doctor got a lot of press for a promissory note with no description of the study or control groups, just some anecdotal notes. A website and a book does not validate this study, nor that it is independent.
A search of the medical literature did not disclose any papers by N. Pierpont or concerning wind turbine syndrome.
http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/03/wind-turbine-syndrome_12.html
Seems to me the answer, at least in the US, is fairly simple. Wind farm projects should include funds to compensate those who live within a certain distance so they can either sound proof their houses or they can move away.
Wind farming is a very profitable business, especially when subsidized, and it has a very low emission footprint, therefore it should be used until we develop efficient solar panels. Besides, I'm sure solar panels will be found to be harmful to some extent, and there will always be ludites criticizing whatever we invent to replace hydrocarbon and nuclear fuels.
Eh? Sound 'proof' the wind turbines or move THEM away! I value humans more than corporate profits.
I can see no reason a wind turbine needs to be within 10 miles of any human, even in the UK where space is more limited. Or are we going to have the "piles of dead birds" lie spring up again?
Now I've seen everything. An Oil company troll who cares about birds. Coal dust and oil spills are going to kill far more birds than collisions with wind farms. Besides, just like dogs and cats: give them a few generations where only the smart ones are having offspring.
Natural Selection will take care of your Red Herring sir. Dead birds or Dead planet...... hmmmmm tough choice here....
[Whoops, I take it back. I misread your post P_Shaw to my chargrin. I thought you were anti-wind power.
sorry.]
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I see. We need jet fighters practicing bombing runs (F16s are NOT quiet), commercial jet flights 24/7, houses next to truck routes and major expressways, but wind turbines are too noisy...
Vertical axis wind turbines ARE QUIET. Horizontal axis wind turbines can be made quiet by making the rotating blades much larger so they move much slower to produce the same amount of power. This is like saying trucks should not be built because they are too heavy to travel over muddy roads. It's absolute bullshit.
Good perspective.
Joe
I will note that this study has still not been peer reviewed, and still not supported by most other experts in this field.
Jeevee
Who do you consider are true "experts" in this field?
yea, typically the Dr. would publish in a trade journal not independentlly.
The answer to this one is simple. Either discover a way to minimize low frequency vibrational waves generated by the turbines (perhaps some sort of noise cancellation device aimed at the wind farm) or move the people away from the farms and compensate them. If you made a 5-10 mi (11-22km) area around wind farms a buffer zone, this wouldn't even be an issue. In the meanwhile coal-fired electricity plants generate enough pollution to affect everyone in hundreds of miles from it's location.
Really, all these big farms of wind turbines and solar panels are just another way to monetize something that should belong to the people. I don't see any reports mentioning harmful effects of a bank of solar panels and 2x 1kw small wind turbines near someone's home. Distributed energy generation doesn't make money for distributers of electricity and this is why we won't see a major effort toward building and integrating distributed generation and distributed power grid tech.
i like your inital answer. there may well be issue with low freq noise and large, horizontal turbines and we should study them and deal with the problem, not fight about whether there is a problem.
distributed energy has its issues too though. these wind farms use huge blades that turn very slowlly at low wind speed. Half the size of the blades and you get a fraction of the power output. Regardless of the technology.
even the Bluenergy mentioned above is spec'ed at 14mph avg wind! what home owner has that kind of condition less then 30yards in the air over his house?
By the way who's to say these electric waves from giant transmission towers are harmless?
Oh this is interesting. Posted near the article "Wind Farms not the Answer". Looks like you 'free-thinkers' are being given your new marching orders. Wind turbines bad. Wind turbines bad. Also with a few subtle hints in each article.
"No, knuckleheads! The point was not to have green energy! The point was to stop growth and development! Sheesh!"
Vertical axis wind turbines are much more efficient than these archaic bird killing, health destroying models.
Take a look at these new models that combine vertical axis wind turbines with solar panels to get the best of both:
http://www.bluenergyusa.com/index.html
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -R. Buckminster Fuller
The real reason stories like this are coming out is this:
The boom in power generated by wind turbines and other renewable sources has been unprecedented. For the first time in 2008 the majority of the increase in electricity production in the US and the European Union came from renewable sources.
Big Oil's wallet is getting pinched. Hence the PR counterattack.
Also in the news:
Lightning makes noisy thunder and frightens children.
I lived in Emden, Germany for a year as an exchange student. During my time there my host family's house overlooked a canal and a windmill farm. They were silent, and probably a mile away from the house. I actually found it soothing to sit by the creek and overlook the countryside scattered with windmills.
What we need is more fossil and nukes. That way we die before the wind farms drive us crazy.