NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

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

ID: 
26
Personal Details
First Name: 
Bob
Last Name: 
Thorne
Questions
Q1. Is the draft Information Paper presented and written in a manner that is easy to understand?: 

{offline submission form and mail submission entered into portal by NHMRC}

It is unfortunate that the review criteria imposed by the NHMRC/University saw so many otherwise excellent papers, research, reviews, articles etc not considered. In many ways it is pleasing to see this, as it means that all research from Adelaide University and the NHMRC will meet the same exacting standards.

 

Consequently it may be said that the NHMRC draft fails to meet its own selective criteria. My reasons follow item 6. <NHMRC has entered the additional comments into Question 1 as it has been referenced in this question>

My overview of the NHMRC Review document is simply "How did you arrive at the conclusions in the draft?!".

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE - NOISE

Item 7.1

Dot point 1.

Frankly, this is not true. The NHMRC research criteria were so narrow it was obvious the review would exclude all anecdotal evidence. NHMRC cannot come to the observation that "There is no reliable or consistent evidence that wind farms directly cause adverse health effects in human" by (for example) excluding the views of persons affected by wind farms as evidenced in Senate Hearings. To do so is academic arrogance.

Dot point 2

The NHMRC research definition was so narrow it was obvious it would exclude all anecdotal evidence and research that is in progress.

Dot point 3

The NHMRC research definition was so narrow it was obvious it would exclude all anecdotal evidence and research that is in progress.

Dot point 4.

There is a vast resource of evidence supporting audible noise at distances. Wind turbines are clearly audible at 1500 to 2000 metres. For example, I have research data with people severely disturbed by audible noise at distances of 800 metres and 1400 metres. May I suggest that NHMRC get out of Canberra and listen to the turbines near ACT. The NHMRC research definition was so narrow it was obvious NHMRC would exclude all anecdotal evidence and research that is in progress.

Dot point 5

Only if your "evidence" is so narrowly defined you can comfortably ignore all anecdotal evidence and research that is in progress.

Dot point 6

This is where I do agree in part with the review. However, laminar wind is not the same as turbulent wind (non-turbulent vs pressure variations) that has been physically modified by passage through turbines and a wind farm. The "evidence" is so narrowly defined NHMRC has apparently ignored all real anecdotal evidence and research that is in progress.

Conclusion

It is such a pity that the research program was so narrowly defined. The obvious answer that more research is needed was clear in 2010.

Signed

Bob Thorne

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

No

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?: 

My paper to the Senate Inquiry into excessive noise (submission 97) from wind farms is noise and human perception research. This was publicly available but not considered, as far as I can, by the research team.

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

There are many research reports presented to planning hearings that will never be recorded in academic research journals.

Again I repeat my comment about academic purity. If this was applied logically there would be no health advances.

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?: 

People, you have just spent thousands of dollars supposedly doing this very things! Have I missed something?

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? : 

People, you have just spent thousands of dollars supposedly doing this very things! Have I missed something?

Page reviewed: 11 February, 2015