BMJ Authors reply...

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1527/rr/573676

Re: Wind turbine noise
15 March 2012

Authors’ reply

The weakness of Professor Chapman’s objections are evident from the tone of his response and his extensive use of ad hominen attacks, straw men and appeals to authority. He describes us as having “histories of anti-windfarm activity” as if that automatically rendered our opinions invalid. Neither of us have campaigned against windfarms in general, only against wind turbines being placed too close to human habitation, a public health objective which should have met with Prof Chapman’s approval. As Prof Chapman is a member of the Climate and Health Alliance, an advocacy group that campaigns for renewable energy, and could fairly be described as having a history of pro-windfarm activity, by his logic his opinions should be treated with equal scepticism.

Our editorial was careful to concentrate on sleep disturbance as the outcome measure for the adverse effects of wind turbine noise as we believe it is less susceptible to psychological effects than “annoyance”. We made no mention of “wind turbine syndrome” or any of the other symptoms that have been attributed to wind turbine noise. Professor Chapman’s assertions that complaints of ill-health from wind turbine noise are the product of mass hysteria are just that, assertions. There is no objective evidence to support them. There is clear evidence of causality and obvious mechanisms for wind turbine noise to disturb sleep rendering these assertions highly unlikely.

Prof Chapman makes much of his list of 17 reviews. Closer inspection shows that at least five were written before most of the studies cited in our editorial were published. One is in draft form and thus can not be relied upon, one reviewed the potential contribution of low frequency noise to annoyance and the rest were authored either by those with close associations with the wind industry or government departments committed to implementing wind energy and are thus hardly independent. We contend that the onus of proving safety falls on those introducing new forms of environmental pollution, including noise pollution, not on those exposed to the pollutant. A major principle of public health medicine is prevention. The reviews cited by Prof Chapman stand these principles on their heads.

We are not alone in calling for a review of current guidance for wind turbine noise and independent research. A review written by one of us (Hanning, 2011) contains a referenced list of 11 physicians and acousticians who have recommended greater setbacks and lesser noise levels than those currently permitted. An Environmental Review Tribunal in Ontario held in 2011 took oral and written evidence from over 20 experts including several contributors to Prof Chapman’s list and concluded: “… the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.” (Case Nos. 10-121 and 10-122. p 207). The Tribunal called also for more research as do we.

We are firm in our assertion that the evidence for harm at distances and noise levels permitted under current regulations in most jurisdictions is such that regulators should take notice and initiate research. If wind turbines are as benign as Prof Chapman asserts he should have no objection to research being undertaken. After all, there is not a single published study showing a lack of adverse effects on sleep and health.

CD Hanning and Alun Evans
15th March 2012

Paul, I can't believe you can say all that having claimed to have read through all the relevent threads.

Basically, what you're saying is that you're in favour of wind and consider those who argue against it are NIMBYs.

Do you really expect this discussion to go round in another circle?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Paul_B</cite>Joiner that is not what I am saying at all. I believe wind has its place in an integrated mix of power generation. Unfortunately as normal we can't have a debate and are polarised into wind is great and should be everywhere or wind is bad and we shouldn't use it anywhere.</blockquote>

But that's not the theme of this thread at all.

Noise generation is undoubtedly a problem for wind generation, and has been right from the very first turbines were erected. Provided turbines are placed far enough away from habitation then the problem can be mitigated.

All that is being argued here is that the current standards for assessing the disturbance caused by noise seem flawed when it comes to dealing with very low frequencies. There is a substantial body of evidence to show that sub-sonic noise can be disturbing to sleep, yet the current noise standard ignores these low frequencies. In theory, a wind farm operator can site a big turbine close to a house and as long as the noise level above 20 Hz is within the limits, irrespective of the noise level below 20 Hz, they can claim the installation is compliant with the regulations.

The problem is that very low frequency noise propagates over greater distances than higher frequency noise, so work needs to be done to establish appropriate separation distances for newer, bigger, turbines that will have the potential to cause greater levels of low frequency noise.

I've not seen any specific anti-wind power rhetoric here, just a general consensus that inappropriately sited wind turbines are a potential nuisance. The same would, I hope, apply to anything else we decide to build; put in the right place it's OK, in the wrong place it's not.

There are lots of reasons why the debate is polarised. One of them is the planning system that ignores the main concern people have - the impact on house prices. That's not a valid planning issue so even if that's your main or only concern peeople feel obliged to fight on issues which are more likely to succeed - such as the impact on the view of a church, the landscape etc.

The biggest problem I've found since getting involved in the local campaign is to keep people focused on issues relevant to planning - head, not gut. I just wish the supporters of the scheme (the vast majority of whom do not live locally to the proposed site) would try the same thing and not base their arguments on a scenario which has all the lights going out when the "local" coal-fired (soon to be converted to biomass) power station closes in a few years time. It would also be rather nice if they also acknowledged the potential for their scheme to impact on the lives of the few hundred people in nearby hamlets, instead of telling them that their sacrifice is a worthy one.

To get some idea of what local people are up against, the following appeal decision demonstrates a partiality that shocked me and had me shaking my head in disbelief at the way the Inspector has blithely dismissed all the arguments presented by the local people and the councils that represent them and make decisions, as the legally constituted body empowered to do so, on their behalf with due consideration of their wishes.

http://www.woolleyhill.co.uk/media/20848/Woolley%20Hill%20consent.pdf

“102. Whilst impacts on the village as a whole would be apparent, and taking full account of the fact that a number of residents chose to move to Ellington some years ago for its inherent qualities, the effects of the development would not reach a level which should lead to planning permission being refused.”

“…the effects of the development would not reach a level” is about as subjective as it is possible to get. One man’s opinion against many hundreds of others?

And I just love his views from here on:

“Other considerations
(a) The rural economy (i)Paramotors UK

105. Paramotors UK trains pilots to fly paramotors and Skydragon Leisure Ltd operates from the same base at Brookfield Farm, Alconbury. Currently, a trainee pilot’s circuit would include flying approximately 0.5 kilometres to the east of the appeal site. The route takes account of the need for the groundbased instructor to have the aircraft in sight; to avoid flying over residential properties; and to avoid likely hazards such as electricity pylons.”

This man has taken the planning guidelines and spun them for all they’re worth. He represents the epitome of the type of planner’s arrogance experienced by EmmaG with her pv panels.

Now imagine what it’s like to try and get a planning decision made on the basis of the evidence for the potential for noise nuisance. Oh yes, he deals with that in short shrift, there being no coincidence whatever in the appellant being RES!

Please remember and bear in mind that if a better form of generation came along and negated the need for turbines they can easily be decommisioned and removed. The site gets landscaped and after a few months you would not know that turbines had ever been sited in the area. The funds for the works are put aside at the construction of the wind farm. Did anyone read that one sided pathetic article in the Mail (I think) last week about the older turbines in the States? What a load of rubbish and scare mongering written to sell papers. The guy obviously knows nothing about the UK turbines and the planning process at all.
Jounalists, I HATE them!!!!

I've been involved in plenty of planning applications being refused on grounds of likely noise nuisance BUT owners of Dog Boarding Kennels don't have the financial resources like RES to put a case in the appeal court.
Anyway, issues such as this can only be argued on fact and it is unfortunate that NIMBYs have lead to a situation where facts submitted by bonafide objectors have been dismissed as more NIMBY smoke. Crying wolf and all that.

Posted By: gustyturbinePlease remember and bear in mind that if a better form of generation came along and negated the need for turbines they can easily be decommisioned and removed.

That's not what happened in the USA. When subsidies were altered and wind generation became less competitive over 14,000 wind turbines were simply abandoned.

http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

What's to stop wind farms being sold to a company that promptly puts itself into administration? Many wind farms aren't even owned by UK based companies. Councils should indeed ask for a decommisioning bond but currently I'm not aware of any wind farms putting up fund for decommisioning.

I doubt the US example would (or indeed could) be replicated here.

The only thing in favour of compensating householders for either noise (directly) or loss of amenity RESULTING from noise would be that it would make developers give more thought to the problem. But there would always be a way around having to pay it, in the same way that developers (in the case I'm thinking of, RES - there's a surprise) have got around having the Den Brook ruling applied to their scheme.

The NPPF has been an exercise in closing avenues of objection to wind farms that effectively disenfranchises communities by pressurising councils to allow developments against the wishes of their constituents. It is no longer valid in planning terms to challenge a wind farm on the basis of its size and its insignificant contribution to the grid, on the principle that "every little helps". Which goes against David McKay's "if everyone does a little, we'll achieve only a little", so where was his voice in all of this?

The Lib Dems have screwed us. They'll be kicked out at the next election with a big stupid, self-satisfied grin on their faces.

Sorry, Colin, I was thinking more in terms of thousands, or even hundreds - or even scores!

But useful to have those pics as examples of how certain assurances at the planning stage can be (and obviously are) subsequently overlooked. They're in the file!

The Cornish one does show how far the technology has come!

I've heard various distance limits for larger turbines suggested all of which would seem to limit turbines to the Scottish Highlands and maybe a spot in mid Wales. Thing is you're never that far from a dwelling - certainly none of the TAN8 welsh sites could be built if there was a 1.5km rule. So, it can't just be distance - is the separation distance down wind the same as the upwind one? How often does the wind change? At present the noise limits assume the noise is propagated from a point source (the turbine) and may equally effect a dwelling in any direction. Perhaps it is best to get some research done and then set some more meaningful noise criteria.

From what I hear AM noise is worse at 90 degrees to the prevailing wind.

A lot of research has been done and numerous papers presented to conferences on wind farm noise. But none of it matters if the government isn't listening.

Joiner,

What would you recommend? We need mixed energy production, we have aging coal power stations, nuclear takes forever to go through planning, tidal isn't currently commercially viable. Any form of industry or production is going to have an environmental and human impact.

Paul

Paul, we're in this mess BECAUSE of the hysterical fear of nuclear that held back the development of the newer nuclear technologies which, if developed at the same pace as the more pragmatic French rolled out theirs, would have seen the closure of many more FF stations.

I'm wondering whether you're in that faction which believes that electricity is only needed to keep the lights on, whereas we need the stuff to keep what's left of our industries going, hospitals running, and every other energy-heavy sector that a modern society has come to depend on running, and for that we need consistent supply, not a form of energy provision that requires a back-up expected to come onstream at a moment's notice because the forecasters have got it wrong and most of the country is becalmed for days, as happened during the winter of 2011.

One word... Buggenham. Repeated by Renewablejohn often enough, and ignored as often by those who refuse to acknowledge that VIABLE alternatives to wind DO exist and which, moreover, use a commodity we have coming out of our ears.

And remember also that there are people on this forum (not me, incidentally) who honestly and passionately believe that the jury is still out on whether climate change is down to human activity. In which case, why not business as usual?