iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Do Wind Turbines Cause Health Problems? Anti-Wind Power Movement Arises In Ontario (VIDEO)

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 02/23/11 09:56 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

A group of residents living near wind farms in Canada have joined together to form an anti-wind power movement. According to CNN, the group is worried about complaints that turbines can cause health problems. The complaints have led to Canada's first hearings examining the health effects of wind turbines.

Wind power is growing faster in Ontario than in any other part of the country, and government officials are relying on green technology to not only provide clean energy, but also offer new jobs. Ontario's Environment Minister John Wilkinson states that the movement "will not stop us from doing what we were elected to do, which is to break our addiction to dirty coal for our generation."

In the U.S., studies have found that 80% of residents in the Northwest support wind farms near their homes, while a minority of homeowners in the U.S. have complained about wind turbine noise. One neighbor told The New York Times, "Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence."

Perhaps the most outspoken believer of health risks associated with wind farms is Nina Pierpont, a doctor who coined the term "Wind Turbine Syndrome" (WTS). According to Pierpont, turbine noise and vibrations disrupt the inner ear system, which may lead to nervousness, nausea, tachycardia (increased heart rate) and sleep disturbance. Pierpont recommends that turbines be set at least 2km from people's homes. Pierpont's study sample reportedly consisted of 38 people.

The British Wind Energy Association fought her allegations, citing that 94 percent of people living near wind turbines are in favor of them. They argue that "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."

While a small group of people living near wind turbines complain of anxiety and sound-related health concerns, citizens living near coal, oil and natural gas sites are complaining of cancer, poisoned water, lung disease, earthquakes, and death.

A recent report by Harvard professor Dr. Paul Epstein found that coal costs the U.S. $500 billion per year, due in large part to health care costs from heavy metal toxins and carcinogens emitted during the processing of coal.

The hazards of drilling for oil have been highlighted in the news recently. The effects of the massive BP oil spill will be seen for years to come. And then there's the recent verdict that Chevron should pay $8 billion to Ecuador's Amazon neighbors for the environmental and health damage it caused through harmful drilling practices.

Residents living near hydraulic fracturing (fracking) sites have found their drinking water is poisoned with carcinogenic, poisonous chemicals. Most recently, claims have surfaced that frequent earthquakes are occurring due to fracking activity.

Looking beyond the direct health hazards facing residents near dirty energy sites, the health effects of global warming are enormous and largely impending. Reports have found that global warming is a health hazard. Scientists cite recent extreme heat events resulting in heat-related deaths, heavier downpours resulting in contaminated water, ice storms and winds resulting in treacherous travel, and warmer winters resulting in increased allergies and pests. Not to mention that 180 U.S. cities could be underwater in less than 90 years. Looking at the grand scheme of things, is wind power, a clean energy source, worth the noise and health complaints?

WATCH the anti-wind power movement:


FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

A group of residents living near wind farms in Canada have joined together to form an anti-wind power movement. According to CNN, the group is worried about complaints that turbines can cause health p...
A group of residents living near wind farms in Canada have joined together to form an anti-wind power movement. According to CNN, the group is worried about complaints that turbines can cause health p...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 579
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
obama20082012
37 repeal tries later....the GOP still fails
09:37 AM on 03/16/2011
Oh, for the love of Pete, after what we have witnessed in Japan and the nuclear power, I will take a wind turbine anyday. If anyone wants to build one in my backyard, I am taking applications. Get a grip. It sounds like some doctor wants her 15 minutes of fame.
photo
HippieDippieWeatherman
I reason, therefore I am not Republican.
09:32 AM on 03/16/2011
Pierpont's "study" is a farce:

• It's not peer-reviewed
• It has no control: Her sample was only 38 in number, and only people who complained.
• She is an MD, not an expert in sound/vibration or inner ear disorders

Yet, there are many credible studies on everything from property values (they don't decline) to noise and health (the "issues" are non-existent), and they don't get the attention they deserve.

Why?

Probably because they're long and thorough, and NIMBYs/BANANAs only have time for sound bites.

Here's a good summary of the "data" to date: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/dms/cec/factsheets/evidence_review__wind_turbines_and_health---NHMRC-July-2010/evidence_review__wind_turbines_and_health%2520-%2520N&ei=qLuATZOqConrgQfHyriXCA&sa=X&oi=unauthorizedredirect&ct=targetlink&ust=1300284080170601&usg=AFQjCNFkCrVNfMNCmw0eGVkSrNmZO9uw6Q
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:52 AM on 03/15/2011
I saw some windfarms in Europe, and I seem to recall that the turbines were always located away from where people live. What is so complicated about keeping wind turbines and homes separated from each other?

In my opinion, the problems surrounding this matter exist in this country because those who make business decisions do not as a matter of course adequately consider the welfare of the people impacted by their decisions. I consider myself a wind-power fan, I own stock in wind farm companies, but people and energy production facilities, whether coal, gas, or wind, should not exist in close proximity to one another.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:20 PM on 02/27/2011
Wind farms may just be the new face of "natural" explosive gas fired generation. When the "back-up" power source carries 70% of the load it's not really back-up is it?
11:25 AM on 02/27/2011
Reminds me of those Fairfax, CA residents who claim health problems from SMART monitors which measure home energy output. Just as crazy and just as wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ChicagoBob
Save the Earth-It's the only planet with chocolate
11:30 PM on 02/26/2011
Life causes health problems.

So does smoking, vehicle accidents, drinking, eating at Mickey D's, pollution and a host of other man made, controllable activities.

But most importantly, nowhere in the linked articles did I see any information about the methodology of her research. Without random selection and a control group what she has discovered is a correlational relationship, not causal. Maybe the turbines cause the health problems, maybe the people involved would have the same symptoms regardless. Finally, after 5 years of study she only reported on a group of 38 people. This seems to be pretty weak evidence.

But I could be wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
More tea Vicar
09:20 PM on 02/26/2011
Big Oil can't make a profit from wind farming so they'll fund people to try to stamp it out. Just wait for stories to surface of the Koch's funding republicans to say wind power is bad and we need to drill for more oil.
03:31 PM on 03/06/2011
Wow- I bet you didn't know many of the oil companies (BP) have alternate energy companies.
Either way- they win....
They will just get their funding in one or the other...
08:06 PM on 02/26/2011
Fixing the noise problem should not be an issue in the US since we have abundant open spaces with little or no residences. There is also the alternative of offshore installations. The real problem is the intermittent and unpredictable nature of wind. A large percentage of backup is required for the times the wind does not blow. In some cases, the backup must be constantly operational. Anyone with doubts about problems with the effective integration of wind power into the grid should just google “Denmark wind power”. They have sufficient wind farm capacity to cover 24% of their total power usage. Yet, they have only been able to use an average 9.7% between 2001-2006 (and only 5% in 2006). We should continue to construct more wind farms, but before wind becomes a serious portion of our total generation (say 20%), there must be some major integration problems resolved.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mike dougles
12:12 PM on 02/26/2011
Sen Kennedy was right wind power is evil fight wind power, BURN MORE COAL!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Commensality
10:27 AM on 02/26/2011
Strong claims need strong scientific evidence, and 38 people does not cut it. I'll bet the methodology was poorly designed as well.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
10:38 PM on 02/25/2011
I don't know about the health effects, but windmills have been known to affect certain industrial processes. For example, a windmill at Sandia National Lab had a low frequency vibration that caused trouble with an electronics fabrication facility that made radiation hardened components for space applications. There's also the issue of increased radar clutter for air traffic controllers as windmills become larger and more of them are deployed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
08:25 AM on 02/26/2011
Compared to damages from nuclear power those complaints are completely frivolous and should be treated accordingly. Air traffic controllers are able to map stationary objects.
08:40 AM on 02/26/2011
A little sensitive this morning aren't we?

Radar clutter frivolous?
"Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of U.S. Northern Command, testified before Congress in March [2010] that the military is increasingly concerned about wind farms disrupting radar."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
11:20 AM on 02/26/2011
The damages from nuclear power are highly debatable, and per megawatt could be considered insignificant, yet you don't label these concerns as frivolous. Nuclear power is safer, cleaner and more reliable than wind power, solar power and any fossil power plant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmdziuban1
Aspiring ne'er do not-so-well
08:45 AM on 02/26/2011
Proof? Link? Were these commercial type windmills that were affecting at Sandia? I dunno, I would like more proof that windmills are so destructive (why are not all the hollandaise dead?). I reserve judgmental opinion. Also, tell the pilots to stop flying so close to them. Maybe it is a problem of too much technology, cannot live without it, cannot live to close to it. Terrible idea. We are doomed?

Apologies, I just listened to Alex Harvey's "The Tale of the Giant Stone Eater"
08:42 PM on 02/25/2011
A must read from AWEA:
"All human activity, including all forms of energy production, communication, transportation, expansion of agricultural lands, and urban sprawl, has an impact on the natural environment and our common goal should be to find a balance in protecting wildlife resources while responding to the needs of our society. It is AWEA's belief that wind energy represents the best solution for achieving that goal. Based on over a decade of robust post-construction survey data that has been collected from wind facilities across the nation, it is industry's position that the wind industry is not having a significant impact on sensitive wildlife or their habitats, and that the impacts that are documented are not only offset by the benefits of wind energy but also far exceeded by other forms of energy production. In fact, wind energy is one of the most environmentally-friendly means of generating electricity. It will continue displacing emissions of air toxins, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants from fossil fuels that threaten wildlife and the natural environment, which the conservation community and scientists worldwide view as a far greater threat to wildlife and their critical habitats."
10:34 PM on 02/25/2011
Does AWEA offer any credible evidence that any fossil fuel has bee displaced as a result of integration of wind turbines into a grid? I know that natural gas is displacing coal, and nuclear has all but eliminated oil as a source of heat for generating electricity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:00 AM on 02/26/2011
Try a thought experiment;

For simplification (and for the moment ignoring the very technical aspects of the equipment capability) let's say you need a constant 1000MW. Let's say you have 500MW of wind and 1000MW of natural gas equipment in 4 units of 250MW.

If there is no wind, the natural gas equipment is working at 100%. If the wind blows and we have 250MW contribution, we can shut down one of the 4 gas units. Has natural gas use been displaced or not?

(Yes, there are answers to your objections; wind prediction software/sensoring with 95% accuracy over 2-3 hours and modern CCGT designs).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:02 AM on 03/15/2011
Is there any credible evidence that ships, planes, trains, and cars have displaced the need for people to walk between major population centers?
07:16 PM on 02/25/2011
I live in one of these areas in Ontario and while health concerns are valid, many of us are more concerned about the loss of tourist revenue. Many of these planned wind farms are in rural areas that get the majority of thier income through tourism.
Where I live during the summer peak season we can have over 500,000 tourists visit the area. Everyone comes for the views. We are famous for our beaches and quiet, rural areas. We are also famour for our birds. The entire southern portion of the county I live in is designated a globally significant birding area, however all of the wind project are planned for areas directly aroudn the birding area. This is not acceptable to us. These plans will not result in the jobs touted by the government and will actually end up costing us money in tourism dollars and loss of real estate value.
In Ontario we are also being hammered with extremely high hyrdo rates as a result of these green energy plans. Many people in Ontario now are forced to choose between paying hydro or eating, including my parents who have worked hard all thier lives but will likey not be able to retire anytime soon.
The plans in Ontario are very, very flawed and need to be changed before we will support them.
08:46 PM on 02/25/2011
Please read the following from AWEA: AWEA STATEMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR RELEASE OF WIND ENERGY GUIDELINES AND EAGLE CONSERVATION GUIDANCE.

The turbine in downtown Toronto actually supports the tourism industry on a global scale.
photo
Libertarian09
Anti War Socialist with a taste for freedom
09:41 PM on 02/25/2011
Are you saying that this turbine helps to promote tourism? Is there not a bit of a conflict in using 'green power' as a means of promoting tourism as the environmental costs of increased tourism will most likely outweigh the benefits of what little 'green' power is produced ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
11:23 AM on 02/26/2011
With such an attractive feed-in tariff for solar power, why don't the people who are against the wind turbines push for more unobtrusive solar on buildings and start making money? 80 cents per kW/Hr injected into the grid sounds pretty good to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodgzK
04:55 PM on 02/25/2011
The headline for this article posed the question do wind turbines cause health problems. Unfortunately, the writer really doesn't address that question very well. Instead, he sort of pits the research of Nina Pierpont, a doctor with an impressive number of degrees against the fact that people who live near other energy producing sites experience a number of health and environmental difficulties. At this point it really isn't a fair fight. Dr Pierpont's study is presented in a self-published, non-peer reviewed, 66 page work while there is wealth of data supporting the claim that individuals exposed to environmental toxins have a higher incidence of certain health problems than those who don't . There is also a good deal of evidence that the symptoms Dr Pierpont uses to support her theory of Wind Turbine Syndrome are found at the same rate in the general population. The present state of the debate can probably best be summed up by a study by the Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council that issued a report in 2010 finding that "there is no published scientific evidence to support adverse effects of wind turbines on health.' It seems that there is more work to be done here by advocates on both sides.
InYourWorld
Progressive, educated, redneck but fan of no party
12:48 AM on 02/26/2011
38 people (I also believe, most of Pierpont's subjects were related) is hardly evidence.