March 9, 2011 | 12:33 PM | By

Is annoyance a health impact?

FILED UNDER: Mitigation, health, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

Neil and Elizabeth Andersen live near Falmouth's first municipal wind turbine. They keep a record of noise levels and their reactions.

It’s the million-dollar (or five million, as the case may be) question in the debate about wind turbines:
What constitutes a health impact?

It is undeniable that some nearby neighbors of large wind turbines – be it in Falmouth or Maine, or Europe or New Zealand – report serious quality of life impacts that they attribute to wind turbine noise. At the heart of the debate about how to handle such complaints is the issue of whether those impacts constitute what medical professionals would define as adverse health effects or whether some people are “just annoyed” by the sound.

But in the comments on Sean’s second story, MJ points out that the word “annoyed” could be part of the problem:

The word annoyance is often misinterpreted by the general public, and apparently Ms. Goldstone, as a feeling brought about by the presence of a minor irritant. Ms. Goldstone seems unaware that in the medical usage it exists as a precise technical term and defines annoyance as a mental state capable of degrading health.

Suter (1991) presents a formal definition of annoyance:

“Annoyance has been the term used to describe the community’s collective feelings about noise ever since the early noise surveys in the 1950s and 1960s, although some have suggested that this term tends to minimize the impact. While “aversion” or “distress” might be more appropriate descriptors, their use would make comparisons to previous research difficult. It should be clear, however, that annoyance can connote more than a slight irritation; it can mean a significant degradation in the quality of life. This represents a degradation of health in accordance with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of health, meaning total physical and mental well-being, as well as the absence of disease.”

This is a point that was also made to me by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum – a radiologist who has conducted a soon-to-be-published survey of residents living at varying distances from two wind energy installations in Maine (extended interview post in the works). The disparate uses of “annoyance” in common parlance and technical language is precisely why Sean and I chose to use the word “disturbing” rather than “annoying” when discussing wind turbine noise.

What I believe triggered MJ’s comment (correct me if I’m wrong) was my quote:

Many scientists and wind-energy advocates say that while people may become annoyed by turbine noise, annoyance is not considered a health impact from a clinical perspective. That said, chronic annoyance can build into stress, and stress could cause many of the symptoms people are complaining about.

This is essentially the stance of the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations (AWEA and CanWEA), as articulated in a review of available science conducted by an expert panel they convened. While they lay out this chain connecting annoyance to stress, and stress to the symptoms being reported by nearby neighbors of turbines, they maintain that annoyance is not a health impact and, thus, “the body of accumulated knowledge provides no evidence that the audible or subaudible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” The word “direct” seems to be a key part of the argument.

I spoke with Dr. Robert McCunney – an MIT researcher and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, who was a member of AWEA’s review panel and has provided expert testimony in court to the effect that wind turbines do not directly cause health effects. He argues that another key issue is the difficulty of pinning down the source of annoyance.

… [annoyance] is a really nonspecific finding in that it can’t be specifically related to one or two causes. It has to be evaluated in its context in terms of the other potential causes of annoyance… Clearly there a lot of individual variations in how people respond to any particular stressor, whatever that may be, in terms of reporting annoyance and in terms of health effects.

Of course, to focus on annoyance (clinical or otherwise) ignores another commonly reported symptom – sleep disruption and deprivation – which is an adverse health impact in itself, as well as a trigger for other medical problems.

In either case, McCunney argues that, in order to establish a rigorous connection between wind turbines and health impacts, studies need to document sound levels, as well as health status, both before and after wind turbines are installed. And they should be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There are a growing number of case studies and surveys documenting self-reported symptoms after a wind turbine or wind farm has gone into operation, but studies that meet McCunney’s standards are currently lacking.

More on The Falmouth Experience:

The Falmouth Experience, Part 1: Life under the blades

Extended Interview: ‘You can’t be forcing these on people’

The Falmouth Experience, Part 2: Sick from the noise

Extended Interview: ‘It put me into depression’

The Falmouth Experience, Part 3: Flickering Light

  • MJ

    Ms. Goldstone – firstly thank you and Sean for this wonderful series. Second, the quote you cite is exactly what triggered my comment.

    Realizing the structure necessary for science and research, I sincerely believe that too often a victim’s (not having an scholarly accreditation) experience is somehow less valid in terms of review and deductive reason. Will Rogers illustrates my point (as does W.C. Fields) that sometimes the expert can’t see the forrest through the trees.

    Dr. Robert McCunney may be very good at what he does but his (nor anyone elses) “standards” shouldn’t be the end all with what appears to be happening in Falmouth. The Science arena tries too hard to put a semantic touch on the validity of experience. The true expert in Falmouth seems the victims that hear too much and too often, but at the same time, aren’t being heard.

    In order to establish a rigorous connection between a wind turbine in Falmouth and health impacts is too simple for science. A basic question is all that is necessary. Ask Mr. Andersen and his wife if life, if health and if general well being has changed drastically since the spring of 2010. If their personal account isn’t enough validation, ask their family or friends that live a good distance from, and have no stake in the Falmouth turbine. Ask those folks if their Dad and Mom, brother or sister or friend has changed or if they’re health seems worse off since last spring.

    The answers would reveal a damaging change from before the turbine to present. The difference, it can be concluded in layman’s terms, is the turbine. The whys and the hows are the domain and interest of the scientists and researchers, but don’t dilute the plainly simple causal effect with scientific semantics. It don’t get anymore direct than what’s in this petri-dish.

  • Eric Bibler

    Is Press Coverage of Wind Turbine Noise Merely Annoying? Or Does It Allow Wind Energy Developers to Evade Their Responsibility for Imposing Profound Adverse Health Impacts on Innocent Neighbors?

    I would like to thank Sean Corcoran and Heather Goldstone for all of the time and effort that they have spent reporting the devastating impacts to residents of the Falmouth wind turbine and, to a lesser extent, the adverse impacts of wind energy installations worldwide.

    This is a difficult and complicated subject and it is critical that residents of Cape Cod, Massachusetts and other locations around the world understand the implications of government backed efforts to install new industrial wind energy facilities on a massive scale.

    After having listened to the recent interview with Mr. Corcoran and Ms. Goldstone on PBS, and having reviewed this article contributed by Ms. Goldstone (and countless others in the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, et al), I continue to be extremely troubled by the inability, or the reluctance — in any event the repeated failure — of the press to state, unequivocally, some obvious aspects of industrial wind energy.

    All too often, we find that reporters, no matter how well-meaning, are prone to discussing the relevant issues within a framework proposed by the wind industry — rather than bringing their full professional skepticism to bear on this topic and seeking to frame the debate in terms that are independent of the public relations talking points used by the American Wind Energy Association and the developers.

    So, for example, we have here an entire article that is offered under a headline that completely misses the point: “Is Annoyance a Health Impact?”

    The truth is that the question of whether the adverse impacts from wind turbines constitute mere “annoyance” or a “bona fide health impact” is not open to question at all. Once the impacts from wind turbines are properly understood, and considered — and once one experiences the endless repetition of this “talking point” from AWEA’s website reverberating through the cookie cutter presentations of every wind energy proposal — it becomes obvious how transparently deceitful it is even to pose this question.

    Consider the following:

    1) In literally thousands of cases around the world — as reported in every form of traditional media, in first person testimonials, in court cases and public hearings, and in clinical medical studies — residents living near industrial wind turbines have reported the same symptoms, including: sleep deprivation, headaches, tinnitus or ringing in the ears, fluctuating pressure in the ears, increased blood pressure, anxiety and depression. I repeat: thousands.

    2) The onset of all of the above symptoms is reported to coincide with the operation of wind turbines — and to cease when the same stimulus is removed (either by turning them off or by virtue of the resident fleeing the impacted area).

    3) All of the above symptoms are considered by the World Health Organization to be bona fide health impacts, in and of themselves, or to be conditions whose persistence constitutes a direct threat to good health (as, for example, prolonged sleep deprivation is well known to have direct, and very adverse impacts upon human health).

    In other words: 1) we know that wind turbines cause the symptoms; and 2) we know that the symptoms constitute a serious threat to human health.

    I repeat: both of these aspects are proven — not debatable, not open to question.

    AWEA — and Dr. McCunney — seek to bamboozle the press by blurring the issue and insisting, as always, that “more research is needed” or that the impacts are “not well understood.” Regrettably, more often than not, they succeed.

    Yes, more research is needed — but not for the reasons the McCunney and AWEA imply. We absolutely do not need more research to establish an extremely high risk of substantial harm.

    We need more research to understand all of the factors that produce the harm — the various damaging components of wind turbine noise (aerodynamic amplitude modulation; low frequency and sub-audible infrasound; sheer repetitiveness) and the various environmental conditions that exacerbate it (topography; wind direction; wind shear; turbulence; seasonal effects; humidity; temperature; and sheer, unrelenting repetition, to name a few).

    We need more research to understand the transmission mechanism, both at the point of origin (i.e. the 400 and 500 foot machines that emit noise at over 100 dB) and at the “receptors” — the human beings who are tormented by the noise and vibration.

    Yes, it’s true that the idea of populating our residential neighborhoods and our conservation areas with gigantic, vertical, kinetic industrial plants with 14,000 lb blades spinning at up to 180 mph is a new one (and not a particularly bright idea, as it turns out).

    Yes, it’s true that, because the character of this new industrial noise is so idiosyncratic — so rhythmic and so intense, and broadcast over such a vast expanse from such a prodigious height above the ground into the open air — that established noise models are completely incapable of properly evaluating it.

    Yes, it’s true, that since the advent of this grossly irresponsible, large-scale, real time experiment in creating human misery from industrial noise is so recent that we haven’t had time to study all of the human guinea pigs — thousands of them — who we have bombarded with this stimulus in order to methodically chart all of the variables in this insanely complex equation involving noise and human physiology.

    And yes, it’s true, that the physiology of the human ear is so complex — and the nature of the industrial noise from wind turbines so unnatural and unique to our experience — that we don’t fully understand which organs, or combination of organs and bodily symptoms, react to this relentless stimulus, or in which combinations, in order to make people sick or profoundly disrupt their lives.

    But it is not necessary to interview all of the unfortunate (and unwilling) human guinea pigs; to chronicle and tabulate all of their symptoms and cross-reference them with plotted distances to the nearest wind turbine; to understand precisely which of the intricate mechanisms deep within our ears translates the wind turbine noise into unremitting torture for the human “receptors” to understand that industrial wind turbines very often, almost inevitably, impose profound, and persisting, adverse health impacts upon their neighbors.

    Nor is it necessary — in light of the thousands of consistent reports and the gravity of the symptoms — to “peer review” the tabulated results from interviewing all of the unwilling subjects in this giant, industrial scale experiment in installing open-air industrial plants in residential areas.

    Wind turbines degrade the environment — since many species of wildlife are even more sensitive to such intrusions of chronic noise than humans; they degrade the quality of life, to the point of imposing intolerable conditions; and, not surprisingly, in view of the foregoing, they have a profound adverse impact on property values — which, at the end of the day, are nothing more than a reflection of the desirability of living in any particular place.

    So please — please — do not ever allow the wind energy enthusiasts to engage you — our independent eyes and ears — in a debate over whether the adverse impacts wind turbines constitute a bona fide “health risk” or “mere annoyance.” Anyone with common sense can see that this is a simple, and deceitful, sleight of hand on the part of AWEA and other lobbyists — and the wrong question to ask.

    Eric Bibler
    Save Our Seashore

  • Malcolm Donald

    “When an activity [noise from a wind turbine] raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity [Town of Falmouth, MA], rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” – Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998

    For a more complete discussion of The Precautionary Principle please refer to the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf

  • Anonymous

    Wind energy is frequently offered a pass with respect to enviromental benefits alleged by its promoters. Wind turbine noise annoyance should be a moot point. As wind energy that is billed as benign is quite environmentally damaging, we do not “need” it.

    ‘In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale’
    By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

    Subtract forced public subsidies for wind energy, and you’ll see just how much, “GE Cares”.

    ‘Green lobby must be treated as a religion’ by John Kay
    http://www.johnkay.com/political/479

  • Eric Bibler

    Malcolm Donald is right on target citing the “Precautionary Principle.” This is exactly the way towns should think — and are normally obligated to think.

    Would we let a contractor build an elementary school based upon his assertion that “you can’t prove my building isn’t safe”? Would we be satisfied if he told us that it was “unlikely” that the roof would collapse on several classrooms at once; and that if the roof did cave in on one third grade class, “only a minority of students would be affected”?

    Now we’re beginning to see the absurdity of these arguments.

    Here are couple of other data points:

    1) Civil Engineering Discipline. A friend of mine, a civil engineer, tells me that the engineering specifications for civil engineering projects such as bridges, stadiums, other public facilities are very robust, precisely because the overriding philosophy is that public safety is the first and foremost priority. So, if an engineering calculation determines that a bridge should have a strength of 1X to be safe, then they will build it to have strength of 1.5 X.

    2) Hippocratic Oath. What is the most memorable principle of the Hippocratic oath, and one of the precepts of modern medicine:

    Primum non nocere. Latin for “First, do no harm”.

    Perhaps someone should contact Dr. McCunney to remind him of this. It appears that he has been out of medical school too long to remember first principles — particularly since he is a ubiquitous presence at hearings on Cape Cod arguing that “more study is needed” to “prove” how, and why, wind turbine noise is harmful.

    It is the developer’s responsibility to demonstrate an “absence of harm” from his project — especially on a “community wind project” or any wind energy project proposed in close proximity to residences (or anywhere).

    Honestly, what right does CVEC, or anyone, have to demand approval to build a project that even the developer admits may cause grave harm to innocents, on the basis that residents can’t prove conclusively that it will cause such harm; or how severe the harm will be?

    Their proposal is that we should spend $10 million, build it and hope for the best? Really? Is that an acceptable posture for any municipality (or municipal cooperative) to adopt?

    No developer is willing to shoulder this responsibility — through any indemnification or property value guarantee, nor even through any certification — that their wind energy projects will not cause harm and suffering.

    Instead, note the argument that they make: that their projects will affect “only a minority” of people.

    In fact, in making this argument, they do the opposite of demonstrating an absence of harm: they acknowledge that their projects will result in harm — and they demand approval from the body politic to impose this harm upon citizens in the community.

    Every developer should have to answer the same simple questions:

    1) Can you offer evidence that demonstrates with a high degree of confidence that your project will not harm anyone?

    2) Will you accept the responsibility, upfront, for correcting any miscalculations on your part and for taking all appropriate actions to eliminate any unforeseen harm that your project creates?

    No? Well then I think you can agree that it would be imprudent for the town to allow you to build it. Because if you can’t guarantee that it is safe, then we can’t let you build it.

    Eric Bibler
    Save Our Seashore

  • Lisa

    The situation in Falmouth certainly is not unique! All across America and in Europe, individuals who have had the misfortune of having wind turbines sited too close to their homes are experiencing similar serious health effects as well as plummeting property values. On Vinalhaven, in Maine, nearby neighbors who are sensitive to noise are living an equivalent nightmare. Unfortunately, the developer, Fox Islands Wind, and the local utility have not responded with the same compassion as Falmouth selectmen. Vinalhaven wind farm neighbors who complained about the noise have been marginalized and described as “naysayers” by the developer and some vocal community members. Let’s hope other community’s follow in Falmouth’s shoes: publicly acknowledge the problem, provide immediate relief from the noise, and look for a resolution that is fair. One has to agree with Eric Bibler’s point of view, that considering all that these turbine neighbors have lost, the least they can expect is financial reimbursement so that they can afford to move and start all over again. In order to have wind energy be a viable option in the US, irresponsible turbine siting is a crime in that making that needs to addressed now, not only on a local level, but also on a state and federal level.

  • Anonymous

    Usually I confine my remarks to my area of professional expertise; property values. I also know that the siren call to the political class is the promise of jobs. And nearby jobs ARE an important element to support or even increase residential property values, that’s basic economics.

    What I have yet to see, however, is any thorough alternative analysis of the number of jobs that would be created in a “green economy” by reallocating the subsidies which have been lobbied effectively for the wind industry, if they were instead made available to small businesses, Businesses such as manufacturers of smaller scale AG or residential wind generators, solar panels and geo-thermal power generating equipment. Jobs for the sale, installation and maintenance of maybe millions of such small scale local greenhouse gas saving devices. Or even the prevention of the need for more coal, gas or nuclear plants, if half the homes in North America had roof-top solar panels, and the lower electric bills that would probably result if excess electricity was returned to the grid from these smaller, unobtrusive devices. It would seem to me this would also virtually eliminate the need for thousands of miles of new HVTL towers and right of way.

    This kind of shift away from immense scale, noisy, unhealthy and value damaging projects would create a large number of jobs dispersed across thousands of communities, for new manufacturing plants, electrician and plumbing tradesmen, maintenance contractors and many clerical, accounting and other “ripple effect” jobs that would be needed to support those trades.

    These jobs would be permanent jobs, rather than the temporary construction jobs created by big wind projects. However, I highly doubt the small scale alternative would create the permanent bird-body collector jobs that big wind creates. And maybe a handful of lobbyists would need to seek a new cash-cow. Small tradeoff.

    Our laws restrict huge semi trucks to use of roads designed for that scale of vehicle. Why not employ the same principles in green energy production, and stop ramming 40-50 story industrial uses into residential areas, when there are better alternatives?