Wind Turbine Syndrome is Bullshit

March 18, 2013

All manner of vapors, demonic possession, bad juju, soured milk and frightened horses have been blamed on wind turbines, especially by phony, fossil funded “grass roots” organization that are, let’s say, tea party top-heavy in their views. If a fraction of it were true, we’d be seeing thousands of body bags coming out of Germany and Denmark.

Fortunately – and, you already knew this – its all bullshit.


Sickness being attributed to wind turbines is more likely to have been caused by people getting alarmed at the health warnings circulated by activists, an Australian study has found.

Complaints of illness were far more prevalent in communities targeted by anti-windfarm groups, said the report’s author, Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University. His report concludes that illnesses being blamed on windfarms are more than likely caused by the psychological effect of suggestions that the turbines make people ill, rather than by the turbines themselves.

“If windfarms were intrinsically unhealthy or dangerous in some way, we would expect to see complaints applying to all of them, but in fact there is a large number where there have been no complaints at all,” Chapman said.

The report, which is the first study of the history of complaints about windfarms in Australia, found that 63% had never been subject to noise or health complaints. In the state of Western Australia, where there are 13 windfarms, there have been no complaints.

The study shows that the majority of complaints (68%) have come from residents near five windfarms that have been heavily targeted by opponent groups. The report says more than 80% of complaints about health and noise began after 2009 when the groups “began to add health concerns to their wider opposition”.



ANTI-WIND farm activists around the world have created a silent bogeymanthey claim can cause everything from sickness and headaches to herpes, kidney damage and cancers.

Despite the ubiquitous nature of infrasound, anti-wind farm groups such as Australia’s Waubra Foundation like people to think that it’s only inaudible infrasound from wind turbines which might send residents to their sick beds.

But two new studies suggest the cause of health complaints by people living near wind farms could in fact be down to the scare campaign of the anti-wind groups and reports about such scares in the media.

The first study Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines? was published earlier this month in Health Psychology – a journal of the American Psychological Association.

The researchers from the University of Auckland in New Zealand wanted to find out if simply exposing people to warnings that turbines might make you ill was enough to cause them to report typical symptoms such as headaches and nausea.

Using 54 people, the researchers showed half the group five minutes of footage of people complaining that wind farms had made them ill. Some of the footage was taken from this Australian Broadcasting Corporation report (watch it here) into “Waubra disease” where residents were filmed complaining about a wind farm at Waubra in Victoria. Footage was also taken from this CTV Network report from Canada about a wind farm in Ontario.

This group was called the “high expectancy group” because the information they were given had led them to expect they might experience certain symptoms if exposed to infrasound. The other half of the group was shown interviews with experts stating that the science showed infrasound could not directly cause health problems.

The researchers then told each person they were going to be exposed to two 10-minute periods of infrasound in a special acoustic room when, in fact, for one of those periods they would be exposed to no sound at all, or “sham infrasound” as the researchers describe it.  So what happened?

The response from the “high expectancy” group was to report that the “infrasound” had caused them to experience more symptoms which were more intense. This was the case whether they were exposed to sham infrasound or genuine infrasound. The report explains that “the number of symptoms reported and the intensity of the symptom experienced during listening sessions were not affected by exposure to infrasound but were influenced by expectancy group allocation.”

In the low expectancy group, the infrasound and sham infrasound had little to no effect. In other words, the study found that if a person is told that wind turbines will make them ill then they are likely to report symptoms, regardless of whether they are exposed to infrasound or not.

Clearly, this points the finger at anti-wind farm campaigns as a potential cause of people’s symptoms, rather than “infrasound” from turbines. The research added: “The importance of findings in this study is that symptom expectations were created by viewing TV material readily available on the Internet, indicating the potential for such expectations to be created outside of the laboratory in real-world settings.”

Writing about her research on The Conversation, lead author Fiona Crichton says

The findings indicate that negative health information readily available to people living in the vicinity of wind farms has the potential to create symptom expectations, providing a possible pathway for symptoms attributed to operating wind turbines. This may have wide-reaching implications. If symptom expectations are the root cause of symptom reporting, answering calls to increase minimum wind-farm set back distances is likely to do little to assuage health complaints.

Reading some news reports (such as those offered by The Australian newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd or anti-wind activist and UK anti-wind columnistJames Delingpole) and material from anti-wind farm groups, it might seem that health complaints are common among people living near turbines.

But an as yet unpublished study (and therefore not peer-reviewed) just released by Simon Chapman, the Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, suggests only a tiny proportion of people living near turbines do actually complain and, when they do, the complaints coincide with campaigning from anti-wind groups.

Chapman looked at health complaints made by residents living within 5 kilometres of all 49 wind farms operating in Australia between 1993 and 2012. After reviewing media reports, public inquiries and complaints to wind companies themselves, Chapman found evidence of only 120 individuals having actually complained – representing about 1 in 272 people living near wind farms.

But significantly, Chapman found that 81 of those 120 residents were living beside just five wind farms “which have been heavily targeted by anti wind farm groups”. What’s more, some 82 per cent of all the complaints had occured since 2009 when Chapman says anti-wind farm groups began to push the health scare as part of their opposition to turbines.

Some 31 of the 49 wind farms studied had never been subjected to a complaint either about noise or health.

“The 31 farms with no histories of complaints, and which today have some 21,530 residents within 5km of their turbines have operated for a cumulative total of 256 years,” says Chapman’s report. In Chapman’s research, he says that anxiety among residents increases as media reports spread the stories of health concerns and as researchers start investigating.

One down side to this research is, of course, that it tells anti-wind farm groups that by concentrating on unproven health concerns, their campaigns can illicit a steady flow of complaints and negative sentiment from communities.

Sidney Morning Herald:

Study author, Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, said the results suggested that ”wind turbine sickness” was a ”communicated disease” – a sickness spread by the claim that something was likely to make a person sick. This was caused by the ”nocebo effect” – the opposite of the placebo effect – where the belief something would cause an illness created the perception of illness.


He found a much greater correlation between negative attitudes to wind turbines and reports of sickness than any ”objective measures of actual exposure”.

And he cited studies suggesting that the spread of communicated diseases was much faster when the ”illness” had a name – such as Wind Turbine Syndrome, Vibro Acoustic Disease and Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance.

Professor Chapman also cites a recent New Zealand study in which some healthy volunteers were exposed to actual ”infrasound” – the sub-audible noise from wind farms claimed to cause health problems – and others to complete silence, which they had been told was ”infrasound”. In both cases the volunteers who had been told about the potential harmful effects of infrasound were more likely to report symptoms.


..the alleged health problem has been adopted by demagogues and parroted on popular climate-skeptic websites. But the bigger problem is that “wind turbine syndrome” is what is known as a “communicated” disease, says Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney. The disease, which has reached epidemic proportions in Australia, “spreads via the nocebo effect by being talked about, and is thereby a strong candidate for being defined as a psychogenic condition,” Chapman wrote several months ago in The Conversation.

What Chapman is describing is a phenomenon akin to mass hysteria—an outbreak of apparent health problems that has a psychological rather than physical basis. Such episodes have occurred throughout human history; earlier this year, a cluster of teenagers at an upstate New York high schoolwere suddenly afflicted with Tourette syndrome-like symptoms. The mystery outbreak was attributed by some speculation to environmental contaminants.

But a doctor treating many of the students instead diagnosed them with a psychological condition called “conversion disorder,” as described by psychologist Vaughan Bell on The Crux:

It is unlikely that the New York teenagers’ problems are linked to an “unknown virus”, “mystery illness,” or “toxin,” which many media outlets mentioned as potential causes: Viruses, bacteria, or poisons are most likely to cause these symptoms by damaging the neural pathways—something we can normally detect fairly easily. So when the LeRoy cheerleaders were diagnosed with “conversion disorder,” the doctor was saying that although the symptoms appear to be due to neural damage, there were no problems with the neural pathways, and there was no evidence of faking, so the symptoms were likely due to psychological factors.

As for “wind turbine syndrome,” Chapman noted that “17 reviews [.docx file] of the available evidence about wind farms and health” had found no strong evidence that turbines were making people ill. One meta study released by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health early this year concluded that wind turbines cause no noticeable increase in health problems, though the turbines’ sound and shadow flicker might annoy nearby residents.

For a condition that seems to have no physical basis, Chapman says wind turbine syndrome has an impressive list of medical problems (“an astonishing 155” [.docx file]) attributed to it: “I have worked in public health on three continents since the mid-1970s. In all this time, I have never encountered anything in the history of disease that is said to cause even a fraction of the list of problems I have collected.”


53 Responses to “Wind Turbine Syndrome is Bullshit”

  1. […] Peter Sinclair writes at Climate Denial Crock of the Week: […]

  2. […] for stories about “Solar Cell Syndrome” to hit the denial […]

  3. […] Peter Sinclair writes at Climate Denial Crock of the Week: […]

  4. […] 2013/03/18: PSinclair: Wind Turbine Syndrome is Bullshit […]

  5. Alec Sevins Says:

    I just lost a lot of respect for Mr. Sinclair, with his denial of this documented problem. Turbines create insidious noise that’s not equally felt among all nearby residents. Wind companies will go out of their way to interview the least affected people.

    Even if he’s too blind to see that “green” wind turbines are a growing visual blight on rural areas (400 foot smokestacks would be immediately be called eyesores) he should realize that noise complaints are too numerous to ignore. He’s basically calling the complainants liars, based on industry propaganda.

    If you’re going to pass yourself off as having scientific integrity, don’t be so one-sided that anything “green” = goodness and purity, while anything that emits carbon is evil.

    The manufacture and installation of these monster acreage hogs is hardly carbon free, and all the trees clear-cut for their roads and pads are a loss of carbon sinks. The intrusion of these massive machines on more and more landscapes is in its infancy, and they are protested for good reason.

    The lack of a land ethic among wind turbine pushers has many similarities to fracking and mountaintop removal (some of which occurs when they install wind turbines on ridges). An full assessment of “the environment” should include the visual and sonic landscape, not just some technically “green” way to make electricity when the wind happens to be blowing.

  6. Alec Sevins Says:

    On YouTube, see “Voices of Tug Hill” and “Life Under a Windplant” for real people who deal with this “bullshit” syndrome. Note that many of them were OK with wind turbines before they realized the downsides, so you can’t pass it off as pure NIMBYism.

    Even if one doesn’t care about the noise they make, how can any true “environmentalist” be so soulless about the ruin they inflict on natural landscapes? They are constantly being installed many miles from the urban areas they send power to, taking over land that nobody expected to be industrialized. How can anyone just shrug at that? What is “the environment” if it doesn’t include scenery and aesthetics. You see a lot of mindless people say “I think they’re beautiful” (end of conversation; no context about the land’s beauty before turbines invaded it). Read the Darmstadt Manifesto from Germany for a plea to sanity over destroyed rural landscapes. Germany knows what a lot of turbines look like and America should take note.

    A 2009 study at Stanford suggested we’d need 3.8 MILLION “large wind turbines” to help renewable energy replace fossil fuels. The total acreage would be staggering. These towering machines are a classic example of misplaced technology getting ahead of ethics.

  7. Alec Sevins Says:

    Do a web search for [wind turbines infrasound] and honestly tell us that every article on the topic is “bullshit.”

    Do another search for [wind turbines shadow flicker] and try to ignore those results as well.

    Better yet, go LIVE among some of these massive industrial structures that you glorify so much. Spend a few days and nights in the homes of afflicted residents before calling them liars.

  8. Mike Barnard Says:

    Analysis of the 50 most commonly cited studies, reviews and governmental reports used by both sides finds that the literature used by anti-wind campaigners to claim health impacts is much, much less reliable than the evidence showing no health impacts outside of limited noise annoyance to some.

    • Mic Fidelity Says:

      All these smug phony-enviros are invited to watch a very thorough presentation titled “Life with Dekalb Turbines” (41.29 on YouTube). It has demos of the noise and all the other hassles. And that’s just one of many examples you could find if you cared to. You people are simply liars and should be ashamed. I suspect the author of this blog is tied into the industry somehow, or just an arrogant tool.

  9. Mike Barnard Says:

    Vibro-acoustic disease is at best a mistake by an incompetent and at worst a workers’ compensation ploy. Norwegian studies focussed on it using helicopter crews and passengers as study and control groups found no evidence of acute or chronic changes. One also pointed out that the key physical evidence Castelo-Branco found — thickening of the pericardium — was misinterpreted as he thought the pericardium was normally 3-4 times thinner than it actually is. An Australian assessment found that 74% of all citations to VAD papers were from the VAD papers themselves, instead of the more usual 7%.

    • Mic Fidelity Says:

      It may not be a “disease” but it sure as heck bothers a lot of people. It doesn’t need to be a bodily process, any more than a noisy nearby construction site is. It’s just a serious nuisance. How many of the arrogant fake enviros here actually live near these things? You people are rotten. (many examples of wind industry lies)

      • MorinMoss Says:

        Everything bothers someone , trains, cranes, planes, automobiles, buildings.

        I’ll take wind farms over any more of any of the above, which has caused a lot less deaths than all those others, if you’re counting.
        But I’d rather see a greater adoption of solar, especially south of the 45th parallel.

  10. […] “wind-bagger” anti-wind efforts predictably sprang up around the midwest, talking about “wind energy syndrome” and other imaginary boogey […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: