Jones, Watts and the Health Effects of Coal Mining

On the 8th of September, 2012, Prime Minister Gillard's father passed away. 19 days later, conservative radio presenter Alan Jones declared that her father had 'died of shame', sparking national outrage and resulting in a significant loss of revenue for the radio station, as advertisers hurriedly distanced themselves from his show, and his persona. 

Fast forward just over two months, and Jones has not lost an ounce of joie de vivre. His show still consists largely of frothing, self-congratulatory bile, impossible to parody in all its gargantuan, spittle-ridden glory. A prominent climate skeptic and close friend to anti-wind groups, his show often features pieces critical of wind energy, including breathless segments on  'Wind Turbine Syndrome'. On the 8th of December, his show featured Dr Alan Watts, a NSW GP who is fiercely critical of wind energy, and of the wind industry. 

News photographers have a fondness for Alan Jones

The 20 minute segment, which can be endured at 2GB's website, was the usual whirling onslaught of suspected government conspiracies, eagerly repeated half-truths and and direct insults. 

In the first five minutes, Jones reads out some letters onto which he's been CC'd, filled with claims made by residents living near wind farms:

"Just before 4am, all of a sudden my head started to shake. I tried to focus on the ceiling, but my eyes were wobbling. I got up at 4am, and walked around the house, my whole body shaking and vibrating."

As per usual, the focus is on odd symptoms and anecdotal evidence, rather than research or investigation. Jones and Watts then move into attempting to justify their position with a few quotes:

@11:52

Jones: There are draft guidelines, which ignore infrasound measurement, and the World Health Organisation states "The evidence of low frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern"

Watts: Correct

Jones: "Health effects due to low frequency components in noise are estimated to be more severe than for community noise in general"

Watts: That's right.

Jones: So where then is the precautionary principle which says until we can get answers, this has to stop

Watts: Well, it's not happening.

The two quotes come from page 35 of the World Health Organisation's 2001 report, a 161 page behemoth investigation into the effects of community noise, and suggested guidelines. The phrases 'wind farm' and 'wind farm' do not show up in the report. The full quote is as follows, with Jones' sections highlighted:

"The evidence on low-frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern. Various industrial sources emit continuous low-frequency noise (compressors, pumps, diesel engines, fans, public works); and large aircraft, heavy-duty vehicles and railway traffic produce intermittent low-frequency noise. Low-frequency noise may also produce vibrations and rattles as secondary effects. Health effects due to low-frequency components in noise are estimated to be more severe than for community noises in general (Berglund et al. 1996)."

Wind turbines, as liberally described by Jones and Watts

The WHO is not referring to wind turbines. This simple nuance is happily ignored by both. It gets better. 

@12:22

Watts: Even our embarrassingly quiet New South Wales Department of Health says, and, I'll read: "There is increasing evidence internationally that environmental noise exposure may cause risk to public health and is recognised by international bodies such as the World Health Organisation and the US Centre for Disease Control. There is some suggestion of the long term effects of environmental exposure to noise on annoyance, sleep disturbance, children's performance at school, hypertension and ischemic heart disease " 

Jones: Frightening. Frightening. 

Google the quote, and the results mostly list different links to a letter penned by Alan Watts, sent to The Australian. Broaden your search terms and the source of the quote is revealed - a letter written by the NSW DOH regarding a mining development. 

The name of the mining company is Coalpac. Let that name ring for a while. Maybe say it out loud. 

Coal.......pac...

The quote is on page 3, and refers to the noise generating by blasting that is required in the process of mineral extraction. 

This is a picture of a wind turbine

Here's what the NSW DOH has to say on potential health issues from exposure to wind turbines, taken from their submission to the NSW government's proposed 2km setback for wind turbines

"NSW Health advises that there is currently no health evidence to support a generic 2 km separation distance from a proposed wind turbine. Mandatory enhanced assessment of potential impacts for neighbours within a 2km radius of proposed wind turbines needs to be justified on non-Health grounds"

Even more telling is the statement by the NSW DOH on the impacts of coal mining on communities, on the first page of the document referred to by Watts and Jones:

"Health impacts from coarse particulate matter emissions associated with mining operations are of concern to NSW Health......there is a growing body of evidence that populations subjected to elevated coarse particulate matter emissions from mines have an increased risk of adverse health outcomes, particular on the respiratory system"

@21:41:

Watts: There is sufficient anecdotal evidence and even some, um, scientific proof now, that there is a significant problem. We can no longer ignore this. 

I agree, Alan. The health effects of coal mining are well established. Shall we join forces? 

Adjudication 1555

Being offended by something James Delingpole says is like deciding to sit next to the crazy person on a train, and being surprised when they start licking your face. You really ought to see it coming. Delingpole focuses on generating a visceral emotional response in his audience, and he's quite good at it. 

The mechanical predictability of Delingpole's rhetoric does not exonerate The Australian, a relatively established centre-right broadsheet printed by the Murdoch press. In May this year, they published an article named 'Wind Farm Scam a Huge Cover Up', in which Delingpole deployed his standard array of outright falsehoods and near-comical hyperbole, all in orbit around his festering hatred of wind energy.

Yesterday, the Australian Press Council (APC) released Adjudication 1555, in which they found that The Australian had breached several Press Council codes of practice. Let's look at the three key findings.

Renewable Energy Certificates

"[The Press Council] has concluded that even if the REC scheme has the weaknesses alleged in the article it cannot tenably be described as a “kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme”. The REC scheme does not have an essential characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, namely criminal fraudulence, and is not reasonably analogous to such a scheme."

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are issued by the government to the generators of renewable energy, as incentives for the production of energy that does not generate carbon pollution. The scheme has its critics, but Delingpole's disproportionate hyperbole is patiently debunked by the APC. 

It should be noted that RECs are issued by the government per MWh of generation, not by installed capacity. If, according to Delingpole, wind farms produce 'very little power', then they must not be issued very many RECs. 

I suspect this conflict does not gnaw at Delingpole's conscience. 

Gag Clauses

"Second, it has concluded that the claim that a law firm sought gagging orders has been publicly denied by the firm and, in the absence of any supporting evidence, constitutes a breach of the Council’s principles concerning misrepresentation. The newspaper’s prompt publication of the law firm’s denials prevented aggravation of the breach but did not absolve it."

There is no evidence that wind farm operators insert 'gag clauses' into agreements with landowners - these mythical clauses are suggested by anti-wind lobbyists to be the reasons that wind turbine hosts do not issue health complaints about wind turbines. 

Weirdly, the letter from Slater and Gordon denying that these clauses exist is confusingly used by anti-wind groups to demonstrate that they do exist - see here and here. 

Paedophilia 

"Third, it has concluded that the report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council’s principles relate, of course, to whether something is acceptable journalistic practice, not whether it is unlawful. 
They are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech. It was fully justifiable in the public interest to convey the intensity of feeling by some opponents of wind farms but that goal did not require quoting the reference to paedophilia."

I've covered this paragraph previously, in this article. It's unsurprising that Delingpole made the remark, but it's telling that both The Australian and hundreds of other anti-wind websites re-published it, including this rural vet practice. 

Delingpole's original remark, quoted in the finding and below, is an unambiguous insult. There is no nuance, and no room for misunderstanding. 

Delingpole's Response

Delingpole was quick to publish a blog in response to the APC's findings. His tactic remains unchanged - he reasserts his claim that the wind industry is akin to a paedophile ring, after a brief foray into homophobia:

"I stand by every word of the piece – especially the bit about paedophiles. I would concede that the analogy may be somewhat offensive to the paedophile community."

Both Delingpole and The Australian deploy an ugly gambit in response to the finding. They refer to statements made by ABC broadcaster Robyn Williams, when he used paedophilia as a hypothetical example in his discussion on climate science in late November:

"What if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You'd rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science."

As is obvious from the example, Williams is not accusing climate skeptics of literally being paedophiles. At most, one could state that Williams was stating that climate skeptics would make the claim that paedophilia is good for children (which itself does not quality one as a paedophile). 

He illustrates some absurd hypotheses, and then states that climate denialism is just as absurd. His choice of example is awkward and excessive, but there's an objective difference between Delingpole and Williams. 

Williams' remarks are not the point, however. What is clear from The Australian's response is that they are likely repulsed by the concept of admitting fault. Reverting to a loud declaration that another institution 'did it too', in response to being found guilty of publishing extremely offensive and insulting material, is profoundly juvenile. 

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

I find it odd that Delingpole would even respond to the ruling. He is a true automaton - one cannot hold him responsible for his claims, just as one cannot be truly angry at the wild-haired nutter on the train running his tongue across the face of those foolish enough to sit nearby.

The Australian would do well to consider the tactic that most of us employ - do not sit next to that guy. Let him mumble quietly to himself, stroking a shoe in his lap, and scratching intermittently at his beard.

Update @ 18:42 21/12/2012:

James Delingpole demonstrates the method I described above on Twitter in a tweet directed at me. Thanks JD!

@jamesdelingpole @theipa I did! He said: "Ketan, when someone tries to provoke you with comical hyperbole, respond with blind anger".
— Ketan Joshi (@ArghJoshi) December 20, 2012

Wind Farms and the Australian Media

Journalisnt, a media blog, was kind enough to publish a piece I penned on wind energy and the Australian media landscape. Click here to have a read - a short extract is below. 

Hugs,

Ketan

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

On the 15th of March, 2011 the Telegraph posted an article claiming “Offshore wind farms are one of the main reasons why whales strand themselves on beaches, according to scientists studying the problem”. Somewhat unremarkably, the original research does not mention wind farms. The paper is concerned mainly with responses of beaked whales to sound stimuli at differing frequencies. The author of the original research added a comment to the article, calling it “an abomination”. The article was eventually retracted (a copy of the original can be found on an anti-wind website) and a correction published.

The article serves as a compact illustration of the extent to which a media outlet may go to criticise wind energy. There also seems to be an impetus to wrap these falsehoods in an elated, ironic sneer – could the technology espoused by environmentalists be damaging various other green efforts, such as global warming or whale conservation? The previous examples seem to correspond largely with outlets bearing some partisan editorial bias on heavily politicised issues, such as climate change, renewable energy and environmentalism. A more bipartisan and widespread problem exists regarding wind energy’s representation in the media, related to safety and health.

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

The Upper Hunter Landscape Guardians

The Scone Advocate published an article submitted by the Upper Hunter Landscape Guardians, regarding the proposed Kyoto Energy Park - an amalgam of renewable energy technologies that has been in development for quite some time. 

The website has been dead for nearly a year, with no updates on the development process. The letter (justifiably, I feel) raises questions around the lack of updates on the project. 

Unfortunately, the letter also focuses on suspected health effects from wind farms, and misrepresents some studies in an attempt to create the impression that there are substantial and confirmed health effects from wind farms. 

"A recent study in Germany, probably the leading country in the development of renewables has shown that whilst Germany has installed wind power capacity for about one quarter of its energy needs, only five per cent of its energy is sourced from wind due to its unreliability."

Wind turbines are not designed to generate power at their full capacity, 100% of the time. This has absolutely nothing to do with unreliablilty (or inefficiency, another regularly cited claim) - it's simply the way you have to design a machine that is set to capture a variable resource. Your bike has multiple gears, because the landscape you ride on varies. Are you going to throw your bike away, because you're not in the highest gear all the time? 

I couldn't find this mystery 'recent study'. Most anti-wind lobbyists make a habit of never citing their sources. So, let's look at 2011's statistics, from Wikipedia. Installed capacity at the end of 2011 was 29,075 MW. Total generation was 46,500 GWh, which accounted for ~7.7% of total electrical demand in Germany. (The European Wind Energy Association puts this figure at 10.6% - it's likely they sourced demand figures from a different location). An average Australian home consumes about 6.57 MWh per year, so, wind power, in Germany, in 2011, powered the equivalent of 7.077 million homes. Oh dear. That's quite a lot. 

In fact, the latter months of 2011 saw wind power penetration reaching record highs in Germany. Again, this is probably the reason they refrain from providing references. 

"The National Health and Medical Research Council has stepped up its inquiries into wind farm noise."

Nope. The NHMRC is simply continuing a literature review of evidence surrounding the issue of wind farms and health. 

"Dr Sarah Laurie of the Waubra Foundation has furnished evidence that the previously identified buffer zone of 2km from a turbine to avoid health impacts is probably inadequate under certain topographical and environmental conditions."

Ah, a refreshing morsel of accuracy. Sarah Laurie claims that wind farms can affect human health up to 30 kilometres away. Incidentally, that's about the distance between the Capital Wind Farm and the Australian Parliament House. Why Laurie and the UHLG aren't more concerned about the national emergency this ought to precipitate is perplexing. 

"Health Canada has announced a study into the health effects from wind turbines on neighbours."

Very true, though of course, that fact alone does not implicate wind turbines as causally related to health issues, which seems to be what they're trying to imply. 

The study, detailed here, will be performed over two years. Anti-wind groups, deeply concerned with the issue of wind farms and health, are strongly supportive of the study, and have expressed their public backing.

Oh, wait, no they haven't. 

The End of the World

Nearly 14 days from the time of writing, the world will end. This isn't a modest prediction. In fact, if the doomsayers are right, even they won't even be around to gloat at the charred, smoking remains of humanity, satisfied that they were right all along. Most people understand that the predictions fall easily in line with a broad history of failed apocalyptic forecasts, the most recent being Harold Camping's failed efforts to foresee the Second Coming. 

Our Prime Minister has even taken to Triple J to poke fun at the predictions. To revel in the comedy of an inherently funny theory is natural, and of course, should never be discouraged. There is, though, another side to dramatic predictions of harm or suffering that often goes unexplored, and is, in my eyes, analogous to the issue that currently exists around wind farms and health. 

Most media coverage of the event has been limited to tabloid publications, such as 'Todays Newz' 

The theory itself is predictably shaky. The idea stems from a stone tablet found in Mexico a few decades ago. The concept is that as the Mayan calendar reaches its end, some assorted Mayan gods will descend from the heavens and start behaving like petty sky-morons, resulting , of course, in widespread armageddon. The evidence supporting this theory is essentially non-existent, as NASA patiently explains on their website.

An astrobiologist from NASA, David Morrison, points out there are in fact real consequences of promoting claims that have no evidence to support them. Space.com reports on Morrison’s comments:

“Unfortunately, Morrison said, the fantasy has real-life consequences. As one of NASA's prominent speakers on 2012 doomsday myths, Morrison said, he receives many emails and letters from worried citizens, particularly young people. Some say they can't eat, or are too worried to sleep, Morrison said. Others say they're suicidal.”

Proclamations of harm, destruction and apocalypse have caused damage to physical and mental well-being many times in the past. On October 28th, 1844, the Millerites (a religion from which the modern Seventh-Day Adventist church arose) patiently awaited the return of Jesus Christ, as predicted by the Baptist preacher William Miller. As the tales go, several Millerites woke that morning and jumped from their perches, expecting gravity to be annulled by the Second Coming. 

Predictions of religious apocalypse persist, though they more regularly avoid setting specific dates.

Threats, whether real or anticipated, are likely to induce anxiety in human beings. I suspect the response exhibited is not always a function of the quantity or quality of supporting evidence. It seems likely that the framing and presentation of information about the threat will be a significant factor in how that response is received, and consequently, the manifestation of anxiety or fear.

The Waubra foundation is the primary proponent of a hypothetical disease known as ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’, said to affect residents living near wind turbines. Curiously, many of the symptoms that are claimed to be the result of exposure to wind turbines are congruent with the symptoms of stress, anxiety and fear. The UK’s Mental Health Foundation lists the more common ones:

·         heart beat gets very fast – maybe it feels irregular
·         breathing gets very fast
·         muscles feel weak
·         sweat more
·         stomach is churning or your bowels feel loose
·         hard to concentrate on anything else
·         feel dizzy
·         feel frozen to the spot
·         can’t eat
·         hot and cold sweats
·         dry mouth
·         tense muscles.

Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health at Sydney University, has compiled a list of symptoms purportedly associated with Wind Turbine Syndrome. Though the variety of symptoms is quite large, the most frequently occurring reports are closely correlated with general feelings of stress, fear and sleeplessness.

The Waubra Foundation, led by the unregistered ex-general practitioner Sarah Laurie, plays a key role in framing wind turbine developments as a valid threat to health. ‘Cautionary notices’ and heated community meetings are the stage from which they vociferously spread claims that are definitely counter to evidence-based medicine.

The spread of misinformation on wind turbine health issues is a successful tactic in inspiring anger, fear and anxiety in small rural communities. This photo taken from a protest in Ontario.  

The fear of a wind farm development, inspired by creative pseudoscience, shares some commonality with the amusing but potentially detrimental tales of Armageddon spread through the internet. Ultimately, both have the potential to spurn fear and anxiety that is entirely avoidable. I imagine we’ll see both claims filed away in the history books among Y2K, power-line hysteria, and vaccine health scares. 

This does not revoke responsibility from science communicators, and professionals in the wind industry, from actively investigating, examining and where necessary, rebuking irresponsible claims made by those who simply have very little to lose. As we become more aware of the dangers of unfounded health scares, particularly in the context of worsening rural mental health issues, I hope the impetus to combat falsehood and myth grows proportionally stronger.