Climate Spectator
George Crisp
Published 7:48 AM, 13 May 2011
Updated 7:51 AM, 13 May 2011
Health concerns have been raised in some rural Australian communities that are situated near wind farms. These claims of adverse health effects – as well as economic and social – from wind turbine installations generated a level of speculative discussion that eventually led to a Senate Inquiry, a move initiated by Family First Senator Steve Fielding, to investigate the issue. Recently, health concerns have been raised in some rural Australian communities that are situated near wind farms. These claims of adverse health effects – as well as economic and social – from wind turbine installations generated a level of speculative discussion that eventually led to a Senate Inquiry, a move initiated by Family First Senator Steve Fielding, to investigate the issue.
This seems anachronistic, considering the enormous burden of ill health and premature deaths borne by those communities who live near coal mines and power stations, which has been serially ignored by successive governments.
The impact of air pollution from burning fossil fuels on climate change, and the ensuing health effects, are both long term and cumulative. A recent study from Harvard Medical School has found that the costs to US residents of burning coal amounts to between $US300-$US500 billion dollars annually. Or around $US1000 for every citizen. Previous studies, such as ExterneE (2005) in Europe, have arrived at similar conclusions. The figures in Australia are likely to be broadly similar.
There are many contributing factors, but the single largest is that of illness and mortality arising from air pollution. Health effects, mediated primarily by airborne small particulates (PM2.5), SO2, NOx, volatile organic compounds and Ozone, include asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, heart attacks, arrhythmias and disproportionally affect children and those with pre-existing illness. The US study's “best estimate” for damages due to air quality adds 9.3 c/kWh.
Nevertheless, if there are health concerns related to wind power they should indeed be thoroughly examined. Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) has assessed all the evidence and literature surrounding these claims in its submission to the Senate Inquiry and, as the three previous comprehensive recent reviews* concluded, did not find any evidence of adverse health effects.
Proponents of “wind turbine syndrome” list a collection of non-specific symptoms that include; dizziness, headaches, ear and eye pain, nausea, sleep disturbance, palpitations nocturnal urination, anxiety and panic. They have postulated that infrasound or vibration causes disturbance of inner ear function producing illness.
This hypothesis is currently unsupported, as there is no demonstrated physical mechanism by which these effects are mediated. Although it is theoretically possible that low frequencies could be detected in the inner ear, or elsewhere, without an awareness of sound, it is not clear how they might invoke the clinical effects described. Moreover, why would the infrasound from wind turbines cause symptoms when other environmental sources, some of which occur at greater intensities, do not?
Secondly, many of the symptoms are not typical of inner ear disease. They are in fact more suggestive of a psychological origin. Anxiety and panic disorder, for example, fit this picture.
In addition, many areas of Northern Europe, where residents tend to be very socially and health conscious, have far greater densities of wind turbines, but there has been little evidence of related ill health. This absence of evidence is probably more significant than the recent anecdotal reports from the US and Australia.
Much of the recent concern of adverse health effects has been supported by the work of American paediatrician Dr Nina Pierpont. And so it is worth scrutinising her study, conducted by recruiting 38 individuals from 10 families, collecting information by telephone interview without examination or reference to medical notes.
This type of “case-series study” is intrinsically limited and even in good quality studies can be confounded by selection bias. Using this research method, it is not possible to make the claims of causality or increased frequency, or prevalence, made by Pierpont, particularly when the study design is flawed.
The further claims that this is a “crossover study” and is “peer reviewed” are similarly misplaced. A crossover design determines in advance the balanced exposure of subjects, whereas this study has been conceived retrospectively, with no determined exposure; “people came and went and figured it out for themselves”. It appears some subjects had pre-existing complaints, further confounding any results.
It is important that Dr Pierpont allows public scrutiny of her work through appropriate peer review process. Selected testimonies do not count. As it stands, this work is anecdotal, and anecdotes do not constitute evidence.
The current case for the existence of health effects from wind turbines is flimsy. One way of resolving this, and allaying any fears of local residents, would be to conduct an appropriate, well-designed study. This would very likely highlight the disparity and health benefits of wind turbine energy when compared with coal and gas energy sources.
For now, the wind industry and its investors should not be concerned or distracted by the noise made by vocal opponents of wind farms. On the contrary, the reassuring and common themes in the submissions and testimonies from a range of medical and scientific bodies to the senate inquiry highlight the current endorsement of the safety of wind energy generation.
Meanwhile, governments should focus their attention and resources back on the problem of the unhealthy, fossil-fuelled pollution and emissions that are still blowing in the wind.
Dr George Crisp, medical practitioner, is the WA representative of Doctors for the Environment Australia and presented evidence to the Senate Committee on behalf of DEA
*NHMRC Wind Turbines and Health, July 2010, The Health Impact of Wind Turbines: A Review of the Current White, Grey, and Published Literature Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, June 2008 , Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects. An Expert Panel Review, 2009. rest
0 comments:
Post a Comment