No credible evidence of turbine health risks

PAT Gabb's assertion (letters April 1) of "strong, sound scientific research" associating wind turbines with ill health demands an exhaustive rebuttal that space does not permit.

The reason not one reputable scientific or medical body in the world accepts that windfarms are a health threat is precisely because there is no such evidence.

One example must serve to illustrate windfarm opponents playing fast and loose with the truth.

In this paper (May 30, 2012) Sandra Laurie of the Waubra Foundation wrote: "One relevant credible literature review from 2003 relates specifically to the known effects of exposure to low frequency noise, in a report by British acoustician professor Geoffrey Leventhall, for the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)".

This review detailed symptoms and a pattern of their occurrence, which the author has subsequently publicly admitted is identical with "wind turbine syndrome".

What Ms Laurie didn't mention was that the DEFRA study concluded there was no credible evidence of harm.

She also omitted to mention the statement by Professor Leventhall in September 2004 in response to misrepresentation of his work by Laurie and others: "I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run.

"There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines."

I have followed up dozens of reports and studies quoted by windfarm opponents and found they misrepresented or distorted their findings.

Madigan, Jones, Bolt, etc, are similarly casual with the facts.


Discuss "No credible evidence of turbine health risks"

Please note: All comments made or shown here are bound by the Online Discussion Terms & Conditions.