Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome'
Noise and vibration coming from large turbines are behind an increase in heart disease, migraine, panic attacks and other health problems, according to research by an American doctor
getty images
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines
Living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation, according to groundbreaking research to be published later this year by an American doctor.
Dr Nina Pierpont, a leading New York paediatrician, has been studying the symptoms displayed by people living near wind turbines in the US, the UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada for more than five years. Her findings have led her to confirm what she has identified as a new health risk, wind turbine syndrome (WTS). This is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear's vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate. Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims. However, Dr Pierpont also makes it clear that not all people living close to turbines are susceptible.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. Acoustic engineers working for the wind energy companies and the Government say that aerodynamic noise produced by turbines pose no risk to health, a view endorsed recently by acousticians at Salford University. They have argued that earlier claims by Dr Pierpont are "imaginary" and are likely to argue that her latest findings are based on a sample too small to be authoritative.
At the heart of Dr Pierpont's findings is that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, rather like fish and other amphibians. That humans have the same sensitivity as fish is based on new discoveries made by scientists at Manchester University and New South Wales last year. This, she claims, overturns the medical orthodoxy of the past 70 years on which acousticians working for wind farms are using to base their noise measurements. "It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can't hear a sound, it's too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body," she said. "But this is no longer true. Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn't been shown in a well-conducted experiment."
In the UK, Dr Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society, who has also backed her research, said: "Dr Pierpont's detailed recording of the harm caused by wind turbine noise will lay firm foundations for future research. It should be required reading for all planners considering wind farms. Like so many earlier medical pioneers exposing the weaknesses of current orthodoxy, Dr Pierpont has been subject to much denigration and criticism and ... it is tribute to her strength of character and conviction that this important book is going to reach publication."
Dr Pierpont's thesis, which is to be published in October by K-Selected Books, has been peer reviewed and includes an endorsement from Professor Lord May, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government. Lord May describes her research as "impressive, interesting and important".
Her new material about the impact of turbine noise on health will be of concern to the Government given its plans for about 4,000 new wind turbines across the country. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has made wind power a central part of his new green policy to encourage renewable energy sources. Another 3,000 are planned off-shore.
Drawing on the early work of Dr Amanda Harry, a British GP in Portsmouth who had been alerted by her patients to the potential health risk, Dr Pierpont gathered together 10 further families from around the world who were living near large wind turbines, giving her a cluster of 38 people, from infants to age 75, to explore the pathophysiology of WTS for the case series. Eight of the 10 families she analysed for the study have now moved away from their homes.
In a rare interview, Dr Pierpont, a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told The Independent on Sunday: "There is no doubt that my clinical research shows that the infrasonic to ultrasonic noise and vibrations emitted by wind turbines cause the symptoms which I am calling wind turbine syndrome. There are about 12 different health problems associated with WTS and these range from tachycardia, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks with sensations of internal quivering to more general irritability.
"The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines." The IoS has a copy of the confidential manuscript which is exhaustive in its research protocol and detailed case series, drawing on the work of leading otolaryngologists and neurotologists – ear, nose and throat clinical specialists.
Some of the earliest research into the impact of low-frequency noise and vibrations was undertaken by Portuguese doctors studying the effects on military and civil personnel flying at high altitudes and at supersonic speed. They found that this exposure may also cause the rare illness, vibroacoustic disorder or VAD, which causes changes to the structure of certain organs such as the heart and lungs and may well be caused by vibrations from turbines. Another powerful side effect of turbines is the impact which the light thrown off the blades – known as flicker – has on people who suffer from migraines and epilepsy.
Campaigners have consistently argued that much research hitherto has been based on written complaints to environmental health officers and manufacturers, not on science-based research. But in Denmark, Germany and France, governments are moving towards building new wind farms off-shore because of concern over the potential health and environmental risks. In the UK there are no such controls, and a growing number of lobbyists, noise experts and government officials are also beginning to query the statutory noise levels being given to councils when deciding on planning applications from wind farm manufacturers. Lobbyists claim a new method of measuring is needed.
Dr Pierpont, who has funded all the research herself and is independent of any organisation, recommends at least a 2km set-back distance between potential wind turbines and people's homes, said: "It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies – and governments – to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.
"What I have shown in my research is that many people – not all – who have been living close to a wind turbine running near their homes display a range of health illnesses and that when they move away, many of these problems also go away."
A breakthrough into understanding more of the impact of vibrations came last year, she said, when scientists at Manchester University and Prince of Wales Clinical School and Medical Research Institute in Sydney showed that the normal human vestibular system has a fish or frog-like sensitivity to low-frequency vibration. This was a turning point in understanding the nature of the problem, Dr Pierpont added, because it overturns the orthodoxy of the current way of measuring noise. "It is clear from the new evidence that the methods being used by acousticians goes back to research first carried out in the 1930s and is now outdated."
Dr Pierpont added that the wind turbine companies constantly argue that the health problems are "imaginary, psychosomatic or malingering". But she said their claims are "rubbish" and that medical evidence supports that the reported symptoms are real.
Case study: 'My husband had pneumonia, my father-in-law had a heart attack. Nobody was ill before'
Jane Davis, 53, a retired NHS manager, and her husband, Julian, 44, a farmer, lived in Spalding, Lincolnshire, until the noise of a wind farm 930m away forced them to leave
"People describe the noise as like an aeroplane that never arrives. My husband developed pneumonia very quickly after the turbines went up, having never had chest problems before. We suffer constant headaches and ear nuisance. My mother-in-law developed pneumonia and my husband developed atrial fibrillation – a rapid heartbeat. He had no pre-existing heart disease. Our blood pressure has gone up. My father-in-law has suffered a heart attack, tinnitus and marked hearing loss.
" I understand this can be regarded as a coincidence, but nobody was ill before 2006."
The defence: 'Wind turbines are quiet and safe'
The British Wind Energy Association, UK's biggest renewable energy trade association, said last night: "One of the first things first-time visitors to wind farms usually say is that they are surprised how quiet the turbines are.
"To put things in context: the London Borough of Westminster registered around 300,000 noise complaints from residents in 2008, none from wind turbines. The total number of noise complaints to local councils across the country runs into millions.
"In contrast, an independent study on wind farms and noise in 2007 found only four complaints from about 2,000 turbines in the country, three of which were resolved by the time the report was published.
"Wind turbines are quiet, safe and sustainable. It is not surprising that, according to a DTI report, 94 per cent of people who live near wind turbines are in favour of them. There is no scientific research to suggest that wind turbines are in any way harmful, and even many of the detractors of wind energy are honest enough to admit this.
"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."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
However, what is really exciting is the potential for this "bad news"--hearing through bones--to become very good news for the deaf: what are the implications for future research for help for the hearing-impaired?
Although I'm no fan (no pun intended!) of wind turbines as a reliable source of green energy much preferring tidal or nuclear, I do think that they are an important first step toward less wasteful production of electricity and should still be encouraged - but with an open mind to their possible harmful effects. If there is a reasonable possibility that they are causing harmful vibration the designs should be changed, if there is a harmful effect caused by the blades reflecting flashes of light maybe they should be painted non-reflectively.
One question though, other countries such as Holland have many more turbines in or near population centres, have they noticed these phenomena?
Ed Miliband's pursuit of windpower as even part of our energy mix is sheer lunacy. Wind power is a complete disaster says Michael J. Trebilcock, Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. Here is a summary of the key points he made in his Toronto Post article dated 8th April 2009.
1. Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.
2. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind powers unpredictability.
3. Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmarks largest energy utilities) tells us that wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
4. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that Germanys CO2 emissions havent been reduced by even a single gram, and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
5. Recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.
6. Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Take the Danish experience:-
a. Danish electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe;
b. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.
c. Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it a terribly expensive disaster.
7. In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green:-
a. Firstly - the environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately. (From Ed Milibands comments on Newsnight tonight, he is one of these).
b. Secondly - the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever the relative impact of such projects on greenhouse gas emissions.
Both groups have one point of convergence - their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (particularly wind turbines).
ROBINOVITCH
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/with
Whether it is through the bones or otherwise the ability of musicians like Evelyn Glennie proves that there are other ways to hear than through the ears as she is deaf but can tune her instruments absolutely perfectly.
In surveys many people have said in so many ways that they like living near wind turbines. In Portsmouth RI, USA a recent survey of how people feel about a wind turbine sited 650 feet from the Benedictine monastery that owns it and 650 feet from the closest house showed 90% approval. 100% of the abutters signed letters of support for the installation.
EXXON, Mobile, and SHELL may want you to believe that people do not want wind turbines near them but do not trust their motives.
This last paragraph says it all. They don't want to be investigated on Health and Safety, they don't care about the familys putting up with the disturbance twenty-four hours a day, they just want to carry on building these useless things and rake in the cash while they can. How many people directly concerned with the approving, manufacturing and siting of wind turbines actually live near them? We all know the answer to that, don't we.
These 'barons' have one problem: wind power doesn't produce any beneficial saving in global emissions. They simply don't work! So let the truth go on coming out and shame those who need to be shamed for vandalising our countryside and rural economy in the name of money. You could happily point the finger at Mr Ed Miliband for falling into this trap, so now he spends our Megabucks on his 'green' Milliwatts.
I may have lost the battle, but morality and true environmental care will eventually win the war...
David Insall
North Wales
They work: they generate energy, they generate money.
Not as much as for BP, Shell etc but still a commercially viable business - and mainly green.
Paul.
Large wind farms are required to be more than half kilometre from houses. This is part of the UK planning regulations. This avoids problem with noise and vibrations.
Typically, the distances are much greater so that there are no issues with the planning process.
ETSU-R97 was drawn up by the DTI Energy Technical Support Unit - a group that promoted wind power.
People may not like the idea of wind turbines, they may not like how they look, and now matter how
quiet they are, they may decide any level of noise they produce is unacceptable.
That's a judgement for individuals to make. People need honest and reliable information to form their own opinion, rather than treated like pawns in the debate.
On both sides of the argument, there is often false information. Some people claim there are never noise problems - this is not true - whilst problems are infrequent, a range of factors such as the age of the turbines, the quality of the design process used to site the turbines, and even turbine maintenance are all factors that affect whether a wind farm is likely to cause noise issues. Conversely, noise is often used by well organised opposition groups as a way to evoke fear and anxiety amongst local residents - simply to increase local opposition with absolutely no regard to whether or not the stress or anxiety they create is justified or not.
The work described in this article, and indeed the quality of this article itself, sadly fall into the latter category - poor quality work designed to scare. That Dr Pierponts conclusions contradict the guidance of the World Health Organisation (a document based on numerous independent researchers work around the world) for example does not seem to warrant a mention. Given the widely varied policies used in different countries to control wind turbine noise (of which the UK is one of the most stringent in the world), clearly any study of wind turbine noise effects should differentiate between the specifics of each situation i.e. give the reader some ability to judge whether the reported disturbances have arisen in a situation anything like the form of modern wind farm designs proposed in the UK. Again not the case here.
The Government's chosen ETSU-R97 is delivering noise complaints to local authority Environmental Health departments from 20% of all windfarms built at the time of the shameful University of Salford report on Amplitude Modulation (which concluded that too few people were affected to be cost-effective to care about). The report also showed that the proportion of complaints wsa higher for more recent windfarms - hardly surprising when fewer windfarms are being developed in remote locations and turbines are getting ever bigger.
We should thus apply the "precautionary approach" so advocated by the vested interests who so vehemently support windfarms and require require that we have the sort of separation between turbines and homes that there is in other countries (such as the 2km in the Labour heartland of Scotland and several other EU countries). If we do not, then we run the danger that either millions of tonnes of carbon emissions will be wasted in creating windfarms that have to be decomissioned or that we will have to relocate and compensate those adversely affected by windfarm noise.
Another benefit of this approach (assuming that you do not believe that windfarms are a complete waste of time) would be that far fewer windfarm proposals would be subjected to vigorous opposition. This would free up the planning departments to concentrate on the more publicly acceptable proposals and speed up the approvals of windfarms. Instead we have a Goverment that wants to browbeat rural communities into accepting this likely health threat by blithely dismissing their concerns and telling them that they are being selfish.
However, while we have a Prime Minister who, according to Jonathon Porritt, "does not 'get' climate change" and a Goverment that, according to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Parliamentary Select Committee has sidelined scientists and pressurised them to follow the Government line, I can not see how we will make any progress based on sound science until the present shameful executive is dismissed.
The biggest obstacle to wind farms is not any health issues - people should be more worried about Nuclear power stations if you want to worry about health issues.
The biggest obstance is the visual impact issue. But with 3000 onshore and 4000 offshore turbines in the pipeline, people will get used to them.
Also, onshore wind farms are not going to be with us forever. They have a 25 years operational life they will be dismantled. After this we should expect to see much more wave and tidal power as their become reliable and the offshore national grid is implemented.
Nothing is free. The comments comparing wind with oil, gas, etc. are moot, every thing has a cost. We need more research on this subject, not just dismissal of concerns. How else can we assess the risks?
Why if the need is for renewable energy do we not have every old water mill setup as a hydro electric plant which gives max output when it is wet in winter and all day and night every day and night?
Why are there at least a dozen weirs near us with no hydro electric plant on them? Why was the Severn barrage not built years ago? Why do we not have a sound nuclear generation industry? Because of the greens.
We do not want or need wind until all of these options have been fully utilised.
I am fed up with the endless procrastination and nit-picking concerning any form of Green issue of any kind whatsoever. Wind turbines are a new technology and a developing one. The current generation of wind turbines will be replaced with better and more efficient ones. If the Government will stop dithering and seriously invest in other forms of clean energy generation such as wave/water power it can only be of benefit.
I am very sceptical of this persons 'research paper', bearing in mind the scare-mongering which traditionally accompanies any and every alternative initiative which could possibly have an effect on the balance sheets of traditional energy companies. The sky was supposed to fall in if we took the lead out of petrol. Still seems to be there, though
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER UNINFORMED RANT AND RAMBLE, THERE IS ALSO REPORTS THAT SAY THE OPPOSITE, WHO DO YOU BELIEVE? SCIENTIST NEVER AGREE ON ANYTHING! APART FROM THE REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE IT SEEMS.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WIND TURBINES, IT IS THE PROBABLE TRUTH ALL THIS COMPLETE COBBLERS IS TO DO WITH THE ENERGY GENERATING COMPANIES SEEING THE TRUTH RUSHING TOWARDS THEM, THEY ARE OR WILL BE LOSING OUT TO RENEWABLE ENERGY, UNLESS THEY SEE THE LIGHT AND BECOME RENEWABLE ENERGY MAKERS AND EMPLOYERS THEMSELVES.
Thank you to Ms. Pagano and to the Editors for endorsing responsible development that scrutinizes both positives and negatives of new technologies.
Phillip J Greene
A minor correction: My current research does not establish a connection between heart disease and wind turbine exposure, only between a rapid heart rate as part of a panic-like response (VVVD, as described in today’s article) and wind turbine exposure. However, there is a substantial body of European (including UK) research showing that environmental noise exposure in general increases the risk for cardiovascular disease. This is an area in need of further research with regard to wind turbine exposure.
Thank you to Ms. Pagano and to the Editors for endorsing responsible development that scrutinizes both positives and negatives of new technologies.
Anyone interested in reading further on wind turbine syndrome is welcome to visit www.windturbinesyndrome.com.
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
Malone, New York
USA
We started having headaches, earaches, then ear infections within a week of operations starting. I had never had an ear infection, ever, before. This one took 3 weeks to sort out. Then other symptoms and illnesses appeared over the next weeks and months and also bear in mind that due to the noise we were only getting 3-4 hours sleep a night. The depression, raised blood pressure, tinnitus and atrial fibrillation have also all appeared.....leaving home has "cured" the depression and lowered the blood pressure but the stress still remains..................as we have to work on the farm in the day. The tinnitus continues to be is a problem. What we think is required is an urgent epidemiological study and proper research into the issues. No one really understands how these large, taller, wider turbines interact with the environment around them, and no one seemingly is interested in finding out either.........................!