Editor’s note: This story by Chris Braithwaite is part of an exchange with the Barton Chronicle.
MONTPELIER — A doctor who has studied the health effects of a commercial wind power project in northern Maine has come to the conclusion that turbines can have an impact on human health.
“There is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3,500 feet of a ridge line arrangement of 1.5 megawatts or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.”
Dr. Michael Nissenbaum presented his findings at a press conference in Montpelier last month. His statement is of particular interest to residents in the Northeast Kingdom because, in terms of both size and distance, it would apply to the proposed wind project on Lowell Mountain.
Green Mountain Power is seeking permission to erect up to 24 towers with a capacity of 2.5 or 3 megawatts each. And GMP has said the towers would be at least 3,000 feet from the nearest homes. (Exceptions are the home of the resident who would host most of the project, and a hunting camp that GMP overlooked until it was drawn to the company’s attention.)
For projects on a ridge line, Dr. Nissenbaum said, turbines should be 7,000 feet from homes, at a minimum. (That would be well over a mile, which equals 5,280 feet.)
The doctor said his study, which is disputed by the wind industry, is based on interviews with 22 of about 30 adults who live within 3,500 feet of a ridge line arrangement of 1.5 megawatt turbines in Mars Hill, Maine.
People who live near that project began to complain about the noise it made shortly after it began to operate.
Of those 22 people, Dr. Nissenbaum found, 18 reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, nine reported new chronic headaches, 13 reported stress, and 17 reported persistent anger. More than a third reported new or worsened depression, and all but one of them said the quality of their life had been reduced.
Such problems did not appear in a parallel study of a control sample of 27 people living about three miles away from the project, Dr. Nissenbaum reported.
The problem, the doctor said, is that would-be wind power developers employ sound engineers who use standard instruments to measure sound levels in the normal range that the human ear detects most easily.
“The devil is in the details,” said the doctor, who for two years has focused on the physics and potential for adverse health effect of the energy emission related to industrial wind turbines.
While the experts work in terms of pure, steady sounds, the doctor said, the turbines emit a complex tone which “is registered as louder than a pure tone, and is more effective in waking you up.”
Using a recording to demonstrate, he said that the turbines emit a pulsing sound, which again can affect the listener more than a steady tone.
Low-frequency sounds seem ominous to people, he said. “As humans we’re evolutionarily wired, and there’s some indication that low-frequency noises indicate threats.”
The noise can also cause structural elements in houses to vibrate, and amplify the effect, Dr. Nissenbaum said.
He showed a photo of a tent in the backyard of a home that sits in the middle of a large wind project in Ontario. The resident moved into the tent so she could sleep, Dr. Nissenbaum said. That would make no sense, he added, unless being inside the house made the sound worse. He quoted from the resident’s journal: “The house is humming again tonight.”
The woman moved away from the project after the wind developer bought her home. Her story was detailed in the Chronicle in December 2009.
People who can’t sleep get sick, Dr. Nissenbaum said, and some people find the throbbing sound of wind turbines particularly annoying — “a plane that never lands.”
“Annoyance leads to sleep deprivation illness as day follows night,” the doctor said.
The worst part of it, he added, is when people are offered psychological help to deal with their problems with wind turbine noise. Such people don’t need a psychologist, Dr. Nissenbaum said, “they need the turbines placed further away from their home.”
Thanks for the article on the issue. If I may, as a member of Energize Vermont, I would like to point out that Energize Vermont is more than an Anti Wind organization.
Energize Vermont’s mission statement: Advocating for renewable energy solutions in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont, contributing to the people’s well-being.
Energize vermont serves as an information clearinghouse and gathering place for people who advocate for other options. These might include: Residential or community scale wind turbines, photovoltaic solar, run of river hydro, cowpower, co-generation biomass…and whatever is just around the corner. There are sustainable options, some which provide baseload power that can be depended on 24/7.
If I am not mistaken, it was not Energize Vermont that brought Dr. Nissenbaum to our area. The Rutland Regional Mecical Center brought him. I can say this though, as a member of Energize Vermont and a community under attack from an Industrial Wind Developer, I sure listen closely to what he and others like him have to say.
Thanks for writing, Justin. The event Chris attended took place at the Statehouse. The fliers I saw floating around in May for the event had Energize Vermont on them. It was organized by the group as I recall. I have removed the last sentence of the story that you refer to. Anne
I’m writing in response to the article recently published on VTDIGGER.ORG that propagates the myth that wind turbines are directly linked to ill health effects.
Recently a scientific study conducted by the Chief Medical Officer of the province of Ontario concluded, in fact, that the opposite was true. “According to the scientific evidence, there isn’t any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” said Dr. Arlene King. This is not the first peer-reviewed study to reach that conclusion.
Here in Vermont, we have strong standards to ensure wind projects are sited in a manner that is environmentally suitable. The Vermont State Public Service Board requires applicants to go through a rigorous permitting process that includes an extensive environmental analysis and technical review, as well as testimony by experts on behalf of the Department of Public Service and opposing parties. The sound standards for projects like the Lowell one are among the most stringent in the country.
The fact is, wind projects will deliver clean, renewable power to thousands of Vermont homes, while bringing jobs and economic opportunity to Vermont.
Today’s headlines on the devastating oil crisis in the Gulf only strengthens my commitment to this cleaner future. Our state has an opportunity to embrace a sustainable power resource, and it’s important that we not get sidetracked by scare tactics.
Susan Allen
Executive Director
Renewable Energy Vermont
I have to say that as a physician I am deeply disturbed by the response to this article by Renewable Energy Vermont. Having read first hand the studies that have been done on wind energy and health it is clear that they are causing health issues for many people who live near them. Sleep disturbance, depression and decreased quality of life are very real health issues that anyone who might find themselves near a proposed wind turbine site should have real concerns about. All the quality studies have shown this again and again.
REV is behaving wrecklessly with people’s health in saying that there are no issues related to turbines, and they hurt their credibility in saying that these facilities are not causing problems for those who live near them when the facts clearly show otherwise. Wind energy may have a place in our energy needs but it comes with costs and requires proper siting if it is to be pursued at all.
It has become harder and harder still ,in todays political environment to determine truth from fiction in any issue of the day. The first thing I look for in media is nuetrality in the issue . Wind turbines are the finest example of the lack thereof. “Experts” on both sides are guilty of poluting the facts . What ever happened to accuracy in media , and accuracy in fact, is it a health issue or not? Is it an envirenmental issue or not? The responsibiliy , today , for determinning fact is all up to the reader. Forget the experts. Experts are like lemmings….running towards the political cause , sacrificing fact for emotion!
I am responding to Susan Allen’s comments to the article on wind turbine noise. She states that a Canadian study concluded that “according to the scientific evidence, there isn’t any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.” This is a semantic game. The statement might, in fact, be true that there isn’t any DIRECT causal link. However, there is certainly a causal link between wind turbines placed too close to people’s homes and sleep disturbance. And sleep disturbance can lead to health issues. One has to assume that the complaints people have registered around the world with regard to noise are not simply to complain but are in response to a problem whether direct or indirect.
I have some significant reservations about wind turbines in Vermont. However, this study is a distraction from what should be a serious discussion about Vermont’s energy futre.
The underlying theme to Dr. Nissenbaum’s research project is the hypothesis: Do changes in ambient noise levels produce health impacts due to changes in sleep patterns? Dr Nissenbaum makes this more specific, referring only to wind turbines. My issues with his study.
(1) My suspicions are always piqued when someone talks about where the manscript has been submitted. Referencing sumbission to the New England Journal of Medicine adds an aura of validity that may or may not be merited. NEJM rejects a high percentage of submissions, many of which are then submitted “downmarket.” The only valid statement of merit is “published in,” not “submitted to.”
(2) The study itself is anecdotal with minimal controls for interviewer bias. These interviews are best viewed as preliminary data that inform more formally designed and evaluated epidemologic studies. Unfortunately, the feasibility of a more formal study is limited by the few people exposed to wind turbines in New England.
(3)There are numerous examples of dramatic changes in ambient noise levels and strong anecdotal evidence about the impact of these changes.
In 1969 thousands of Americans and Canadians were roused from their sleep when the Naigra Falls were turned off. Many reported that their sleep patterns were disrupted initially. However, people adjusted and regained their sleep only experience another disruption when the Falls were turned back on. I do not know if there were epidemiological studies on health impacts, but Dr. Nissenbaum woud likely find large population with excellent health records to test his hypothesis.
A similar opportunity exists in Boston, where the noisy elevated portion of the MBTA Orange line was diverted into a newly constructed subway. Many of us repeatedly awoke at 5 am due to the lack of noise. Again a large population with good health records – a fertile place for a stong test.
We could make similar arguments about new hospitals, new highways, etc.
The noise could indeed have a significantr ongoing health impact. However, Vermont’s energy decisions should be based on strong and credible scientific analysis, not on a single person interviewing a small group of people about highly subjective health impacts – people who are sensitized to the situation and may show a bit of bias in their responses.
To be clear, my issue is with the quality of the research design and implementation, not with the question of whether wind power has a place in Vermont.
How does wind turbine noise compare with the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico and the beautiful wildlife and natural areas being destroyed there? It seems that if we complain about loosing sleep over turbine noise we should immediately complain about the traffic that rumbles over our highways every day and night. Wind energy can improve our energy situation considerably and we should develop this resource whenever possible.
I’d like to know the Doctors empirical evidence for this conclusion. I’m a Flatlander and I’m certified to take noise readings. I live in the suburbs where the average noise level during the day is from 55-65 dBA, an average drive to work is in the 65 dB level, the NJ Turnpike is about 85 dB. I say this as reference. My place in Vermont averages about 45-55 dB. So I ask, are all Flatlanders suffering from the effects Dr. Nissenbaum explains here? 33 people is hardly a good candidate pool, how many were predisposed to the effects? How many are reporting the effects simply because they don’t like the wind project? I’d like to see more of the Doctors evidence.
I am a physician from Ira, Vermont. There is no debate that intermittent noise (such as that from wind turbines) can cause sleep disturbance, and that sleep disturbance can cause major health problems. The question is who do you believe, citizens who live near the turbines and report health problems, or the energy companies making the big money off the turbines? I would argue that the BP disaster shows that we cannot trust energy companies. Let’s make sure we use wind energy in ways that a safer and more thoughtful (read smaller scale turbines and residential projects and parts of the country where wind is found not just on a few ridgetops)rather than letting big business determine what is best for us.
There have been a number of other studies published in peer review journals…mostly sound and acoustic journals that have looked at health and quality of life issues with regards to wind turbines. Dr Nissenbaums study is not by any means the first or only study to show problems. Several things stand out in these studies. First studies show that people react differently to the noise from wind turbines in that it becomes problematic at much lower levels than one would expect. That is what the science to date shows. Why that is could be debated but it does not change the fact that it is much more bothersome than most other noise sources. Some preliminary studies suggest that it has to do with the rhythmic type thumping so that it does not easily blend into the backround. Second the problems arise at very consistent sound levels ~30-35dB with increasing numbers affected as sound levels increase. Again this is not conjecture but what the science shows. Whether you are for, against or indifferent to wind turbines these are what the science shows and this is one of the many things that must be taken into account when deciding if, when and where to site these facilities.
Susan Allen of Renewable Energy Vermont says, “it’s important that we not get sidetracked by scare tactics”. This, after raising the specter of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, although oil has nothing to do with electricity! But since she brought it up, I bet BP used similar language that she does to dismiss people concerned about the safety of their deepwater well. She speaks in defense of an industry. Nissenbaum and a growing number of other physicians speak of the actual experiences of their patients. A new balance center just opened in Lewis County, NY, in the shadow of the Maple Ridge wind energy facility, because so many people in the area have started reporting vertigo and similar problems. To all the commenters wondering what makes wind turbine noise so special: it’s rhythmic, and it’s unpredictable (which, by the way, makes wind a lousy source of energy). It does not fade into the background. One does not adapt to it. It is intrusive, including a penetrating low-frequency aspect that is actually worse indoors.
A wonderful and informative article. Thanks. I sure wish we could stop the proposed wind farm that will be in our backyard. The energy companies make it sound so great, but it isn’t. But the farmers in our area can only think of the one important thing to them, that is the big check they get. If anyone knows anything about how to stop these people from coming here in Illinois, please, please help me. Thanks
Armin
arminh@aol.com