For
many years, an unfounded assertion about wind power has thwarted the
best of debunking efforts. That is the claim that wind turbine sound--in
particular "infrasound," which normally cannot be heard, but which can
come from turbines as well as many other sources in the natural and
human environment--has some mysterious characteristic causing a wide
variety of illnesses.
Government studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the
U.S.--many of which you will find in the list of references below--have
all found no evidence of any mechanism by which wind turbine sound could
actually have a direct physical effect on the human body. Instead, as
an independent panel of expert acousticians commissioned by AWEA and the
Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) reported in late 2009, the
evidence suggests that a person's own psychological concerns (annoyance,
fear, anger, etc.) are responsible for the symptoms reported by some
wind project neighbors.
Now, two new studies--one from New Zealand appearing in a
peer-reviewed journal, one from Australia released for comment prior to
publication--have strongly bolstered this suggested explanation. In so
doing, they point toward the conclusion that the power of suggestion, in
the form of the spreading of unscientific, poorly documented "studies,"
rumors about them, and anecdotal information, is far more likely to be
responsible for the ailments complained of than wind turbine sound.
Taken together, the studies provide strong evidence that the maladies
ascribed to wind turbine sound result from what is called the "nocebo"
(like placebo) effect, in which individuals who are led to expect
symptoms from some stimulus experience those symptoms whether the
stimulus is actually present or not.
The first study, published in Health
Psychology, a journal of the American Psychological Association, by
Crichton et al., examined the question of whether symptoms could result
from information given to subjects about wind turbine infrasound. The study's abstract summarizes the procedure and findings:
"Method: A sham-controlled double-blind provocation study, in which
participants were exposed to 10 min of infrasound and 10 min of sham
infrasound, was conducted. Fifty-four participants were randomized 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. Results: High-expectancy participants reported significant
increases, from preexposure 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. Conclusions: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the
expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms that
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."
The second
study, by Simon Chapman, a Professor of Public Health at the University
of Sydney, examines the timing and number of health complaints
registered by neighbors, about turbine sound, over a 20-year period (1993-2012) at all of the 49 wind farms in Australia. Among Mr. Chapman's findings:
- The number of those complaining amounted to just 1 in 272 residents within a 5-kilometer radius of the wind farms.
- Complaints were highly concentrated (81 of a grand total of 120
complaints filed) around five wind projects which have been heavily
criticized by anti-wind groups.
- No complaints at all have been made about 31 of the 49 wind farms.
According to Dr. Chapman's report, "The 31 farms with no histories of
complaints, and which today have some 21,530 residents within 5km of
their turbines, have operated for a cumulative total of 256 years."
- Complaints escalated sharply after 2009, when anti-wind groups
began stressing health concerns in their publicity about proposed
projects.
Slate columnist Keith
Kloor, in a recent article on the two studies and others, provides a
number of useful links and examples of other cases in which the nocebo
effect appears prevalent, such as the long-running scare about
electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation. Concludes Mr. Kloor, "In the
United States, paranoia over EMF seems to have died down in recent
years, though there are plenty of dead-enders who still flog the issue.
Those who might have been inclined to fret about the danger of power
lines may now instead be focusing their fears on cellphones. (This
subset of chronic worriers should know that everything gives you
cancer.)"
The studies also help to explain:
- Why one self-published author, who coined the term "wind turbine
syndrome" to describe the various physical complaints some neighbors of
wind farms reported, has been unable to narrow the symptoms down to a
specific list, as is commonly done with other medical conditions so that
they may be diagnosed.
- Why the list
of ailments, both human and animal, ascribed to turbine sound is so
vast. Mr. Chapman maintains an ongoing list, with the number now
topping 200. It's a remarkable range of allegations, given that
hundreds of thousands of people around the world work and live within or
near wind farms without reporting ill effects.
The studies also provide a clear rationale for urging that anti-wind
groups tone down the apocalyptic rhetoric they often employ and that
media use more caution in their reporting on wind farm controversies.
They may be unwittingly causing and spreading not only distrust, but
physical illness. As the New Zealand study's lead author Fiona Crichton
says in an article, "How the power of suggestion generates wind farm symptoms," about her work, "Arecent study has
shown that media reporting about health effects and wind farms in
Ontario, Canada, contain factors likely to induce fear, anxiety and
concern. Thus the media must take particular care that they are not
creating and perpetuating health complaints attributed to wind farms."
Further coverage of the studies:
Sydney Morning Herald, Wind turbine sickness 'all in the mind': study
Metro Toronto, Wind farms don't make you sick, anti-wind-farm activists do, researcher says
DeSmogBlog, Research Finds Wind Farm Health Concerns Probably Caused by Anti-Wind Scare Campaigns
EarthTechling (blog), Wind Farm Illnesses Linked to Anti-Wind Farm Lobbying
Environmental Defence (Canada) (blog), Why fear-mongering about windmills is bad for our health
Re-post from AWEA's blog by Tom Gray
Friday, March 22, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment