Wind Turbine Health Impacts Examined by Senate Committee

In those long, dark nights of the soul, one can thrash furiously in one's bed, wondering furiously whether one's worldview is simply the product of one's political leanings, itself generated by a hazy combination of neurological and psychological leanings. 

Do I think what I think because the current body of evidence deems it so, or are my thoughts, beliefs and actions entirely subject to the arbitrary, subjective schema that form the bulk of my mind? 

It's nice, occasionally, to have someone else check the validity of your position. It's also nice to know that they're free of any vested interests, so you can be fairly sure that they're not subject to the same biases you are. 

Recently, Senators John Madigan and Nick Xenophon brought a bill before the parliament, called the 'Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment - (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012'. Both active campaigners against the development of wind farms, they have eagerly adopted the claims of the anti-wind lobby. The claim that sound emissions from wind farms, in a range of audible and inaudible frequencies, have serious detrimental health effects on nearby residents has played a key role.

The report was released yesterday evening. In its entirety, it's fascinating reading. Here are a few extracts, focusing on the 'Health' section of the report. 

The number of complaints

The anti-wind lobby are eager to present an over-inflated impression of public dissatisfaction. The report quotes the Waubra Foundation:

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

The committee simply points out some figures, putting Waubra's statements in perspective: 

"Given that as of April 2012 there were approximately 1345 turbines operating in 59 facilities around Australia,10 the numbers expressing concern appear small compared to the numbers of residents near these turbines."

They also point out something incredibly obvious, yet, this concept had not yet occurred to me:

"The committee received just over 160 submissions, of which a little under 140 supported the bill and/or expressed concern about noise effects. Of these, the majority were from people worried about whether they might experience noise or health effects from proposed wind farms, rather than from people who claimed to have actually experienced annoyance or other adverse effects. The submissions related to a minority of Australia's wind farm operations."

Yep. The majority of people complaining were facing proposed developments, and did not actually live near operational wind farms. This highlights an extremely important factor in the modus operandi of the anti-wind lobby - they focus their efforts on stifling development, rather than stirring discontent for operational wind farms. 

Committee view: 

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

They then go on to state that though the number is small, the nature/cause should be taken seriously. This is the basis for the next two sections. 

Audible Sound

It's good that the committee distinguishes between audibly perceived sound, and infrasonic, inaudible sound. One (particularly nasty) tactic of the anti-wind lobby is to intentionally conflate the two. Confusion and ambiguity are their stock-in-trade. 

Obviously, the increasingly famous papers, published by Sheperd et al (New Zealand) and Nissenbaum (US) were referenced. These two papers attempt to quantify the effects of wind turbine noise on certain measures of health, and were both published in peer-reviewed publications. It's clear the committee actually read the papers, which is a refreshing change from most journalism covering the research:

"The study by Nissenbaum and others included 38 respondents near two wind farms, and 41 respondents in a control group, with results that increased daytime sleepiness and reduced sleep quality was reported among those closer to turbines though, counter-intuitively, there was no difference in the use of sleep medications as a result."

They point out what I feel is the most telling flaw in the studies; namely that the papers do not discuss the variety of causes that could have returned the results they recorded. Professor Chapman is quoted: 

"Both of those studies suffer from the same problem. That is that there has been considerable activity, in both regions studied in those two papers, of anti-wind-turbine activity."

In the end, the committee is quite blunt about the possibilities raised by the submissions:

Committee view:

"There is limited, and contested, published evidence that wind farm noise may be associated with annoyance and sleep disturbance in some individuals, but the causes are not clear"

Importantly, they recognise the caution that must be deployed when considering research - no scientific field has been free of research that is of poor quality. The papers by Nissenbaum and Sheperd possess their fair share of methodological and scientific flaws. 

Infrasound

Though the bill boasts the phrase 'excessive noise' as part of its title, the main body of submissions focused instead on sound in the inaudible frequency range:

"most inquiry participants appeared to refer not to normal audible noise issues, but to possible health effects from low frequency sound, or infrasound."

Dr Peter Trask, a psychologist working in Bendigo, summarises the bare bones of the argument used by the anti-wind lobby: 

"While this low frequency noise or sound energy (aka infrasound) may be inaudible and thus not able to be consciously perceived by the human ear, it does appear that the ear's vestibular system is still capable of perceiving the presence of this infrasound, and so send signals to the central nervous system for processing, in this case without the conscious awareness of the affected individual."

This pathway was first imagined by the revolutionary Dr Nina Pierpont. Professor Alec Salt, in the Depertment of Otolaryngology at Washington University School of Medicine, now sits as the primary proponent of this hypothesis, and unsurprisingly, had a prominent showing at the inquiry: 

"So, the ear is extremely sensitive and responds very strongly to infrasound stimuli"

Say Salt, as part of his interview with the committee. Geoffrey Leventhall, an experienced consultant in noise vibration and acoustics, is quoted in the report summarising the issue neatly:

"There is no mystery about infrasound, but it has been falsely used by those opposed to wind turbines in order to alarm others, and also as a distraction, which they know will be difficult and time consuming to work on, whilst at the same time they ask for a moratorium on further constructions until the work is done"

Sarah Laurie, 'Medical Director' of the Waubra foundation and a key player in the anti-wind lobby's focus on purported health effects, often cites a report published in 2003 for DEFRA, for which Leventhall was a key author. However, the committee points out that:

"the 2003 report does not appear relevant to wind turbine noise"

Laurie also refers to a report published in 2001, named 'Infrasound Brief Review of Toxicological Literature'. The study is likely chosen for its ominous title, rather than its content,. Leventhall notes that:

"that review in fact only showed health effects from low frequency sounds at levels typically around one million times higher than those generally involved in the case of wind farm noise."

The committee then points out another study instance by the Waubra Foundation that involves "levels several orders of magnitude higher than those involved in wind farms". It is refreshing to note that this tactic of active misrepresentation did not pass by the committee unnoticed. The key counter to Laurie's assertions is simply that the infrasonic emissions from wind turbines are both non-harmful, and unremarkable, as explained by Dr Peter Seligman:

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

If wind turbines really don't cause direct physiological harm, why the reports of health effects? The committee explores this in the next section.

Psychogenesis and the Nocebo Effect

An important and significant new study, accepted, peer-reviewed and due for publication in the journal 'Health Psychology', was referred to by the committee. The study used real and 'sham' infrasound to demonstrate that expectations of harm can lead to reports of ill effects:

"Conclusion: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms which aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound.

Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints."

The committee notes that the submissions provide (unintended) support for the noecbo hypothesis - here is one example they give, which neatly demonstrates that complainants express tellingly informed expectations of harm:

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

The unbridled inventiveness of the symptoms and range of wind turbine syndrome are both recognised by the committee as further evidence that the symptoms may have psychological, rather than physiological underpinnings. As the committee reiterates: 

"Anecdotal evidence submitted to the committee includes symptoms being associated with phenomena other than wind farms, symptoms not occurring coincident with the start of wind farm operation, not being related to whether there is wind blowing, or being at distances far greater than those usually reported"

The committee delivers an emphatic and strongly worded conclusion:

"The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating health problems.

In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases."

Similar to nearly all other governmental and legal proceedings clearing wind turbines of physiologically induced health effects, the content of this report is likely to be quoted out of context, and nearly always without reference to the original documents.

This will be done in the realm of forums in which the anti-wind lobby are not required to provide citations for their claims, or exercise reason and logic in their conclusions. The key point of affect remains, for them, the hostile community gathering, not the measured parliamentary review. 

The onus now lies on members of the wind industry to properly understand, and eagerly disseminate the logical prowess contained within this report, and to do it in a way that is significantly more interesting than the fictional narrative presented by anti-wind lobby groups. 

Meanwhile, I feel I might sleep slightly better. Only slightly, though. 

Rheese's pieces

Max Rheese is no friend of wind energy. What he is particularly fond is making claims that are recycled falsehoods. His latest piece, published in Online Opinion, picks out another handful of myths from the hat. This one focuses on attempting to characterise criticism of anti-wind lobbying as being itself based on mythology. He demonstrates that this is true by saying it several times, and not providing examples. 

Rheese blatantly attempts to emulate the language and terminology used in Mike Barnard's incredibly merciless critique of his propensity for myths. Unfortunately, he left out the 'making statements that are supported by evidence' part. 

Let us explore his claims. Bring your raincoat, my dear friends. This will be messy. 

"Landholders who host turbines are bound by gag claims in their contracts from speaking out publicly, which is why the public in general are not aware of the very real distress some turbine hosts are suffering. These gag clauses are denied by wind farm supporters, but are confirmed here by solicitors Slater and Gordon."

Confirmation that wind energy companies are intentionally making hosts sign contracts that stop them from speaking publicly about health effects? Dear lord! I will make you wait no longer - here is Slater and Gordon's full letter to The Australian:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"James Delingpole asserts that Slater and Gordon have been responsible for "rigorous gagging orders" in favour of wind farm operators. This is wrong. We have acted for landowners who have been affected by the operation of nearby wind farms.

Any confidentiality clauses associated with some compensation claims have not been made at our direction. Such clauses are required by the wind farm operators and are typically required in these types of settlements. It is a decision for our clients as to whether they accept such clauses.

James Higgins, general manager, Slater and Gordon, Melbourne, Vic"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Higgins' letter is about land owners taking action against wind companies, and the confidentiality clauses about those cases, not the initial agreement between the company and the leaseholder. 

I suppose, if you really wanted to call out 'gag-clauses' as being a myth, then all you'd have to do is demonstrate that a land owner has spoken publicly about health effects, without facing legal action from that wind energy company.

"Bravely, turbine host David Mortimer from South Australia was quoted by Lloyd saying, he would gladly return the money to have wind turbines removed from his property."

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Gag clauses prevent landowners from making public claims about health issues, except for when they make public claims about health issues. 

"Lloyd wrote of the paper published in October 2012 in the Journal of Noise and Health by three well qualified medical researchers linking wind turbine operation at two U.S. wind farms with ill health."

Ah yes, this paper. A handy-dandy dot point summary of the paper:

- The data used have been reviewed in two court cases, both of which found it did not constitute evidence of a causal linkage

- Noise data visually extracted from a graph, rather than measured

- The study found no statistically significant difference in physical wellbeing, and uptake of medication, between the 'near' and 'far' groups 

- The two wind farms are in areas of high anti-wind lobbying activity, a factor which isn't discussed at all in the paper. 

-  The paper references Nina Pierpont's self-published 2009 study, and isn't doing it ironically. 

Though publishing the data in a journal is a nice touch, the problems with the study are pretty significant. They're explored further here and here. Both make for pretty astonishing reading. Nissenbaum's paper does have merits, but the conclusions are, unsurprisingly, overblown.

"they spent their time querying the motives of community groups who are part of the community backlash over wind farms that is surpassing opposition to coal-seam gas mining according to Origin Energy last week."

Origin Energy! They're huge! Surely, their opinion must count for something. They must have HEAPS of wind farms. 

"Wind power generating capacity recently completed, under construction or under development"

Oh, right. Tristan Edis of Climate Spectator points out that they don't hold much sway. Out of curiosity, here are the search term results from Google Trends, comparing "Anti wind" to the anti-CSG lobby group "Lock the gate":

Or, comparing "Wind Farms" to "Coal Seam Gas":

As you can see, people searching for anti-wind information far outweigh people searching for anti-CSG information. Oh wait, no they don't. 

"In a decision recently handed down in an Ontario environment court it was declared "This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented…demonstrates that they can…the debate has now evolved to one of degree"."

Ah, that's more like it. Presenting a quotation to demonstrate a point, rather than simply making a sternly written remark. Just to be sure though, let's have a quick look at the original quote, without the ellipses:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans.  The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents.  The debate has now evolved to one of degree."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah. So, the phrase 'if facilities are placed too close to residents' was not considered inclusion-worthy by Rheese. Curious. The ERT case has three enormous PDF documents included on the Ontario Environment Court's website, all of which are pointedly never linked to whenever this quote is used. I ponder why this is the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For the reasons that follow, the Environmental Review Tribunal finds that the Appellants have  failed to show that Suncor’s Kent Breeze Project, as approved, will cause serious harm to human health." 

Page 6, Environmental Review Tribunal Decision 'Overall Conclusion'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, that's why.

Cobb vs The Laws of Physics

Michael Cobb, a writer for The Blayney Chronicle, wrote a curious piece on wind energy on the first of November this year. Was it this Michael Cobb, ex-Nationals MP, married to Trish Worth, and involved in a dispute over a property named 'Twaddles'? Possibly. The Central Tablelands and Hereford's Association lists 'Michael Cobb & Trish Worth' exhibiting a stud named 'Waratah', right next to Blayney, so it seems likely. 

Cobb's article is strangely reminiscent of previous visits, by journalists, to the town of Waterloo. Overwrought  and weirdly credulous, the article makes no effort to examine or investigate the claims of residents. Let's investigate a few of Cobb's claims. 

"The Waterloo Wind Farm, which I chose to visit, is the closest of these to Adelaide, being about 125 kilometres north of that city. It has been very controversial and constantly in the news since it began operating two years ago."

Using Google News Search, you can get an idea of the number of articles that contain certain keywords. In this case, you can search for the phrase 'Waterloo Wind Farm'. Since the opening of the wind farm in February 2011, there were 10 articles published containing the phrase 'Waterloo Wind Farm', each on a separate day. That's 10 days, out of a total of 639 days between 01/02/2011 and 01/11/2012. "Constantly in the news" = about 2% total time. A very liberal definition. Represented graphically: 

"Regrettably I could not speak to any hosts of the wind towers because of confidentiality clauses that the wind companies now require the hosts to sign."

Like the one that stopped this wind turbine host from talking to The Australian, Alan Jones, the Mount Gambier Border Watch and ABC Radio National Breakfast.

"Standing at the base of such gargantuan towers looking heavenward at these fully imported monsters - "

Hm. I honestly think of any local manufacturers that make wind turbine towers. (To add insult to injury, Whyalla is the town that Tony Abbott claimed would be 'wiped off the map' due to the impacts of the carbon tax). 

"- where you could land a helicopter on the hub, seemed to symbolise the ultimate folly of man."

You need a 15m diameter circle to land a helicopter. Waterloo wind farm is comprised of Vestas V90 wind turbines, which have a hub that is 4.4m long, and 4.2m wide. Oh dear. No helicopters, Michael. No helicopters. 

No, this is not a Vestas V90. 

"The large amplitude waves of infra sound often only 'take effect' at long distances from the tower. I learnt that sometimes it is better to live under the tower than some kilometres away."

When Michael says 'large amplitude' waves, he might mean 'long-wavelength'. The amplitude (sound pressure level) of infrasonic sound emissions from wind farms match that of a beach, as discovered by Sonus when comparing infrasonic emissions from wind farms to other locations.

Sound pressure attenuates over distance. The closer you are to the source, the greater the sound energy. Michael claims that infrasound only 'takes effect' at large distances. This subtle change to a particularly significant physical law of the universe goes unexplained.

"This farmer was eight kilometres away too in another direction, and also can't see the towers as he too has a range between him and the towers. "It was just like a jet the other night", he said."

Obviously, this farmer is referring to an audible perception of wind turbine noise. Eight kilometres away from a wind turbine is pretty far. Let's be generous and assume that we're 500 metres away from a wind turbine - the decibel level attributable to the machine is roughly 40 dB(A). The noise of an airplane is around 150 dB(A). 

Sound pressure level is on a logarithmic scale, so just looking at the difference between the dB(A) doesn't truly elucidate how different the two values are. Sound Intensity is on a linear scale. A wind turbine, at 500 metres, has a sound intensity of 0.00000001 watts per square metre. A jet has a sound intensity of 1,000 watts per square metre. The difference? A jet is 100,000,000,000 times louder than a wind turbine.

It's a rough calculation, but it demonstrates the new ground broken by Cobb in the ever-expanding realm of wind farm hyperbole. 

"Suffice to say that as long as the government subsidies continue to flow to the operators and the green voters continue to be appeased in their city apartments, people like those at Waterloo will continue to be the unfortunate "road kill" of these projects I was told."

It's funny he mentions city apartments. In the aforementioned Sonus report, they include measurements taken in the Adelaide Central Business District. As it turns out, the level of exposure of residents there, to noise emissions in the infrasonic frequency range, is roughly equal to that of those living near a wind farm. 

"Their faces had searched mine for some glimmer of hope. What more could I do?"

Fact checking. 

Update - The European Platform Against Numbers

As a follow up to my previous post about the European Platform against Windfarms, and Rice-cookery, a kind fellow has pointed out a statement made recently by the CEO of EPAW, Mark Duchamp, on a post on the Wind Turbine Syndrome website: 

"Europeans too are suffering. In France alone, there are over 900 associations of windfarm victims, present or future, fighting to get their voice heard. In Germany, well over 1,000 groups, in the UK, hundreds, etc. And serious health problems develop over the length of exposure, the years of sleep deprivation, of headaches, stress and depression."

Let's break this down. In my previous analysis of EPAW, I found that France had 36 valid anti-wind groups, Germany had 43, and the UK had 61. 

To compare, let's take the lower-end number proposed by Duchamp. For France, let's say 900 (to be fair though, he does include 'present and future'). For Germany, 1,000, and for the UK, let's interpret 'hundreds' as 200. 

Duchamp's inflation applied to France and Germany are oddly similar - both around 2,500% larger than the actual numbers. He is somewhat redeemed by the UK - inflated by a meager 328%. On average, he has inflated the figures about 17.2 times the quantities of groups he lists on the EPAW website. 

To demonstrate the extent of this bias, we shall use this multiplier on some statistics: 

- There are 447 letters in the alphabet 

Might actually be true, depending on how you define 'alphabet'.....

- The average human lifespan is 1,154 years 

Also has potential validity, depending on your interpretation of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 

- The average height (on all fours) of a Labrador retriever is 11 metres tall. 

Expecting angry comments from Labradors about this one. 

- The numbers of hours of television watched, by an average American, per day, is 86.

Not too hard to achieve, with a little time on your hands..

Ah, the joys of unfounded exaggeration  To end, here's a comment from the same thread:

"NOW 2 YEARS HAVE GONE BY. NOW WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT LOVE WINDMILLS GOING CLINICALY INSANE, WALKING THE STREETS ABUSING EVERYONE, YELLING AT PEOPLE IN SHOPS, ITS GREAT STUFF !! ??

BAN THESE EVIL MONSTER NOW."

- Johannes Karl Marciniak

The Junk Science of Wind Turbine Syndrome

This article was written for Climate Spectator, and is originally published here

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past five years, a harmful and potent new creation has become prevalent in the field of renewable energy. 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' is the name given to a generic list of symptoms purportedly attributable to low-frequency sound emissions from wind turbines. These range from common maladies such as headaches, nausea and sleeplessness, to apocalyptic claims such as the mass death of 400 goats. The 'Waubra Foundation', and various 'Landscape Guardians' groups serve as the main proponents of Wind Turbine Syndrome, a concept that has become the masthead of anti-wind lobbying in Australia. 

Several key techniques are utilised by anti-wind groups to successfully convince communities, politicians and journalists that their claims are scientifically plausible. That these claims regularly go unscrutinised is cause for alarm, in both medicine and science. 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' glides effortlessly into the definition of 'pseudoscience' - any claim, belief or practice which professes classification as a science, but quietly shuns the deployment of the scientific method. Scratching at the surface of the anti-wind movement uncovers a broad and significant venture aimed at acquiring the authority of scientific inquiry, despite professing concepts that are starved of rationality, validity or basic self-awareness. 

The Null Hypothesis

The origins of Wind Turbine Syndrome set an unambiguous precedent for the scientific attitudes of the anti-wind movement. Nina Pierpont coined the term 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' in 2009, after interviewing twenty-three people on the phone, and listing anecdotal evidence from fifteen others. Pierpont, paediatrician and wife of fiercely unreserved anti-wind activist Calvin Luther Martin, had this to say about her study: 

"I never set out to prove that wind turbines cause Wind Turbine Syndrome. This was already obvious. Instead, I chose to study and document the observations made by people who had already figured it out and proved it on their own."

This research, often put forward as primary evidence of a causal relationship between wind turbines and health issues, betrayed a basic scientific principle before it even began. The null hypothesis, in science, is the assumption that two phenomena are causally unrelated - the aim of investigation is then to determine the existence of a relationship between these two variables.

Pierpont's admissions are particularly important, given the status with which this research is held by anti-wind lobby groups. This flaw is by no means the only problem with her study, which serves as a textbook checklist of methodological flaws, explored further here.

This ideological skew is disturbingly prevalent in a large portion of the documents cited by the proponents of Wind Turbine Syndrome. To assume the correctness of a hypothesis prior to investigating it is the undeniable seal of junk science.

Falsifiability

One aspect of scientific investigation involves 'falsifiability' - the concept that if a hypothesis is false, this can be shown through investigation. If wind turbines were indeed a health risk to residents, one would expect a higher incidence of symptoms adjacent to a wind farm, compared to a control group. In pre-emption of attempts to delineate the health risks of wind turbines through empirical research, Pierpont claims that 'not all people living close to turbines are susceptible'. This has since filtered into political discourse around wind farms in Australia:

"I've often described that infrasound as being a little like car sickness - there's four people in a car, one feels sick and the other three feel fine, so I suspect infrasound is something a little like that."
David Ridgway, Opposition Planning Spokesman, South Australia

This subtle inclusion has rendered their proposition immune to epidemiological research. If it is found that residents adjacent to a wind farm experience headaches, nausea and sleeplessness at a level no greater than a matched control group that is not near a wind farm, the Landscape Guardians need simply refer to their original caveat. The factors required to be susceptible to the effects of infrasound go undescribed - a refusal to set boundaries for a hypothesis is prevalent among pseudosciences. This ambiguity ensures that any residents adjacent to wind turbines that do not report symptoms are simply one of the 'lucky ones not affected by turbine infrasound'.

Anecdotal Evidence

Perhaps the most prevalent tactic of wind turbine syndrome proponents is reliance on anecdotal reports. The issues that exist with anecdotal reports are well-known in the scientific community. Small sample sizes, cognitive bias, the 'cherry-picking' fallacy - these logical errors serve as the foundation for the effectiveness of anti-wind lobby groups. 

Giving anecdotal evidence disproportionate influence can be a double-edged sword. Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, has compiled a list of symptoms, which currently stands at 200. The sheer size of this list, and the incredibly variety of maladies contained within it, indicate the likelihood that the syndrome does not have a consistent physiological cause.

Sarah Laurie, an unregistered ex-general practitioner, and 'medical director' of the Waubra Foundation, states that Wind Turbine Syndrome can be perceived 'out to distances as great as 30 km and sometimes more.' (). George Papadopoulos, a pharmacist from New South Wales, goes further, stating that Wind Turbine Syndrome can affect humans up to 100 kilometres away from wind turbines. Mapping this 100 kilometre radius, a conservative estimate of the number of Australians purportedly affected is 6.3 million, including the ACT, Melbourne and Adelaide. This serves as a powerful illustration of the problems with self-reported evidence.

Importantly, questioning the usage of anecdotal reports as primary evidence is usually portrayed as an attack on individual honesty, inoculating anti-wind groups against the weaknesses of this form of evidence. Graham Lloyd, environment editor at The Australian, states that  'Chapman ridiculed complaints', in a recently published article. Chapman's piece in New Scientist literally and directly recounts the claims made by those adjacent to wind farms.

Misrepresentation

In line with other pseudoscientific ventures, the anti-wind lobby deploys a static set of quotes that intentionally misrepresent research, court cases and other documents - sources that normally posses some form of inherent authority. This technique is used to imply that there is a large body of scientific research and legal precedent supporting their hypotheses. An example of this is the following quote, in a document authored by Sarah Laurie:

"Later in the DEFRA document, Professor Leventhall lists some of the then known scientific peer reviewed published evidence relating to the physiological effects of exposure to low frequency noise."

This study is referenced with astonishing frequency by anti-wind lobbyists, as can be seen here, here, here, here and here. Critically, the physiological effects that Leventhall references 'later in the DEFRA document' are the result of exposure to infrasound at very high levels of sound pressure - usually 125 dB or more (pg 55), compared to the infrasound emitted by wind farms, which is typically at around 65 dB, at 10 Hz(). This is a difference of around 60 dB.

This is larger than one might expect - sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale (), which means 125 dB is about 1,000,000 times the sound intensity (measured in watts per metres squared) of sound at 65 dB. To put the mind-boggling magnitude of this error in perspective, this is equivalent to stating that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384 metres. Laurie's misrepresentation is not insignificant. She continues to use the reference, as recently as October 28th, in a letter written to Professor Simon Chapman of Sydney University (), as does Graham Lloyd of The Australian, in his aforementioned article.

An equally astonishing example of the intentional slanting of research is a study conducted in 2008 by Todd. et al, and published in the journal Neuroscience Letters (). The website 'www.windturbinesyndrome.com' serves as the online headquarters of the Wind Turbine Syndrome movement, and quotes the study in the following way (): 

“The very low [noise] thresholds we found are remarkable as they suggest that humans possess a frog- or fish-like sensory mechanism which appears to exceed the cochlea for detection of substrate-borne low-frequency vibration and which until now has not been properly recognised"

The original paper does not include the word 'noise' - this was added by Pierpont. The original research is in reference to 'seismic' or 'substrate-borne vibration', which the author of the paper explains is vastly different to sound:

"We described a sensitivity of the vestibular system to low-frequency vibration of the head, at about 100Hz, and not air-conducted sound. At present I do not believe that there is any direct evidence to show that any of the above acoustico-physiological mechanisms are activated by the radiations from wind turbines."

Despite this very public rebuke from the author of the original research, the website continues to display the word 'noise', nestled in the quote. Their deliberate misrepresentation is not limited to these two examples. The full range of misquotes and embellishments is vast, and they play a key role in their efforts to manufacture an image of scientific veracity, in their dealings with communities. 

The Burden of Proof

Standard scientific practice incorporates a principle known as the 'burden of proof'. The party responsible for making a novel claim is accountable for providing the evidence for that claim. The more remarkable the claim, the greater the need for comprehensive and explicit evidence. An example is the hypothetical teapot, proposed by philosopher Bertrand Russell. This teapot, Russell claims, is orbiting Earth. We can't produce evidence showing that the teapot isn't there. Is that enough reason to conclude that there is definitely a teapot orbiting Earth? Obviously not. 

The anti-wind lobby have successfully managed to absolve themselves of the responsibility of supporting their claims with evidence. Instead, they insist that the wind industry is bound to demonstrate that wind turbines do not cause direct physiological health effects. At a 'Booroowa District Landscape Guardians' meeting in May 2012 (), Senator John Madigan demonstrates the use of this logical fallacy:

"You'll quite often hear 'There is no peer-reviewed literature' or 'There is no peer-reviewed report' or whatever they want to call it. Of course, if you don't investigate, you're not going to end up with anything that's peer-reviewed. I've often said that these, that the proponents of these wind turbines would be tripping over themselves to prove these people wrong, with the literature, the data, the figures, the recordings, whatever."

Sarah Laurie sternly re-asserts this fallacy in her letter to Simon Chapman:

"I would be obliged if you will direct me to the population studies or even small case control studies, which have been performed in the vicinity of large operating wind turbines, confirming that there are no adverse health effects for any of the residents from these wind turbines, including sleep deprivation, stress related illnesses, and symptoms of vestibular dysfunction. I believe there are no such studies."

By shifting the burden of proof from the claimant (in this case, anti-wind groups) onto the skeptics (the wind industry), the proponents of Wind Turbine Syndrome further cement their position as an established and effective pseudoscience. 

The presentation of purportedly scientific claims outside the context of peer-review, publication and discussion is necessary for any pseudoscience to flourish. The proponents of Wind Turbine Syndrome focus their efforts on small community meetings, held with regularity in areas that are facing proposed wind farm developments. Tense, necessarily emotive and pointedly focused on anecdotal reports of health effects, these meetings give the anti-wind lobby the opportunity to present misinformation in the context of an extremely salient emotional backdrop. The meetings are also designed to ensure opposing voices are not represented, and are given little-to-no opportunity to critique the claims of anti-wind groups.

Creating Anxiety

Spreading information that a safe technology is dangerous has the potential to create anxiety that need not be experienced. The ailments frequently listed by Laurie and the Waubra Foundation are, for the most part, commonplace. High Blood Pressure affects 21.5% of Australians. Almost 90% of Australians suffer from a sleep disorder. If residents living near operational wind farms become convinced that these common ailments are causally related to nearby technology, there is no doubt these issues could be exacerbated. Thus, to loudly pronounce a confirmed causal linkage between wind turbines and adverse health effects, in the absence of  statistically significant, peer-reviewed evidence is at the very least unethical, and the very worst, horribly reckless. 

As with all pseudoscience, rigorous public debunking is vital. Methodologically sound research into the topic can do no harm, and may well give communities respite from the health concerns that have spawned from motivated anti-wind activism. Government institutions, such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Victorian and NSW departments of Health, have performed reviews of the current body of evidence, and announced publicly that there is no evidence wind turbines cause adverse health effects. It is becoming even more pertinent to arm communities with knowledge of the techniques utilised by anti-wind activists to construct an atmosphere of dread around wind technology. 

The current mix of generators in the National Electricity Market is skewed towards technologies that emit detrimental quantities of carbon emissions - we know that these emissions are causally related to catastrophic changes to the Earth's environmental systems. To move away from that is vitally important for the continuance of human prosperity, and this shift ought to be guided by rational, evidence-driven decision making.