A Free-Market Energy Blog

World Health Organization: Wind Turbine Noise as a Health Hazard (opening recognition likely to lead to more acknowledgement)

By Sherri Lange -- October 17, 2018

“The wind industry has denied and ignored evidence directly linking wind turbines and sleep disruption leading to negative human and animal impacts worldwide. Expect WHO’s new Guidelines to give rise to new standards to mitigate if not eliminate this ongoing suffering.”

The burden of environmental noise with wind turbines is not episodic or random: for the most part its effects are constant and unrelenting…. This is an undeniable health pressure of enormous magnitude.”

Abstract: While only “conditional,” acknowledgement is given to pulsation (impulsive amplitude modification, as Steven Cooper calls it) and ILFN (Infra and Low Frequency Noise), the new World Health Organization report underscores the failure of current regulations of dB to manage health impacts from industrial wind installations worldwide.

The other irrefutable conclusion is that the wind industry has been given a regulatory path to profits with an unfathomable license to hurt in the form of sleep deprivation (and associated disease) for a very long time.  Master Resource reported earlier on the findings of the Australian Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines (June 29, 2015). This court established that there is a direct pathway to disease resulting from wind turbine noise.

————–

For years, a host of professionals and interested parties have asked World Health Organization to include wind turbine noise in its Guidelines. For the first time, WHO has announced guidelines for wind turbine ‘noise.

While issued only for the European Region (with data compiled from various continents), worldwide industry, governments, and interested and impacted people will all take note. (Key people in the presentation of copious and reputable information to the WHO for years, have been Christine Metcalfe of the UK, and Dr. Sarah Laurie of AU.)

This Guideline recognizes that the “noise” is more than ‘annoyance’ (and “annoyance” is of lesser concern than sleep deprivation)–and that chronic noise contributes to cardiovascular disease; lack of sleep, hearing loss, tinnitus and stress; and increased changes in blood pressure and heart health. These, of course, are well known impacts to communities and professionals worldwide. These negative impacts have, however, been slow to be recognized at levels such as the WHO.

The impacts recognized by the WHO Guidelines are likely to cause some concern for the wind industry that has chronically, methodically, and systemically, over a long period of time, blocked the flow of information, denying, obfuscating, and blaming helpless victims for “poor coping skills.”

Analyses of the WHO findings are happening around the world, with some looking to the anticipated mass of class action lawsuits, and others more cautiously examining  the omissions, and overly cautious, and even erroneous WHO findings, which conclude that there is insufficient evidence to provide night time wind turbine noise guidelines.

Also, but only gently underscored, not highlighted in the Wind Turbine Noise Guidelines, are the now obvious and historically reported impacts of ILFN, shadow flicker, vibration, pressure pulsation.

A summary of findings:

Officially launched to countries and stakeholders in Basel, Switzerland on 10 October 2018, the document identifies levels at which noise has significant health impacts and recommends actions to reduce exposure. For the first time, a comprehensive and rigorous methodological framework was applied to develop the recommendations.

“Noise pollution in our towns and cities is increasing, blighting the lives of many European citizens. More than a nuisance, excessive noise is a health risk – contributing to cardiovascular diseases, for example. We need to act on the many sources of noise pollution – from motorized vehicles to loud nightclubs and concerts – to protect our health,” says Dr Zsuzsanna Jakab, WHO Regional Director for Europe. “The new WHO guidelines define exposure levels to noise that should not be exceeded to minimize adverse health effects and we urge European policy-makers to make good use of this guidance for the benefit of all Europeans.”

Five Advancements

Compared to previous WHO guidelines on noise, this version contains five significant developments:

  • stronger evidence of the cardiovascular and metabolic effects of environmental noise;
  • inclusion of new noise sources, namely wind turbine noise and leisure noise, in addition to noise from transportation (aircraft, rail and road traffic);
  • use of a standardized approach to assess the evidence;
  • a systematic review of evidence, defining the relationship between noise exposure and risk of adverse health outcomes;
  • use of long-term average noise exposure indicators to better predict adverse health outcomes.

The executive summary can be found here:

For average noise exposure (WIND TURBINES), the GDG (Guideline Development Group) conditionally recommends reducing noise levels produced by wind turbines below 45 dB Lden, as wind turbine noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects.

The report has conditional statements:

No recommendation is made for average night noise exposure Lnight of wind turbines. The quality of evidence of night-time exposure to wind turbine noise is too low to allow a recommendation.

To reduce health effects, the GDG conditionally recommends that policy-makers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from wind turbines in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average noise exposure.

No evidence is available, however, to facilitate the recommendation of one particular type of intervention over another.

WHO’s use of “conditional” is opposed to “strong.” The report defines strong as being likely to be reasonably adopted into policy in most cases, while conditional references require a policy-making process “with substantial debate.” “There may be circumstances or settings in which it will not apply.”

The Burden of Environmental Noise Exposure

There is an additional emphasis in the Guide to acknowledge the “burden of environmental noise” exposure.

The public health burden from environmental noise Exposure to noise can lead to auditory and nonauditory effects on health. Through direct injury to the auditory system, noise leads to auditory effects such as hearing loss and tinnitus. Noise is also a nonspecific stressor that has been shown to have an adverse effect on human health, especially following long-term exposure. These effects are the result of psychological and physiological distress, as well as a disturbance of the organism’s homeostasis and increasing allostatic load (Basner et al., 2014). This is further outlined in the WHO narrative review of the biological mechanisms of nonauditory effects (Eriksson et al., 2018).…

Sufficient information was deemed available to quantify the burden of disease from environmental noise (our emphasis) for cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment in children, sleep disturbance, tinnitus and annoyance. The report, based on a limited set of data, estimated that DALYs lost from environmental noise in western European countries are equivalent to 61 000 years for ischaemic (sic) heart disease (IHD), 45 000 years for cognitive impairment in children, 903 000 years for sleep disturbance, 22 000 years for tinnitus and 654 000 years for annoyance (WHO Regional Office for Europe & JRC, 2011). These results indicate that at least one million healthy years of life are lost every year from traffic-related environmental noise in western Europe. Sleep disturbance and annoyance, mostly related to road traffic noise, constitute the bulk of this burden. (Our emphasis) Available assessments place the burden of disease from environmental noise as the second highest after air pollution (WHO Regional Office for Europe & JRC, 2011;  Hänninen et al., 2014; WHO 2014b).

While the new 2018 Guidelines suggest there is insufficient evidence for the WHO to prescribe or suggest acceptable night time noise levels for wind turbines, other WHO documents suggest strongly that the evidence has accrued and been applied for other agents of noise: road traffic, rail, air traffic, etc. These guidelines, such as for Community Noise, suggest that children and the ill, who spend more time proportionately in beds and sleep modes, will require reduced noise levels.

How loud is too loud? WHO asks:

The WHO guidelines for community noise recommend less than 30 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) in bedrooms during the night for a sleep of good quality and less than 35 dB(A) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions.

The WHO guidelines for night noise recommend less than 40 dB(A) of annual average (Lnight) outside of bedrooms to prevent adverse health effects from night noise.

An Open Letter drafted by Ms. Metcalfe to Mme Heroux and members of the panel developing these guidelines, compellingly requests:

One of the sources of noise you are investigating is that from wind turbines which was not addressed in previous guidelines. We welcome your review because, despite mounting anecdotal and academic evidence, for too long mitigation against adverse health effects following the construction of wind turbines has been absent from planning guidelines and noise pollution regulations in many European countries, especially with respect to sound below 200 Hz. There is a pressing need for new guidelines to encourage governments better to safeguard the health of their citizens. You will be aware that these problems are not confined to Europe. Neither are they confined to human beings. We are hopeful that your deliberations will result in tough new European guidelines which in turn will prompt a serious worldwide examination of all aspects of this problem, including the widely-reported effects on animals.

While the Guidelines now acknowledge the impacts of wind turbine noise and implications to negative health, including cardiovascular diseases, corollary questions of devastating impacts to animals, linger. Also absent is acknowledgement of the growing call for night time shut down of wind turbines, completely. Given that nighttime shut down of turbines is more and more becoming a demand from the impacted and communities, this appears to be a glaring oversight. (This is not a demand likely to be adopted by any developer, anywhere.)

Sweden already has regionally adopted a 40dB(A) “praxis” (accepted practice), which is not proving useful, and experts there have noted that even a few night time disruptions are as harmful or more so than multiple exposures and disruptions during the day. (Information provided in an email from Ove Bjorkland.)

Lack of Current International Standards of Measurement for Noise and Pulsation/Pressure Levels

 WHO Guideline appears to have something for everyone. Some developers and cooperating governments will gloat that they are already operating at or below the WHO 45 dB L(den) suggested guideline. Others may find it a useful tool to pressure for a downsize of their existing regulations. There are no international regulations.

We add that current regulations, decided by country, region, or even locally, on audible noise caused by the unique and various grinding, vibrating, screeching, and whomping sounds of a wind turbine, do nothing for health protection with respect to the even more dangerous sub acoustic impacts.

The cocktail of acoustic events, many registered by the body, not the ear, impact entire lives, and that of companion animals, or livestock, and these cannot be ignored, nor measured simply with dB.  An acoustic report from the University of Notre Dame  states that: “there is no completely satisfactory manner to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance or dissatisfaction….”

This report goes on to say that at the present time, “there are no common international noise standards or regulations for sound pressure levels.”

What would have added substantially to the WHO “conditional” acknowledgement of harm from wind turbine noise, would have been a hefty or certain “nod” to infra and low frequency impacts and pressure pulsation. These impacts have numerously been reported and recognized by volumes of professionals, including Dr. Mariana Alves Pereira, whose work on vibro-acoustic disease is irrefutably clear. Below, Dr. Laurie confirms the body of research conducted by NASA some thirty years ago.

“There has been pretence that there is no evidence of harm at the levels of infrasound and low-frequency noise being emitted. This is untrue. There is an extensive body of research conducted by NASA and the US Department of Energy 30 years ago, which: established direct causation of sleep disturbance and a range of physiological effects euphemistically called ‘annoyance’,”

– Dr. Sarah LaurieCEO, Waubra Foundation. Testimony before the Australian Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, June 29, 2015. (Quoted in Master Resource,  August 6, 2015)

Despite inadequacies, the WHO Guidelines are now finally inclusive of wind turbine “noise” and these now bolster what has been known for over 30 years: harm has been and continues to be administered. As erroneously suggested by the industry, victims are not poorly adapting, or having poor coping skills, or inflicted with prior tendency to fear or neuroses.

The harm is real, ongoing, and sinister, because people have known, do know, and continue the profiteering.

The burden of environmental noise with wind turbines is not episodic or random: for the most part its effects are constant and unrelenting (nothing like an occasional aircraft over the house, nor the 70 plus dB experienced at a concert for a few hours). This is an undeniable health pressure of enormous magnitude. 

As the WHO prescribes various adjustments or mitigation, say, for road traffic (choice of tires, road surface, lowering traffic flow, different adjustments to road tunnels, insulation, etc.), it acknowledges that it does not have the ability or facts to recommend mitigation for the burden of wind turbine noise. However, to so many now studied persons about noise and night time sleep disruptions, the remediation is fairly obvious.

This particular burden, wind turbine noise, one unto itself in terms of environmental noise, unique in noise dynamics, heard, and felt sound pulsations/pressures, deserves a full-blown international guideline/regulation on all the sound “assets” of the machine.

Shortcomings

While the WHO acknowledges finally after many years that health effects can be reduced from industrial wind, and “conditionally” recommends that “policymakers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from wind turbines in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average noise exposure,” its recommendations are disappointingly scant or non-existent on three very important impacts:

  • pressure pulsation and ILFN, and vibration.
  • acknowledgement and recommendations of the tens of thousands or even millions of persons worldwide, many children and elderly, who have registered complaints of seriously disrupted sleep. These are anecdotal and recorded in numerous papers and findings. Missing completely is the seriously necessary Guideline for Night time noise with wind turbines.
  • Impacts reported worldwide to animals, livestock, pets, wildlife. Of every description, wild, domesticated and “husbanded”.

The wind industry has denied and ignored evidence directly linking wind turbines and sleep disruption leading to negative human and animal impacts worldwide. Expect WHO’s new Guidelines to give rise to new standards to mitigate if not eliminate this ongoing suffering.

References

http://www.windsofjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Open-Letter-to-the-members-of-the-panel-developing-the-WHO-Environmental-Noise-Guidelines-for-the-European-Region.pdf

https://docs.wind-watch.org/WHO-noise-guidelines-Europe.pdf

http://www.windsofjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Open-Letter-to-the-members-of-the-panel-developing-the-WHO-Environmental-Noise-Guidelines-for-the-European-Region.pdf

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2017/12/03/why-wind-turbine-sounds-are-annoying-and-why-it-matters/

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/10/13/wind-industry-panics-as-class-actions-loom-who-finds-wind-turbine-noise-harmful-to-health/

http://www.epaw.org/echoes.php?lang=en&article=ns128

https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-health-effects/au-testimony-laurie-ii/

http://www.epaw.org/documents/Sarah_Laurie__Testimony_2013.pdf

http://www.epaw.org/press/EPAW_TWF_NA-PAW_media_release_4Mar2013.pdf

https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-health-effects/tempest-industrial-wind-storm-ontarios-failure-shelter-citizens/

http://www.na-paw.org/Ambrose-Divide-Wind-Turbines-Noise-Control-Engineering.php

http://hearinghealthmatters.org/journalresearchposters/files/2016/09/16-10-21-Wind-Turbine-Noise-Post-Publication-Manuscript-HHTM-Punch-James.pdf  (Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health: A Four-Decade History of Evidence that Wind Turbines Pose Risks* Jerry L. Punch, and Richard R. James)

https://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/1987-problem-with-low-frequency-noise-from-wind-turbines-scientifically-identified/

https://www3.nd.edu/~tcorke/w.WindTurbineCourse/Acoustics_Presentation.pdf

https://www.welt.de/print/welt_kompakt/print_wirtschaft/article181957218/Laute-Windraeder-schaden-der-Gesundheit.htmlhttps://docs.wind-watch.org/ICBEN-2017_Rapley_1001_3872.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23117539

(Nissenbaum, Aramini, and Hanning, Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health, 2012)

 

 

18 Comments


  1. Alan Isselhard  

    Sounds like the WHO is going in the right direction. Wonder what the reaction to this would be from the AWEA?

    Alan Isselhard
    Wolcott, NY
    Great Lakes Wind Truth

    Reply

  2. Lange comments on new wind turbine noise guidelines, WHO | Great Lakes Wind Truth  

    […] the first time, the World Health Organization has added the Health Burden of Wind Turbine Noise. Read an analysis of its contents, (right click), possible outcomes, and […]

    Reply

  3. Eric Rosenbloom  

    Very good summary and perspective. I would add only that the new recommendations cite ISO 1996-1:2016 Section 3.6 for the calculation of Lden. Lden is the average of all day, evening, and night noise levels, day being 12-15 hours, evening being 4 hours (if defined), and night being 8-9 hours. They contribute separately to the Lden average because 5 dB is added to the evening average and 10 dB to the night average.

    It should also be noted that WHO specifies that the new recommendations are levels measured at the most exposed façade outdoors. Thus, they would appear to achieve the earlier recommendation of 40 dB at night outside bedrooms to achieve a limit at night of 30 dB indoors.

    Reply

  4. Suzanne Albright  

    I took the following information from the WHO website on substance abuse. None of the information below concerning the ill effects of marijuana is suspected, implied, or suggesting more research. It is clearly written, and the horrible health effects, both acute and chronic, are stated as factual (not possible or needing more research). I added these comments because it says to me that even when the WHO clearly identifies, beyond question, the destructive health effects of something, their information and recommendations are secondary to the power of big business, even illicit drugs. Just look at the new law in Canada, legalizing marijuana as of today, and the suggestion by Cuomo to legalize it in NYS.

    MS. LANGE, YOUR ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT, CONVINCING, WELL WRITTEN, AND SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. I WONDER WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GIVE THE WHO MORE CLOUT WORLDWIDE. HOW TERRIBLY SAD THAT THEIR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT RESPECTED. GIVEN THEIR DATA AND FINDINGS, I PUT LOW FREQUENCY SOUND PRODUCED BY INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS MARIJUANA USE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    From the WHO Substance Abuse website:
    The acute effects of cannabis use has been recognized for many years, and recent studies have confirmed and extended earlier findings. These may be summarized as follows:
    Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabis is used both during learning and recall periods;
    Cannabis impairs psycho-motor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

    Chronic health effects of cannabis use:
    selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
    prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
    development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
    cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
    epithelial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
    airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defense against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
    heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
    cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight.

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Suzanne Albright

    Reply

  5. Sherri Lange  

    Ms. Albright, what a perfect analogy. Yes. How much more study is needed for proof? None. We have over 40 years of proof. The fact that health burdens to animals was neglected in this report, is quite surprising, given that the WHO was given over time, numerous hefty articles and journals, from harm to chickens, dead goats in Taiwan, yolk less eggs reported in many places, deformed horses in Portugal, aching images of harm to newborn mink in DK, etc., this list is disturbing.

    I am sure this will be the start of the WHO discussion, not the end by far. Thank you for your cogent remarks.

    Reply

  6. steven cooper  

    Sherri,

    The WHO recommendations are conditional because there is limited and weak data available – because the required studies have not been undertaken.

    There is a recommendation for more work to be undertaken. In looking at the specifics of the recommendations one should view page 85 under “additional considerations or uncertainties” where there is a list of relevant technical issues of concern.

    Based upon the limited data the WHO have classified the levels as conditional recommendations and provides a significant number of qualifications as to using the limit.

    The 45 LDEN recommended by WHO is a 24 hour long term level.

    There are weighting adjustments of +0 in the day, + 5 in the evening and +10 in the night.

    Assuming a wind farm can operate over 24 hrs then the critical noise design is an Leq level (during the night of 35 dB(A).

    In Australia, depending upon the receiver classification there can a limit of:

    • 40 dB(A) or background + 5 dB(A) – WHEVER IS THE GREATER,
    or
    • 35 dB(A) or background + 5 dB(A) – WHEVER IS THE GREATER

    The WHO criteria would for night time levels be set at 35 dB(A).

    Therefore the WHO levels applied at night for wind farms are lower than used in Australia and lower than set for many states in the US.

    Reply

  7. Sherri Lange  

    Thanks, Steven, and Eric

    Great clarifications. Still puzzling as to why they failed to set a “conditional” night time standards for Wind Turbines, when they were not fearful at all to address this for other sources of noise: air, road traffic, etc. with respect to “Community Noise Guidelines.”

    And as we know, dB is only ONE component of the cocktail. Don’t know if you have this yet:
    William Acker report, 2015 -18. Compelling look world wide at impacts.

    http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/featured/william-acker-wind-turbines-survey-of-impacts-show-positive-proof/

    Reply

  8. Sherri Lange  

    Mr. Isselhard, thanks, and I agree. I am wondering what the wind industry is thinking, planning. Could be business as usual, but this Guideline will give them a little pause, because it is additional to the already MASSIVE proliferation of evidence that their machines produce number one, HARM. Let’s see how they spin it. I see they are already spinning the cost angle lately. Cheapest form of energy….and that is being debunked as we speak.

    Reply

  9. Michael Spencley  

    It is good news that the World Health Organization Guidelines are now finally inclusive of wind turbine “noise” as a clear causal path for health problems. While this advance of their position is definitely welcomed and certainly provides a “wedge in the door” for the future, it falls well short in coming to come to terms with the “elephant in the room” which is setting meaningful protective standards for infra and low-frequency impacts as well as pressure pulsation.

    Much appreciation is deserved by the individuals who have expanded the enormous effort to report, communicate and continue to dialogue with WHO to protect the world against the harmful health effects of industrial wind turbines.

    Many thanks to Sherri Lange for this cogent report and to MasterResource for keeping on top of this very serious issue.

    Reply

  10. Sherri Lange  

    Michael, you write so well. Thank you for taking the time to add to this discussion. Thanks for acknowledging how much effort has gone into getting this admission from the WHO….and for noting the many many people from all over the world who added their names to the Open Letter referred to in the piece. Mrs. Christine Metcalfe is certainly ONE of the powerful voices who spearheaded this most recent open letter, and helped everyone gather signatures. I hope folks will see who has actually signed. It is an interesting list.

    Lately, there are compiling “wedges” as you note. This will stimulate more discussion but hopefully not more studies. Enough already, as Suzanne Albright has noted.

    Reply

  11. Sherri Lange  

    Michael, thank you for taking the time to add to this discussion. Thanks for acknowledging how much effort has gone into getting this admission from the WHO….and for noting the many many people from all over the world who added their names to the Open Letter referred to in the piece. Mrs. Christine Metcalfe is certainly ONE of the powerful voices who spearheaded this most recent open letter, and helped everyone gather signatures. I hope folks will see who has actually signed. It is an interesting list.

    Lately, there are compiling “wedges” as you note. This will stimulate more discussion but hopefully not more studies. Enough already, as Suzanne Albright has noted.

    Reply

  12. Sherri Lange  

    Let’s not forget this news from Australia recently:

    In January, for the first time an Australian court acknowledged that “some wind farms
    generate sound which is capable of causing, and does cause, annoyance. We are further
    satisfied that annoyance of the kind which is generated (often associated with psychological
    distress and sleep disturbance), is a recognised pathway to a range of adverse health
    outcomes, including hypertension and cardiovascular disease.”
    https://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/aat-decision-reasons-waubra-foundation-vs-
    acnc-dec-4-2017/

    Just over a week ago, the report by an expert named by the Supreme Court of Victoria stated:
    “there is a nuisance caused by wind farm noise, in that, the noise is audible frequently within
    individual residences and this noise is adversely impacting on the personal comfort and
    wellbeing of individuals.” https://waubrafoundation.org.au/2018/turbine-bombshell-shire-
    state-must-act-turbine-noise/

    Reply

  13. Sommer  

    Thank you Sherri. I have so many questions.

    Why is the work of Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira, in exposing the irreversible harm to the neurological as well as the vestibular system, being ignored by the WHO?
    http://en.friends-against-wind.org/health/infrasound-and-lfn

    In Ontario we now have four rural residents, willing to have their relevant medical records viewed by our new Health Minister, Christine Elliot, so she can see that the frightening cardiac instability that caused them to be subjected to medical investigations, is proof that they did not have typical causative factors. These people all have turbines too close to their homes. The turbines are still running. Why has she not responded to this information? Is she waiting for the WHO to direct her?
    Why have the doctors, who did these investigations, not spoken out?

    How many other people are in similar circumstances? How many other innocent residents in rural Ontario are in various stages of the cumulative harm from LFN and infrasound radiation?

    Has anyone ever investigated Coroner’s Records in communities where these turbines have been sited too close to homes?

    Why did Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira state publicly that she would not live within 20 km of an industrial wind turbine? If she said this; knowing what she knows, why should anyone have to live within 20 km of an industrial wind turbine?

    Why are these turbines still harming innocent men, women and children?
    Is this a forced relocation agenda?
    Is this evidence of ‘genocidal ideology’ directed at rural communities?
    Who will be held legally liable for this harm?

    Reply

  14. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: October 22, 2018 - Master Resource  

    […] World Health Organization: Wind Turbine Noise as a Health Hazard […]

    Reply

  15. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – October 22nd 2018 | PA Pundits - International  

    […] World Health Organization: Wind Turbine Noise as a Health Hazard […]

    Reply

  16. Sherri Lange  

    Pauli, you are so correct. There were many resources provided to the WHO that were not referenced at all. Including the work of Mariana Alves Pereira. Crucially important work. There will apparently be a follow up letter to Mme Heroux of the WHO.

    Regarding the current Minister of Health for Ontario, Honorable Christine Elliott, we can only hope that she and her staff will come quickly up to speed and respond to your/our letters, and requests. We know she is aware of the situation for many years now. Signs of hope are appearing, and my recommendation is to keep writing phoning, and making the issue up front. I would not as some are suggesting, limit your conversations to your local MPP. Keep doing what you, amazing warrior, are doing. Is this a “forced relocation” agenda? It would sure appear so. The evidence is accruing, and we are bound to have some interesting legal actions, group actions, shortly.

    Reply

  17. Sherri Lange  

    https://stopthesethings.com/2018/11/01/wind-turbine-time-out-whos-health-hazard-warning-prompts-demand-for-immediate-wind-farm-moratorium/

    Wind Turbine Time-Out: WHO’s Health Hazard Warning Prompts Demand for Immediate Wind Farm Moratorium

    Wind farm moratorium
    SA Parliament
    Connie Bonaros
    24 October 2018

    Mr President, I rise to speak to the motion in my name on the matter of a moratorium on wind farm developments in South Australia.

    When the world’s pre-eminent health authority – the World Health Organisation – airs a warning, the world should rightly heed that advice.

    “The renowned Geneva-based organisation has recently released a report that found wind power turbines have the potential to cause serious health problems – including hearing loss, tinnitus, high blood pressure and even heart problems – to people exposed to excessive noise levels they emit.”

    Use the link for full article.

    Reply

Leave a Reply