{"id":29592,"date":"2014-08-01T10:14:52","date_gmt":"2014-08-01T14:14:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/static\/?p=29592"},"modified":"2014-08-01T10:23:41","modified_gmt":"2014-08-01T14:23:41","slug":"medical-doctor-sees-wind-turbine-syndrome-in-his-patients-vermont","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/2014\/medical-doctor-sees-wind-turbine-syndrome-in-his-patients-vermont\/","title":{"rendered":"Medical doctor sees Wind Turbine Syndrome in his patients (Vermont)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"stethoscope\"<\/p>\n

\u201cWind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects\u201d<\/h3>\n

Testimony before the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) 7\/29\/14<\/p>\n

\u2026.<\/span>\u2014 by Sandy Reider, MD<\/p>\n

My name is Sandy Reider, I am a primary care physician in Lyndonville, and I have been practicing clinical medicine in Vermont since I received my license in 1971. \u00a0[Dr. Reider is a graduate of the Harvard University School of Medicine \u2014 Editor<\/em>.]<\/p>\n

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not being paid for involvement in this issue, nor did I seek this out; rather, it found me by way of a patient I had known well for several years, and who, in late 2011, suddenly developed severe insomnia, anxiety, headaches, ringing ears, difficulty concentrating, and frequent nausea, seemingly out of the blue. This puzzled us both for a few months before we finally came to understand that he suffered from what was, then, a relatively new clinical entity known as \u201cwind turbine syndrome\u201d, related in his particular case to the comparatively small NPS 100 KW turbine that began generating power atop Burke Mountain in the fall of 2011.<\/p>\n

In the course of the 2012 legislative session, I described this patient in detail in testimony for the Senate Natural Resources and Health Care Committees, as well as the Governor\u2019s Siting Commission. Since his symptoms were so typical and similar to those described by thousands of other individuals living too close to large wind turbines all over the globe, I have attached my testimony for the Senate Health Care Committee and encourage you to review it for its very characteristic description of what it is that this board, I trust, hopes to mitigate by recommending more protective sound standards for these industrial wind installations.<\/p>\n

I should add that I have seen 4 additional patients living close to the large Sheffield and Lowell projects, as well as an individual living near another single NPS 100KW turbine in Vergennes. All presented with similar, though not identical, symptoms to those described in my testimony.<\/p>\n

That there have already been so many complaints here in Vermont related to wind turbines suggests that the current noise standards may be inadequate. Either the utilities have been regularly out of compliance with the current existing standards (Shirley Nelson\u2019s detailed daily records suggest this has indeed occurred with some regularity) and\/or that the scientific data and studies upon which the current noise standards are based is incomplete, or possibly just plain wrong.<\/p>\n

Over the past 2 years I have reviewed much of the relevant scientific literature, and out of my 42 years of experience and perspective as a clinician, respectfully offer the following observations and comments.<\/p>\n

Firstly, I do not doubt at all that these large turbines can and do cause serious health problems in a significant number of persons living nearby, even though the vibrational-acoustic mechanisms behind this harm are not yet completely understood (1,5). Repetitive sleep disruption is the most often cited adverse effect, and disturbed sleep and its resulting stress over time is known to cause or exacerbate cardiovascular illnesses (2, ), chronic anxiety and depression, as well as worsening of other pre-existing medical problems. This is especially concerning for the most vulnerable among us \u2014 children, the elderly, those who are naturally sensitive to sound,\u00a0 or prone to motion sickness or migraine headaches, and, as mentioned, those who are\u00a0 unwell to start with.<\/p>\n

The position adopted by developers of large industrial wind projects, and thus far supported by regulatory and health agencies, has been that there is no evidence of a direct effect on health from wind turbines; rather, that the claimed adverse health effects are indirect, due mainly to the individual\u2019s negative attitude about the wind turbines (so-called \u201cnocebo\u201d effect), and therefore it is their fault, it\u2019s all in their heads, and so on. Not only is this incorrect, it is disingenuous. There is simply no clinical justification for ignoring harm being done to individuals and communities, whether direct or indirect, on these grounds \u2014 simply put, harm is harm, whatever the mechanism.<\/p>\n

However, good evidence for direct adverse effects has existed since the mid-80\u2019s when Neil Kelley headed a group of researchers, under the auspices of the US Department of Energy and NASA, and found conclusive evidence that adverse effects, very similar to those that describe \u201cwind turbine syndrome\u201d, were due primarily to very low frequency sound and inaudible infrasound (6). This role of infrasound was subsequently confirmed by Kelley\u2019s team under controlled laboratory conditions, and resulted in a complete redesign of turbines from the downwind trestle-mounted turbines to today\u2019s upwind turbine on a single massive tower.\u00a0 Furthermore, he recommended protective maximum levels of this low frequency sound.<\/p>\n

\n

The joint radiation levels (expressed in terms of acoustic intensity and measured external to a structure) in the 8, 16, 31.5 and 63 Hz standard (ISO) octaves should not exceed band intensity threshold limits of 60, 50, 40 and 40 dB (re 1 pWm \u20132) more than 20% of the time<\/b>. These figures compare favorably with a summary of low-frequency annoyance situations by Hubbard.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(It is worth noting that very often infrasound levels are higher inside a building than outside, the structure acting as a resonating chamber and amplifying the lower \u201cvibration\u201d frequencies. Thus measurements for low frequency sound should be made inside the structure as well as outside. Also, low frequency sound levels are not only building design and geometry specific, but also site specific, especially in a place like Vermont where the topography and climactic conditions are so variable. There may be unacceptable indoor infrasound levels in one home, while another home over the hill may have undetectable or very low levels.)<\/p>\n

The wind industry\u2019s assertion that the Kelley study is irrelevant and that infrasound levels are negligible with the current, newer turbine design and may be ignored is unfounded, and more recent evidence confirms this. \u00a0(See the 2012 Falmouth study by Ambrose and Rand; Bob Thorne\u2019s excellent quality of life study in 2011 [12]; Steven Cooper\u2019s preliminary results in Australia, final results due in September 2014 [11]; and others.)<\/p>\n

The aforementioned studies were performed by independent professional acousticians not connected to the wind industry.\u00a0 Incidentally, the severely affected patient described in my 2012 testimony never did perceive any audible noise from the turbine (and this is quite typical, the sound is more felt than heard), nor did he harbor any feelings pro or con about the installation when his problems began, though after he understood the source of his ill-health, I have no doubt that the \u201cnocebo\u201d effect may have added to his stress, adding insult to injury.\u00a0 He has since abandoned that home, and is once again sleeping soundly and feeling well.<\/p>\n

The current sound standards, based as they are on dBA weighted acoustic measurements, gives particular weight to audible frequencies in the soundscape, but very little or no weight to low sound frequencies and infrasound, particularly below 10 Hz, which comprises a significant proportion of the sound generated by large turbines. People do not hear dBA, they hear qualitatively different sounds, birds, insects, running water, wind in the trees, etc. \u00a0Basing noise criteria solely on this single number ignores the unique nature of the sound produced by large wind turbines, with its constantly\u00a0 changing loudness, frequency, harmonics, pitch, and impulsive quality.<\/p>\n

It is precisely these qualities that make the sound feel so intrusive and annoying, especially in quiet rural environments where these projects are usually located (12).\u00a0 Parenthetically, the word \u201cannoying\u201d is somewhat misleading, as it implies a minor, temporary, or occasional nuisance that perhaps might be mostly ignored, rather than what it is: a\u00a0 repetitive stressor that can degrade one\u2019s short and long term health and well being, and from which there is no escape over the lifetime of the project short of having to abandon one\u2019s home.<\/p>\n

It is worth repeating here that the current Public Service Board threshold\u00a0 of 45 dBA of audible sound, averaged over an hour, has never been proven safe or protective, and that most studies agree that\u00a0 audible sound should not exceed 35 dBA, or 5dBA above normal background sound levels. (This is especially important in rural areas where background noise is minimal.) \u00a0The level should be a maximum, not an hourly average. Above 35 dBA there are likely to be significantly more complaints, particularly difficulty sleeping.<\/p>\n

\"chart\"<\/p>\n

Before concluding, I would like to emphasize that the bulk of scientific evidence for adverse health effects due to industrial wind installations comes in the form of thousands of case reports like the patient I described. One or two sporadic anecdotal cases can legitimately be viewed with a wait-and-see skepticism, but not thousands where the symptoms are so similar, along with the ease of observing exposure and measuring outcomes, wherever these projects have been built. I agree with Epidemiologist Carl Phillips, who opined that \u201cthese case reports taken together offer the most compelling scientific evidence of serious harm.\u00a0 Just because the prevailing models have failed to explain observed adverse health effects does not mean they do not exist\u201d, and, as he succinctly, though in my opinion a bit too harshly, concluded: \u201cThe attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias\u201d (13).<\/p>\n

I am aware that the members of the PSB bear a heavy responsibility for Vermont\u2019s overall energy future and have many other issues on their plate besides this one. Rather than presenting you with a long list of literature references, most of which would likely go unread (but they are included just in case ), I recommend a careful review of just one study in particular:\u00a0 Bob Thorne, a professional acoustician in Australia, presented an excellent and well thought-out clinical study to the Australian Senate in 2011 (12). It really does cover the waterfront, including WHO quality of life measures, audible and infrasound measurements, and health measures, in a balanced and scientific way. For your convenience there is a hard copy of this study included with my presentation today.<\/p>\n

His comprehensive (including the full sound spectrum, not only dBA weighted sound) and protective recommendations for sound criteria are reasonable, and if adopted, would be likely more acceptable to neighboring households and communities. However, given that wind developers are these days building bigger turbines atop taller towers in order to maximize power generation and profits, adoption of these safer limits would necessitate siting the installations farther from dwellings. \u00a0A 1-2 km setback is not nearly sufficient; significant low frequency sound pressure measurements have been recorded in homes 3-6 miles from large projects in Australia.<\/p>\n

The outcomes of the study are concerned with the potential for adverse health effects due to wind farm modified <\/i>audible and low frequency sound and infrasound. The study confirms that the logging of sound levels without a detailed knowledge of what the sound levels relate to renders the data uncertain in nature and content. Observation is needed to confirm the character of the sound being recorded. Sound recordings are needed to confirm the character of the sound being recorded.<\/p>\n

The measures of wind turbine noise exposure that the study has identified as being acoustical markers for excessive noise and known risk of serious harm to health (significant adverse health effects):<\/p>\n

(1) Criterion: An LAeq or \u2018F\u2019 sound level of 32 dB(A) or above over any 10 minute interval, outside;
\n(2) Criterion: An LAeq or \u2018F\u2019 sound level of 22 dB(A) or above over any 10 minute interval inside a dwelling with windows open or closed.
\n(3) Criterion: Measured sound levels shall not exhibit unreasonable or excessive modulation (\u2018fluctuation\u2019).
\n(4) Criterion: An audible sound level is modulating when measured by the A-weighted LAeq or \u2018F\u2019 time-weighting at 8 to 10 discrete samples\/second and (a) the amplitude of peak to trough variation or (b) if the third octave or narrow band characteristics exhibit a peak to trough variation that exceeds the following criteria on a regularly varying basis: 2dB exceedance is negligible, 4dB exceedance is unreasonable and 6dB exceedance is excessive.
\n(5) Criterion: A low frequency sound and infrasound is modulating when measured by the Z- weighted LZeq or \u2018F\u2019 time-weighting at 8 to 10 discrete samples\/second and (a) the amplitude of peak to trough variation or (b) if the third octave or narrow band characteristics exhibit a peak to trough variation that exceeds the following criteria on a regularly varying basis: 2dB exceedance is negligible, 4dB exceedance is unreasonable and 6dB exceedance is excessive.
\n(6) Definitions: \u2018LAeq\u2019 means the A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure level [18]; \u2018F\u2019 time-weighting has the meaning under IEC 61672-1 and [18]; \u201cregularly varying\u201d is where the sound exceeds the criterion for 10% or more of the measurement time interval [18] of 10 minutes; and Z-weighting has the meaning under AS IEC 61672.1 with a lower limit of 0.5Hz.
\n(7) Approval authorities and regulators should set wind farm noise compliance levels at least 5 dB(A) below the sound levels in criterion (1) and criterion (2) above. The compliance levels then become the criteria for unreasonable noise.<\/p>\n

Measures (1-6) above are appropriate for a \u2018noise\u2019 assessment by visual display and level comparison. Investigation of health effects and the complex nature of wind turbine noise require the more detailed perceptual measures of sound character such as audibility, loudness, fluctuation strength, and dissonance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To exclude careful independent well-designed case studies like Thorne\u2019s ( and others ) in a review of the scientific literature that purports to be thorough is, I repeat, a serious omission and is not \u201cscientific\u201d. Careful consideration of these independent well done studies, if nothing else, should encourage regulatory agencies to adopt a much more precautionary approach to the siting of today\u2019s very big industrial wind projects in order to adequately protect public health.<\/p>\n

For better or worse, in today\u2019s \u201cinformation age\u201d we are perhaps too fascinated by computers and mountains of data, but truth is truth, wherever you find it, even in small places.<\/p>\n

Contact<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

\u2026.<\/span>Sandy Reider, MD
\n\u2026.<\/span>PO Box 10
\n\u2026.<\/span>East Burke, VT 05832
\n\u2026.<\/span>(802) 626-6007
\n\u2026.<\/span>sandyreider@yahoo.com<\/a><\/p>\n

*Many thanks to Dr. Sarah Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation<\/a>, for her tireless work, and generosity in sharing so much information.<\/p>\n

1. \u00a0Pierpont, N 2009\u00a0 from the executive summary of her peer-reviewed study, http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/wind-turbine-syndrome-executive-summary\/<\/a><\/p>\n

2. \u00a0Capuccio et al 2011 \u201cSleep Duration predicts cardiovascular outcomes: a systemic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies\u201d European Heart Journal<\/em>, (2011) 32, 1484\u20131492 http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/sleep-duration-predicts-cardiovascular-outcomes\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

3. \u00a0Nissenbaum, M Hanning, C and Aramini J 2012\u00a0 \u201cEffects of industrial wind turbines on sleep and health\u201d\u00a0 Noise and Health<\/em>, October 2012<\/p>\n

4. \u00a0Shepherd, D et al 2011 \u201cEvaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life\u201d Noise and Health<\/em>, October 2011\u00a0 http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/evaluating-impact-wind-turbine-noise-health-related-quality-life\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

5. \u00a0Arra, M & Lynn H\u00a0 2013\u00a0 Powerpoint presentation to the Grey Bruce Health Unit, Ontario, \u201cAssociation between Wind Turbine Noise and Human Distress\u201d http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/association-between-wind-turbine-noise-and-human-distress\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

6. \u00a0\u201cAcoustic noise associated with Mod 1 Turbine, its impact and control\u201d http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/kelley-et-al-1985-acoustic-noise-associated-with-mod-1-wind-turbine\/<\/a><\/p>\n

7. \u00a0James, R 2012\u00a0 \u201cWind Turbine Infra and Low Frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Went Unheard\u201d Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society<\/em> 32(2) 108 \u2013 127, accessed via Professor Colin Hansen\u2019s submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry Excessive Noise from Windfarms Bill (Renewable Energy Act) November 2012\u00a0 http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/testimony-hansenc-excessive-noise-bill-inquiry-submission\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.\u00a0 James references another useful bibliography of references of the early NASA research, compiled by Hubbard & Shepherd 1988 \u201cWind Turbine Acoustic Research: \u00a0Bibliography with selected Annotation\u201d http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/hubbard-h-shepherd-k-nasa-wind-turbine-acoustics-research\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

8. \u00a0Hubbard, H 1982\u00a0 \u201cNoise induced house vibrations and Human Perception\u201d http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/hubbard-h-1982-noise-induced house vibrations-human-perception\/<\/a><\/p>\n

9. \u00a0Ambrose, Stephen and Rand, Robert\u00a0 2011 \u201cBruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise\u00a0Study\u201d http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/bruce-mcpherson-infrasound-low-frequency-noise-study\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

10. \u00a0http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/schomer-et-al-wind-turbine-noise-conference-denver-august-2013\/<\/a><\/p>\n

11. \u00a0http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/2014\/pacific-hydro-commended-initiating-wind-turbine-noise-acoustic-survey\/<\/a><\/p>\n

12. \u00a0http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/wind-farm-generated-noise-and-adverse-health-effects\/<\/a><\/p>\n

13. \u00a0\u201cProperly interpreting the Epidemiological evidence about the health effects of Industrial Wind turbines on nearby residents\u201d Bulletin of Science, Technology and\u00a0Society<\/em> vol 31 No 4 (August 2011) pp 303\u2013315 http:\/\/waubrafoundation.org.au\/resources\/properly-interpreting-epidemiologic-evidence-about-health-effects\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

See: \u00a0Bob Thorne, \u201cThe Problems with \u2018Noise Numbers\u2019 for Wind Farm Noise Assessment,\u201d\u00a0Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society<\/em> 2011 31: 262. \u00a0DOI: 10.1177\/0270467611412557,\u00a0http:\/\/bst.sagepub.com\/content\/31\/4\/262<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cWind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects\u201d Testimony before the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) 7\/29\/14 \u2026.\u2014 by Sandy Reider, MD My name is Sandy Reider, I am a primary care physician in Lyndonville, and I have been practicing clinical medicine in Vermont since I received my license in 1971. \u00a0[Dr. Reider is a graduate of the Harvard University School of Medicine \u2014 Editor.] In the interest of full disclosure, I am not being paid for involvement in this issue, nor did I seek this out; rather, it found me by way of a patient I had known well for several years, and who, in late 2011, suddenly developed severe insomnia, anxiety, headaches, ringing ears, difficulty concentrating, and frequent nausea, seemingly out of the blue. This puzzled us both for a few months before we finally came to understand that he suffered from what was, then, a relatively new clinical entity known as \u201cwind turbine syndrome\u201d, related in his particular case to the comparatively small NPS 100 KW turbine that began generating power atop Burke Mountain in the fall of 2011. In the course of the 2012 legislative session, I described this patient in detail in testimony for the Senate Natural Resources and Health Care Committees, as well as the Governor\u2019s Siting Commission. Since his symptoms were so typical and similar to those described by thousands of other individuals living too close to large wind turbines all over the globe, I have attached my testimony for the Senate Health Care Committee and encourage you to review it for its very characteristic description of what it is that this board, I trust, hopes to mitigate by recommending more protective sound standards for these industrial wind installations. I should add that I have seen 4 additional patients living close to the largeRead More…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[157,163,16],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29592"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}