Health impacts of wind farms?

Markcheese · 03-02-2014 10:23am

fclauson wrote: »

Makechees - sort of agree- noise & flicker should be the primary with others secondary

The only other criteria is amenity and material asset impact - http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?article=l5

Material asset impact.? .. A very slippery slope...I believe My house is worth less because of a new dairy farm near by,a forrestry plantation,my perfect view obscured by a bloody farmers house/shed ,I want compo... Or a factory in city gets built I think it devalues my neighborhood...
If it conforms to planning guidelines then tough ... And yes I have wind turbines relatively near my house...

BrenCooney · 03-02-2014 10:27am

can create debilitating symptoms

Have never known a solicitor/barrister to refuse work.
I would'nt either if I was in their position, as you get paid if the case is lost or won.
It could be interesting if a court case is taken, especially when the DCMO's first sentence, "wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health" is read out in court.

djpbarry · 03-02-2014 12:26pm

I've merged the threads entitled "Wind farm noise - an experts opinion" and "Wind Farms-No risk to public health or can provoke debilatating symptons-YOU CHOOSE" into a new thread entitled "Health impacts of wind farms".

Macha · 04-02-2014 2:02pm

can create debilitating symptoms

For anyone who missed it, the European Commission came out with a report on EMF from pylons today. It didn't find any evidence of an elevated health risk.

The authors have launched a public consultation and are seeking feedback for anyone interested.

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-commission-report-pylons-1298920-Feb2014/

fclauson · 04-02-2014 2:51pm

I do not want to vote

There was also a very interesting piece on Newstalk (about 8:20 today with Ivan Yates)

Prof Anthony Staples
http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=3153

talking about a piece of work he did on this in the UK a few years ago on EMF and powerlines. Well worth a listen to as he was very crisp and clear, based on fact about what he thought the conclusions are.

Audio Link: http://newstalk.ie/player/shows/Breakfast/44542/do_pylons_pose_a_risk_for_children

djpbarry · 04-02-2014 3:40pm

There was also an article by Anthony Staines in the Indo a few days ago:

In an earlier phase of my career I worked on the UK Childhood Cancer Case Control Study – a very big study of why children get cancer.

Part of my work was on the electromagnetic fields in homes, some proportion of which comes from pylons. We measured the magnetic fields, from mains electricity, in the homes of several thousand children with, and without, a diagnosis of cancer. More than a dozen other studies, in several countries, have done something similar.

Epidemiologists, that is people who study the causes of health and disease, agree that the right way to make sense of the results of such studies is to pull all the results together. When this is done, what is found is that children living in homes with very high magnetic fields (less than 2pc of all houses), are at increased risk of getting childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).

Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children. Is this risk real? No one is quite sure. No one knows, yet, how magnetic fields might cause ALL in children, and there are always difficulties doing, and using the results of, this type of study.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-pylons-will-raise-health-concerns-but-these-must-be-put-into-perspective-29963611.html

So in other words, even if there is an increased risk, the risk is still very, very low.

BrenCooney · 04-02-2014 4:09pm

can create debilitating symptoms

A large part of the problem is that alot of peoople dont seem to be able to differentiate between risks,
or that doubling of a risk may still leave it in the nearly improbable sphere!!
There was a brilliant diagram in a National Geographic a few years back composed of circles with the biggest indicating the risk of death, at 100% (we all die sometime), and then the risk of death by various means highlighted by smaller circles within the 100%.
Some of the highest risks were surprising.

fclauson · 04-02-2014 7:46pm

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

A large part of the problem is that alot of peoople dont seem to be able to differentiate between risks,
or that doubling of a risk may still leave it in the nearly improbable sphere!!
There was a brilliant diagram in a National Geographic a few years back composed of circles with the biggest indicating the risk of death, at 100% (we all die sometime), and then the risk of death by various means highlighted by smaller circles within the 100%.
Some of the highest risks were surprising.

Yes as attached

The issue is that NO RISK assessment was carried out in the case of wind turbines - the DoE only have a total of 5 records relating to "health implications of living within 5km of wind turbines". My AIE uncovered them all - and all dated within the past 6 months.

Given that turbines have been going through planning for some 15 years and the DoE state it is responsible for " the way that its programmes and activities impinge on the lives of every citizen in the State" how can this come close to "identify, describe and assess" their impact from a "human" perspective as required in every planning application.

BrenCooney · 05-02-2014 2:57pm

can create debilitating symptoms

What is the risk?
if the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"
then what risk is left?

fclauson · 05-02-2014 3:54pm

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"

says it all.

She said threat and not risk - very different.
Threat is an "intent" to cause injury - and I sure no wind farm has that intent
Risk is a situation involving danger - and she has has identified that danger

Remember under the constitution you have a right to "bodily integrity"

The DCMO has clearly articulated there is a group of citizens who suffer symptoms which can be debilitating when they live near wind farms.

Thus they have an argument that the wind farms impact their "bodily integrity". (the DCMO has said as much)

As the state has a duty (because they must do nothing which infringes your right enshrined in the constitution safeguarding "bodily integrity" ) to protect that group and can authorise nothing which impacts on that.

The challenge is the DCMO has opened up an issue of her own making. She says there is no threat - but she also says there is a group who could become debilitated if they live near them.

Any logistician will tell you that the two parts of her statement conflict such that there are multiple outcomes (which is never good in pure logic but is fantastic for the law courts)

If the question "is there risks to citizens of the state" then we have a very clear set of answers
a) there is no threat
b) there is a group who are at risk if they live near wind farms

Neither sentence can be taken in isolation (as much as each side of the debate would like to have it) but when taken together they conflict.

So in summary we have made no progress in determining the risk to "humans" as required under the EU directive given the summary statement from the Irish DCMO.

BrenCooney · 05-02-2014 10:34pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Don't know what to say at this stage so I bow out of this debate.

AngryHippie · 06-02-2014 4:50am

can create debilitating symptoms

The risk exists, as admitted by the DCMO, but it is a risk that can be controlled. There are risks involved no matter how you try and generate and transmit power.

If it could be shown that the risk in the case of wind turbines was the lowest risk exposure to the smallest number of people, then your argument here would hold no merit.

That is the basis that the research and advancement of planning for windfarms needs to pursue.

For the risks identified you apply the usual hierarchy of controls (in order)

Elimination of the source
Substitution for a less risky method
Isolate the source
Administrative measures to limit exposure
Protection from the risk (physical barriers, PPE Etc)

This is fairly fundamental stuff, if wind is the least risky way to generate power, then eliminating the source is off the cards.

You choose the least risky method of generating power from wind, and you isolate it in every case possible by a physical distance from people.
Beyond that, each location must be assessed on its own merits and accepted, rejected or modified in a similar manner.

That is, if health risks are the only basis for approval or rejection.
IMO, health shouldn't be the only criteria, but should definitely be one that doesn't get whitewashed. Aesthetics and Nimbyism on the other hand might get flushed down.

fclauson · 06-02-2014 6:02am

I do not want to vote

AngryHippie wrote: »

....but should definitely be one that doesn't get whitewashed. ..

Very well put
Currently on the pro-wind say "no effect" and the anti-wind say "there is an effect"

This is not a binary issues - its a risk management one as you rightly say. Take a really simple example - a common kettle for boiling water - not a threat to public health but they have their risks.

With Wind turbines sweeping health issues aside will come back to haunt government - so as I have put in my submission to the DoH as part of each wind turbine development plan these risks need to be identified and managed (that's a legal requirement under the Aarhaus agreement) and today this is not happening.

The power boys want them at any health coast and the country dweller who suddenly has these things thrust upon them does not want them at all.

Balance, acknowledgement of the issues, and pragmatic solutions are required.

AngryHippie · 06-02-2014 6:17am

can create debilitating symptoms

fclauson wrote: »

.....these risks need to be identified and managed (that's a legal requirement under the Aarhaus agreement) and today this is not happening.

If that is the case, then it is a show stopper. Legal injunction against whomsoever is performing the assessment and/or authorization of the development. That much is pretty black and white and could be taken as far as the EU. The lost time alone on that makes it a waste of time to pursue for the power boys and commercial entities driving it.

I dare say the threat of a serious legal challenge would be enough to bring them to the table with all stakeholders including residents.

If it isn't then they stand to lose any ISO certification credibility and their stake in the program.

Make it about $$$$ and they will listen.

Oldtree · 06-02-2014 12:24pm

I do not want to vote

djpbarry wrote: »

There was also an article by Anthony Staines in the Indo a few days ago:
Quote:

In an earlier phase of my career I worked on the UK Childhood Cancer Case Control Study – a very big study of why children get cancer.

Part of my work was on the electromagnetic fields in homes, some proportion of which comes from pylons. We measured the magnetic fields, from mains electricity, in the homes of several thousand children with, and without, a diagnosis of cancer. More than a dozen other studies, in several countries, have done something similar.

Epidemiologists, that is people who study the causes of health and disease, agree that the right way to make sense of the results of such studies is to pull all the results together. When this is done, what is found is that children living in homes with very high magnetic fields (less than 2pc of all houses), are at increased risk of getting childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).

Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children. Is this risk real? No one is quite sure. No one knows, yet, how magnetic fields might cause ALL in children, and there are always difficulties doing, and using the results of, this type of study.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/yes-pylons-will-raise-health-concerns-but-these-must-be-put-into-perspective-29963611.html

So in other words, even if there is an increased risk, the risk is still very, very low.

"Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children." seems to confirm an increased risk of ALL and if it came to your child is any increased risk acceptable? "No one knows" then given the above would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution for your child?

periodictable · 06-02-2014 12:30pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Load of codswallop.
I lived smack in the heart of Manhattan for 10 years-nonstop noise from aircraft, traffic, sirens, construction. Took a while to get used to it but one day I realized I didn't notice it any more.
At the nub of the whole anti-windfarm thing is a belief that the countryside as is, is"pristine" and we ought not to change it.
Fact, the countryside/landscape we know is man made, and I wonder would the NIMBYs do without cell phones, masts, electricity, internet. Also the lifetime of the turbines is finite...20-25 years.

Oldtree · 06-02-2014 1:41pm

I do not want to vote

periodictable wrote: »

Load of codswallop.
I lived smack in the heart of Manhattan for 10 years-nonstop noise from aircraft, traffic, sirens, construction. Took a while to get used to it but one day I realized I didn't notice it any more.
At the nub of the whole anti-windfarm thing is a belief that the countryside as is, is"pristine" and we ought not to change it.
Fact, the countryside/landscape we know is man made, and I wonder would the NIMBYs do without cell phones, masts, electricity, internet. Also the lifetime of the turbines is finite...20-25 years.

I lived in London with a train station at the end of the garden, a motor way nearby and heathrow flight path over head, and yes I got used to it (with massive pylons down the road). Now that I am 14 years out of it I cannot sleep when I go to visit relations in Dublin due to the light and noise.

Yes the landscape is manmade, a managed one at that, but the point is how do we manage it? The nimbys of which you speak manage that landscape and would be more aware of it than townies

.

We already have a structure in place for telephones, etc, are you suggesting that we take these facilities off nimbys until they agree to pylons?

It is worth bearing in mind that the uk no longer encourages turbines onshore and this seems to indicate to me that they understand that the onshore turbine gold rush is over and will leave behind a load of white elephants in the near future, is that our future a landscape full of white elephants remaining for all to see when the companies are long gone, like our ghost estates, along with unused/underutilised pylons streching as far as the eye can see.

Grudaire · 06-02-2014 2:26pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Oldtree wrote: »

It is worth bearing in mind that the uk no longer encourages turbines onshore and this seems to indicate to me that they understand that the onshore turbine gold rush is over and will leave behind a load of white elephants in the near future, is that our future a landscape full of white elephants remaining for all to see when the companies are long gone, like our ghost estates, along with unused/underutilised pylons streching as far as the eye can see.

Jumping to conclusions there Tbf

It's politically unpalatable, that's enough to tank the idea

djpbarry · 06-02-2014 2:54pm

Oldtree wrote: »

"Their risk seems to be between 1.3 and 1.7 times the risk for most other children." seems to confirm an increased risk of ALL and if it came to your child is any increased risk acceptable? "No one knows" then given the above would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution for your child?

I can understand that reaction, but 1.3 times a negligible risk is still negligible.

Do parents perform a similar risk assessment every time they strap their kids into a car, for example?

Oldtree · 06-02-2014 4:30pm

I do not want to vote

djpbarry wrote: »

I can understand that reaction, but 1.3 times a negligible risk is still negligible.

Do parents perform a similar risk assessment every time they strap their kids into a car, for example?

I would hope that people are cautious when strapping the kids in, like making sure belt on right, securely, no heavy items to bounce around the car should a crash happen and drive carefully, it the best we can do. Unfortunatly I have known people with All and other cancers and both the treatment and the disease, is nasty and not something I would wish on anybody, especially children, even 1 child.

This makes for interesting reading:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/A/Acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia/Complications-of-acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia.html

periodictable · 06-02-2014 4:56pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Oldtree wrote: »

The nimbys of which you speak manage that landscape and would be more aware of it than townies .

We already have a structure in place for telephones, etc, are you suggesting that we take these facilities off nimbys until they agree to pylons?

I've seen more grief causes in localities by some non-locals moving in and deciding in their "superiority" that they know best, and effectively stirring the pot and splitting communities asunder. Many others come in, get on with their neighbours and if they have a differing viewpoint, may state it, but are content to live and let live.
Locally I have heard of stories about when electrification first came to the parish, and those who refused to let power lines cross their land, out of fear, or those who refused to be connected because they didn't understand it. 50 years on when the power fails, people wonder how they ever existed without it. If one moves to a new locality, either do as the Normans did, or please leave.
The main objection to wind farms seems to be based in either plain begrudgery, an assumption based on highly subjective aesthetics or voodoo science.

djpbarry · 06-02-2014 5:21pm

Oldtree wrote: »

I would hope that people are cautious when strapping the kids in, like making sure belt on right, securely, no heavy items to bounce around the car should a crash happen and drive carefully, it the best we can do.

The point I'm making is that if parents are going to worry about their kids developing ALL (a condition that is treatable in the overwhelming majority of cases), then they really shouldn't be putting their kids in cars at all, because road accidents pose a far greater risk to the average child than ALL does.

Oldtree · 06-02-2014 6:27pm

I do not want to vote

djpbarry wrote: »

The point I'm making is that if parents are going to worry about their kids developing ALL (a condition that is treatable in the overwhelming majority of cases), then they really shouldn't be putting their kids in cars at all, because road accidents pose a far greater risk to the average child than ALL does.

I understand your point, I was just trying to make a more personal viewpoint that every child should be afforded the same risk factor.

And well off point I know - I constantly worry about my kids in the car, the wife had a wreak skidding on black ice and rolled on down an embankment and landed upside down, a number of years back. If the area she went into was flooded as it normally is in winter both she and my daughter would have drowned, but they didn't

Oldtree · 06-02-2014 6:33pm

I do not want to vote

periodictable wrote: »

I've seen more grief causes in localities by some non-locals moving in and deciding in their "superiority" that they know best, and effectively stirring the pot and splitting communities asunder. Many others come in, get on with their neighbours and if they have a differing viewpoint, may state it, but are content to live and let live.
Locally I have heard of stories about when electrification first came to the parish, and those who refused to let power lines cross their land, out of fear, or those who refused to be connected because they didn't understand it. 50 years on when the power fails, people wonder how they ever existed without it. If one moves to a new locality, either do as the Normans did, or please leave.
The main objection to wind farms seems to be based in either plain begrudgery, an assumption based on highly subjective aesthetics or voodoo science.

And there is a lot of grief caused in localities by the resident bully using the social structure to ensure locals are not allowed to use their voices and even locals approaching newcomers to help them in outlining their viewpoint as they do not know what to do toget their viewpoint heard. Do as the normans do or please leave is a viewpoint as outdated as the normans. I think you should have a look at the objectors to pylons/turbines to see that they include landowners and villagers too, ie locals;) and aesthetics and voodoo science are all relative to the individual.

fclauson · 06-02-2014 11:21pm

I do not want to vote

periodictable wrote: »

...
The main objection to wind farms seems to be based in either plain begrudgery, an assumption based on highly subjective aesthetics or voodoo science.

No - the DCMO has declared that there is a risk to a specific group of people from turbines - currently there seems to be

a) no medical test to determine who this group is (it might be you or one of your family members for example)
b) planners are not putting the steps in place to mitigate the risk to this group

The Aarhaus agreement specifically calls out the need to "identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner" and places statutory duty on planners to look at these issues - they just don't do so.

AngryHippie · 07-02-2014 12:20am

can create debilitating symptoms

Oldtree wrote: »

And there is a lot of grief caused in localities by the resident bully using the social structure to ensure locals are not allowed to use their voices and even locals approaching newcomers to help them in outlining their viewpoint as they do not know what to do toget their viewpoint heard. Do as the normans do or please leave is a viewpoint as outdated as the normans. I think you should have a look at the objectors to pylons/turbines to see that they include landowners and villagers too, ie locals;) and aesthetics and voodoo science are all relative to the individual.

Are we still talking about health risks here ?

periodictable · 07-02-2014 1:36am

can create debilitating symptoms

Oldtree wrote: »

And there is a lot of grief caused in localities by the resident bully using the social structure to ensure locals are not allowed to use their voices and even locals approaching newcomers to help them in outlining their viewpoint as they do not know what to do toget their viewpoint heard. Do as the normans do or please leave is a viewpoint as outdated as the normans. I think you should have a look at the objectors to pylons/turbines to see that they include landowners and villagers too, ie locals;) and aesthetics and voodoo science are all relative to the individual.

Pylons and turbines = apples and oranges.
The main objection to turbines is visual, but unable to block planning on that ground, we now have "unspecified risks".
More in your line to campaign about why cancer is the coming ailment we need to worry about, and ask why there is such an incidence of it-it's pollution and most likely food additives. Turbines are killing nobody.
Coming into an area-and I am an outsider 40 years on- one respects local norms, so long as there is no detrimental effect. I observed an English couple objecting to ANY development locally, reporting neighbors for out of season burning, telling others not to plant their land because it "despoiled" the landscape and "the wonderful view from our home " among other things. Their modus operandi was to stir the ****, get the locals at each others throats,and then back off. A neighbor found them using his land as a walking path across the "wonderful countryside", as did I, and we each read them the riot act re freedom to roam and trespass in our country.
I personally have NO problem with anyone walking my land subject to certain conditions, but if you're an antisocial, do-gooder, expecting us all to hang out over a half-door, and keep a pig in the kitchen, I'd better not find you on my land. Respect is a two way street.
I've strayed away from the topic-apologies for that.
Give me a list of names of people that turbines have killed simply by spinning in the wind, and I'll entertain the possibility that there's a problem.

fclauson · 07-02-2014 7:07am

I do not want to vote

periodictable wrote: »

...
Give me a list of names of people that turbines have killed simply by spinning in the wind, and I'll entertain the possibility that there's a problem.

So someone has to die before they are considered a problem !! Remember what the WHO definition of health is
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
and the Irish constitution which protects "bodily integrity"

Its not live or die

Lets look at this from an oblique angle - Vibration white figure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_white_finger
First detected as an issue in 1911 - first scale for assessing its impact 1975 - first legislation 2005

Will it take the best part of 90 years to assess the impact of inner-ear-vibration-continuous-and-noise-from-wind-farm-exposure syndrome

lets hope not

I just asking that there should be properly funded - unbiased epidemiological research to study what is actually going on and why some people complain while others had no issues

Markcheese · 07-02-2014 8:36am

If there are newly identified and attributable risks to power generation and transmission should all power generation and transmission be re-examined... I mean if generating power in relatively lowly populated areas is unsafe,what about moneypoint,aghada-whitegate ,poolbeg ect ..
Shut it all down ??

fclauson · 07-02-2014 8:53am

I do not want to vote

Markcheese wrote: »

If there are newly identified and attributable risks to power generation and transmission should all power generation and transmission be re-examined... I mean if generating power in relatively lowly populated areas is unsafe,what about moneypoint,aghada-whitegate ,poolbeg ect ..
Shut it all down ??

No continuously mitigate new risks - that why systems have been put onto old power stations to remove soot etc from the smoke stack.

Risk identified, mitigation put in place. Move on

Health impacts of wind farms?

Comments