Literature Review 2013 Association Between Wind Turbine Noise and Human Distress Grey Bruce Health Unit

Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 2];14:237-43.  (Peer reviewed)
Michael A Nissenbaum, Jeffery J Aramini, Christopher D Hanning

Strategic Health Impact Assessment on Wind Energy Development In Oregon
Prepared By: Health Impact Assessment Program Research and Education Services, Office of Environmental Public Health, Public Health Division, Oregon Health Authority

Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes: The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health
by Barbara J. Frey, BA MA and Peter J. Hadden, BSc, FRICS (January 2012)

Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report Michael Nissenbaum MD, Jeff Aramini PhD, Chris Hanning MD

Summary of New Evidence on Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines – August 2011 by Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm and Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA

Please visit the Society for Wind Vigilance to learn About Adverse Health Effects & Wind Turbines including:

  • Annoyance and Wind Turbines
  • Stress and Wind Turbines
  • Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbines
  • Physiological Health and Wind Turbines
  • Mental Health and Wind Turbines
  • Noise and Wind Turbines
  • Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Wind Turbines
  • Visual Health Effects and Wind Turbines

All Health Related News Articles 

WCO Survey Results and Documentation 

The Dean Report – Impact Assessment of the Waubra Wind Farm by Robert Thorne, PhD, MS, FRSH, MIOA, MAAS

Maine Health Survey, Presentation to Maine Medical Association by Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD

Willem H. Vanderburg
Assessing Our Ability to Design and Plan Green Energy Technologies
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 251-255, doi:10.1177/0270467611412558
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

John P. Harrison
Wind Turbine Noise
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 256-261, doi:10.1177/0270467611412549
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Bob Thorne
The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 262-290, doi:10.1177/0270467611412557
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Arline L. Bronzaft
The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 291-295, doi:10.1177/0270467611412548
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Alec N. Salt and James A. Kaltenbach
Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 296-302, doi:10.1177/0270467611412555
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Carl V. Phillips
Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 303-315, doi:10.1177/0270467611412554
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Robert Y. McMurtry
Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 316-320, doi:10.1177/0270467611415075
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Carmen M. E. Krogh
Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 321-333, doi:10.1177/0270467611412550
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Carmen M.E. Krogh, Lorrie Gillis, Nicholas Kouwen and Jeff Aramini
WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 334-345, doi:10.1177/0270467611412551
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

Martin Shain
Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines: The Case of Ontario, Canada
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society August 2011 31: 346-353, doi:10.1177/0270467611412552
Full Text (PDF)
Request Permissions

23 thoughts on “Health

  1. Pingback: Tim Hudak likes the simple targets « E N V I R O G Y


    May 28, 2010

    “Stimulation of the OHC occurs at infrasound levels substantially below the levels that are heard. We calculate that stimulation of the OHC occurs at approximately 30-40 dB below sensation level depending on frequency. The concept that sounds that you cannot hear can have no influence on the inner ear is incorrect. Infrasounds that cannot be heard DO influence inner ear function.

    The practice of A-weighting measurements of wind turbine noise underestimates the influence of this noise on the inner ear.”

  3. Look at the site referenced by Barry:

    It is well worth looking at. It gives you a good understanding of why the wind turbines can be so troublesome to people.

    Unfortunately the paper will be behind a pay-wall when it is released, but maybe somebody could buy a copy for our chief medical officer. Perhaps she will even read it.

    Perhaps our Premier might find time in his busy schedule to read it and maybe he will realize that his trusted advisers are full of…. themselves.

  4. I recently added to my website observations relating to the generation of infrasound by wind turbines … “I believe that a simple, clear and distinctive descriptive label for this process will help to ‘spread the word’. So, I’m coining the term ‘Clear Air Turbulence Vortex Infrasound Effect’ and its acronym ‘CATVIE’ to describe the process by which large industrial wind turbines produce infrasound.”

    Since then I’ve come across scientific documentation of the formation of infrasound by the tornado-like vortices and the vortices of tornados …

    With these studies, we now have a firm indication of the mechanism by which the horizontal vortex of a wind turbine actually produces infrasound and a better understanding of how wind turbines generate their physiological impacts on people.

  5. It’s hard for the Government to have any credibility in assessing potential health issues…Heard today that all of the people who worked on the clean-up crew for the Exxon Valdez are dead now…They died prematurely before age 51 on average…likely from Oil dispersants that the U.S. Government allowed clean up crews to use…as reported by CNN…

    In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer just reads some literature and indicates that there are no health issues associated with Industrial Wind Farms….apparently she never conducted any studies of her own or spoke to anyone to determine the reality of the situation since much of the current literature is funded by Wind Energy Companies….

    Be very afraid. !@#$…We need more studies by someone who doesn’t have their head buried in their own butt….

  6. Industrial wind turbine proponents, be they industrialists or politicians, have become very adept at twisting words both in an effort to mislead others and in a self-deceiving exercise to convince themselves.

    A prime example is “industrial wind turbines don’t produce infrasound in sufficient levels to impact health”. Technically, that is true. The units themselves don’t directly emit dangerous levels of infrasound.

    However, they do produce immense down-wind vortices of differing barometric air pressure (as is the prevailing cause in bat deaths), which in turn produce the “Clear Air Turbulence Vortex Infrasound Effect” (CATVIE).

    So, by avoiding the fact that industrial Wind Turbines “cause” dangerous levels of infrasound which impact human health, the proponents instead claim that the turbines don’t “produce” significant infrasound. They are then able to go before the public, with their self-spinned-cleared-consciences, and state that industrial wind turbines don’t produce infrasound .. true, but they do cause it!

    Beware the “windbaggers” and “spin-doctors”!

  7. My deepest concern goes out to the people living by the Wind Turbines. I strongly urge the government to look into the health concerns of these wind turnbines and stop ignoring the health issues that they are causing for these innocent people.

  8. Pingback: Tim Hudak likes the simple targets » Jamblemag Green Economy

  9. Pingback: Tim Hudak likes the simple targets | E N V I R O G Y

  10. It is dissappointing to hear groups like this spinning false health effect information about wind energy. Would you prefer more coal-fired power plants releasing mercury and other pollutants into the air? Are you concerned about health impacts of living near a road and the air emissions and noise from traffic? Stop being resistant to change and blocking the adoption of renewable energy. If you don’t want to be part of a positive societal change at least get out of the way.

  11. Klym:

    Rather than a slagging match, why don’t you have a look at these studies by Ross McKitrick. Then I would be happy to debate you.

    WIND ENERGY CONFERENCE: In October 2010 I made a presentation to the Society for Wind Vigilance conference on wind energy and social justice. My presentation was called

    * The Case Against the Case Against Conventional Energy. (note: 3MB)

    THERMAL POWER PLANTS: Here in Ontario the government has adopted the regrettable idea of shutting down our thermal power plants. I have presented counter-arguments in a few places. The most comprehensive is:

    * *McKitrick, Ross R., Kenneth Green and Joel Schwartz (2005) Pain Without Gain: Shutting Down Coal-Fired Power Plants Would Hurt Ontario”. Fraser Institute, January 2005.

    A 2007 presentation, to a conference organized by the Queen’s Institute of Energy and the Environment, made the same case very briefly:

    * McKitrick, Ross R. (2007) “The Case for Keeping Ontario’s Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Invited presentation to Queen’s University Institute of Energy and Environmental Policy conference “The Future of Coal in Ontario.” Toronto, May 10 2007.

    I also did a review of the Ontario Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Power Workers’ Union in 2004.

    * McKitrick, Ross R. (2004). “Power Plants, Air Quality and Health: The Case for Re-examining Ontario’s Coal Policy” Prepared for the Power Workers Union, May 2004.

    A related paper is my 2004 paper on particulates and affluence, published in the Fraser Forum.

    * McKitrick, Ross R. (2004). “Particulates, Energy Consumption and Affluence” Fraser Forum April 2004

    Feel free to have a look at my paper “Watts with the Wind” as well as clicking on my name… and see the Ontario Wind Performance site. Please note that I use only the official numbers and have not yet been challenged as to presenting any incorrect information — except for one correction as to Tom Adams on date of service of turbines.

    Have a look at Powering Ontario. Section 3.1

    If you find errors of fact or omission in my work I will be pleased to correct it and credit you.

    Thank you.

  12. Klym:


    My first reaction when I looked at the power output figures I generated was that I was wrong.

    Please look for articles on infra-sound. The speculation — backed by some empirical evidence is that infra-sound likely upsets inner ear function and upsets balance function — among other issues.

    BTW — my numbers show that Ontario has never had an (electrical at least) energy shortage. The love affair with wind turbines appears to be misplaced ardor.

    My background is somewhat similar to yours. My point on the paper I did was that high school math was sufficient to cast doubt on the positive reports of wind power contribution. (Not a partial differential equation in the works…)

    My papers an the short article here..

    Provide links to the real time data. After analyzing all the data since 2002 I conclude that IESO does a pretty good job — despite all the politics.

  13. I just saw an ad on TV which caused me to check out the Dyson Canada website’s “Fans” section ..

    This fan company has recognized the unpleasant effects of “buffetting” in the case of small “fans” and has developed an alternative mechanism to propel air .. quote: “Dyson Air Multiplier™ fans work very differently from conventional fans. They use Air Multiplier™ technology to draw in air and amplify it up to 18 times, producing an uninterrupted stream of smooth air. With no blades or grille, they’re safe, easy to clean and don’t cause unpleasant buffeting.”

    If a fan company can recognize the impact of “buffetting” or “turbulence” on their small scale .. then why can’t someone try to develop a similar power generator by literally “reverse engineering” their concept? Afterall, it is the IWTs’ blades’ “buffetting” or “turbulence” which generates the infrasound which causes the main health problems.

  14. Does anyone know why Health Canada hasn’t recognized the health risks associated with infrasound from wind turbines? I know it’s a fairly recently recognized hazard, but there is nothing on the Health Canada web pages. See
    and also

    It seems to me the Federal Government is also letting us down, instead of looking out for our best health interests.

  15. The world is crazy. In Belgium, as the country is verry small, they decided to change the law to allow companies to build 200 m high wind turbines as close as possible from houses. The law will be locked, with wind turbines companies complicity, to avoid people to make an appeal. There are villages that no more sleep at all… For what? For the money…

  16. British Medical Journal – BMJ (full report)

    March 11, 2012 by Christopher D Hanning and Alun Evans in British Medical Journal

    A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children,[1] and it may have important implications for public health.

    The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise.1 However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside.

    The impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on sleep and daytime functioning (sleepiness and cognitive function) is well established.1 Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint.2 Such reports have been dismissed as being subjective and anecdotal, but experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep.3

    The noise emitted by a typical onshore 2.5 MW wind turbine has two main components. A dynamo mounted on an 80 m tower is driven through a gear train by…

  17. “.. industrial wind turbines can produce real discomfort and adverse health impacts. Further research could confirm that these ill effects are caused by pressure pulsations exceeding vestibular thresholds, unrelated to the audible frequency spectrum but are instead related to the response of the vestibular system to the low frequency noise emissions. The vestibular system appears to be stimulated by responding to these pressure pulsations rather than by motion or disease, especially at low ambient sound levels. Dysfunctions in the vestibular system can cause disequilibrium, nausea, vertigo, anxiety, and panic attacks, which have been reported near a number of industrial wind turbine facilities.”

    Reference …

  18. .. reading through this “Health Impacts and Exposure to Sound From Wind Turbines: Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment” it looks like the Wind Industry and its provincial government lackeys’ may be getting some bad news in a few years. It looks like the feds will be examining everything from air pressure modulation to structural reverberation.

  19. The adoption of a short phrase describing the health impact of IWT generated infrasound could go a long way in educating the public. I suggest the phrase “TOXIC PRESSURE MODULATION” which can be expanded to “Toxic air pressure in modulation” or condensed to “TPM”.

    The phrase “TOXIC PRESSURE MODULATION” effectively ties together the IWT’s down-blade turbulence effects with their infrasound-based impacts on health.

    News media focus on short acronym-type labels for covering issues. I believe the adoption of such a precise and clear phrase as “TOXIC PRESSURE MODULATION” (TPM) will help attract the media’s attention and further promote our cause.

    • Hey Barry Bridgeford,

      It’s a Liberal ‘thing’ – with tentacles

      Toxic Air Pressure caused by Industrial Wind Turbines,

      and the traditional definition of the – ‘precautionary principle’ –
      – need not to be applied – in Ontario.

      All politics – are Local politics.
      Why are they snoozing?

  20. Hopefully this British noise study about airports and jet turbine noise will ring some bells for people.

    Read this while you listen to your 450′ tall refrigerators:

    Figure 1 shows the study area; the population (2001 census) was 3.6 million. During 2001-05, 189 226 first episodes of hospital stay in a given year for cardiovascular disease (16 983 stroke, 64 448 coronary heart disease) and 48 347 cardiovascular disease related deaths (9803 stroke, 22 613 coronary heart disease) occurred in the study area (table⇓). Supplementary figures 1 and 2 show the maps of hospital admissions at census output area level and mortality at super output area level, respectively. Only 2% or fewer of the study population lived in areas exposed to the highest category of daytime (>63 dB) or night time (>55 dB) aircraft noise (see supplementary table 1).



    The above links to the full article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *