NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

NHMRC Draft Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health submission

Personal Details
First Name: 
Last Name: 
Q1. Is the draft Information Paper presented and written in a manner that is easy to understand?: 

It is written for those who are experienced in areas of research but is extremely difficult for those who have genuine concerns about the subject of wind farms and human health. Through no fault of their own the position they have been placed in has changed their lives completely and definitely not for the better.   

Q2. Does the draft Information Paper clearly outline how the evidence was reviewed and interpreted by NHMRC?: 

,Yes it does to a degree but in point 3.2 Selection of the evidence, the fact that personal stories and medical records submitted by individuals were not considered in the independent review  means that any anecdotal evidence and"'grey literature" was ignored.  How is any medical practitioner meant to diagnose or discover how a patient is feeling if he ignores the patient's symptoms?

Q3. Is there additional evidence on any health or health-related effects specifically related to distance from wind turbines or exposure to emissions from wind turbines?: 

hy has your panel ignored and excluded the Kelley research which clearly established direct causation of symptoms from infrasound and LFN? (the research papers - http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/explicit-warning-notice/

Why have they excluded Dr Nina Pierpont's case series cross over study.  Why did the NHMRC literature review panel with its members with conflicts of interests exclude case series which are recognised as important pieces of information?

Why do they not think that sleep disturbance causes serious long term adverse health consequences.  See http://waubra foundation.org.au/resources/munzel-t-et-al-cardiovascular-effects-environmental-noise-exposure/

Q4. Is there additional evidence on the likely level of exposure to emissions produced by wind farms at nearby residences? : 

The fact that , in Victoria many wind farms have been approved under the 1998 NZ Noise Standards and the VC82 amendment and further amendments legislated later by the Coalition Governemts will not prevent the developments going ahead with no retrospectivity being applied, rural residents will be forced to live well within 2 Kms of the new very large and powerful turbines. This will undoubtedly expose more people to a much greater health risk than from the earlier smaller turbines.

Q5. Is there additional evidence on whether it is plausible that noise, shadow flicker and electromagnetic radiation (of the type and at the levels produced by wind farms) might affect healthy functioning of the human body?: 

See https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/how-does-wind-turbine-noise-affect-...

At this stage I wish to comment that as a Registered Nurse I have witnessed first hand the distress and sheer turmoil rural residents living in close proximity to wind turbines are suffering.  It is unconsionable for any medical body to let people think that their suffering is all in their heads or due to anxiety.

For people to be told by the wind farm proponents' community engagement offcers to seek medical advice for a condition which did not exist before the advent of exposure to wind turbines is ludicrous.  The AMA statement position on wind farms and human health sanctions and supports wind farm proponents and is failing in their duty of care. Vested interests have overtaken the care and consideration for patients.

Q6. Is there additional evidence of health and health-related effects observed from other sources producing noise, shadow flicker and electromagnetic radiation of the type and at the levels produced by wind farms? : 

The issue of wind farm noise is uppermost in my mind so I have not researched any other areas.

Page reviewed: 11 February, 2015