Cape & Islands News

Turbine study finds no harm, opponents are indifferent

Very little evidence of impact found from wind turbines

But battle to the death will continue despite the facts

By David Kent

The initial response to this week’s release, by the Massachusetts DEP, of a study called the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study:  Report of the Independent Expert Panel has been eminently predictable:

• The Cape Cod Times printed an eye catching headline across it front page:  "State:  Wind turbines not harmful". 
• Turbine opponents blasted the report sight unseen. 
• Wind power supporters cheered it, also sight unseen. 

I suppose this is to be expected in that cage match to the death otherwise known as the wind turbine debate. 

In this review I will attempt to be a bit more circumspect.  This study is not "game, set and match" for turbine supporters nor is it a stake in the heart of turbine opponents.  It is, however, a valuable contribution to the discussion.  While the study does not say that turbines have no impact upon humans, it does find very little evidence of impact in the scientific literature.

First, let’s address the State’s motives for commissioning this study and accusations, by some turbine opponents, that it is nothing more than a Patrick administration rubber stamp. 

The administration commissioned this study because it was sorely needed.  If you’ve followed the turbine debate you’ve heard vague references to studies, some supporting the existence of turbine effects and others saying that no evidence exists.  It’s been impossible to form a dependable opinion of the science based upon these ad hoc references.  A study of this kind was needed.

To turbine opponents who automatically consider this study to be a rubber stamp, I present the people who wrote it:

• Jeffrey Ellenbogen, MD; MMSc. Asstistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School Division Chief, Sleep Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital

• Sheryl Grace, PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering;  Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University

• Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, PhD;  Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,Boston University School of Public Health; Chair, Lexington Board of Health

• James F. Manwell, PhD Mechanical Engineering; MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics; Professor & Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Mass, Amherst

• Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, FAAP; State Health Officer, Maine 1996–2011; Vice President for Clinical Affairs, University of New England

• Kimberly A. Sullivan, PhD’ Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,; Boston University School of Public Health

• Marc G. Weisskopf, ScD Epidemiology; PhD Neuroscience; Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Epidemiology; Department of Environmental Health & Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health

I don’t know how others feel, but that looks like a high powered group to me and a group unlikely to blindly do Deval Patrick’s bidding.  This study is no rubber stamp.

The purpose of the study can be understood from its introduction:

• Identify attributes of concern (noise, infrasound, vibration, & light flicker) and identify any scientifically documented or potential connection between health impacts associated with wind energy turbines.

• Evaluate and discuss information from peer-reviewed scientific studies, other reports, popular media, and public comments …on the nature and type of health complaints commonly reported by individuals who reside near existing wind farms.

The list of findings is long and detailed.  A review of the section devoted to the impact of sound on humans produced the following list of cause and effects and the words used to characterize them:

The reader will find few definitive statements in the study. Rather than providing firm "Yes" or "No" answers, phrases like "Limited epidemiological evidence" are used.  This makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions from the report.  The study is less definitive than one might desire.

Interestingly, the possibility of secondary infrasound raised in the recent McPherson Study of the Falmouth turbines was investigated.  It’s called "coupling to structures" in the report.  The reviewers concluded that, while such infrasound has been found in situations unrelated to wind turbines, it has not been “demonstrated scientifically” for turbines.

The term "Wind Turbine Syndrome" and the book of that name by pediatrician Nina Pierpont received especially rough treatment.  In one of its few definitive statements, the study states that no such syndrome exists and it criticizes Pierpont’s use of sources. 

So what should we think of this study?

First, it was badly needed.  Previous to the study’s release we’d heard only ad hoc references to scientific studies.  This report contains a serious and substantive review of the current state of the science related to wind turbine effects.  I know I’ll use it the next time someone makes a claim about the state of the science related to wind turbines.  It’ll be an invaluable source.

Second, this study is anything but a Patrick rubber stamp.  Anyone who says that without evidence has an anti-turbine axe to grind.

And finally, as they used to day, the $64 million question:  What does this study mean to the complaints from Falmouth?  First, frustrating as it may be, the fact that extensive study from around the world has produced little evidence of the impact of turbines does not prove that the Falmouth residents have nothing to complain about.  It is still possible that something new and undiscovered is going on.  The study does, however, make it more difficult to accept the Falmouth complaints.  This study summarizes the results of many serious and influential studies.  The fact that the current weight of the relevant science does not support the Falmouth claims cannot be ignored. 

This study does not invalidate the complaints of the residents near the Falmouth turbines: There could still be something undiscovered going on.  But it should make a reasonable observer more skeptical of those complaints.

Dave Kent is a resident of Falmouth who has been deeply involved in the Cape Wind debate for several years.  While he has no professional experience in the energy industry, he has performed a great deal of research on Cape Wind, the New England grid/power market, and renewable energy and has had numerous letters printed on those subjects in local newspapers.  His goal in this blog is to facilitate civil, balanced and detailed discussion of Cape Wind.  He hopes to attract the opinions of professionals from the energy industry.    Mr. Kent, who teaches High School on the Cape, earned a BS from Cornell University and an MBA from Duke University.  Before changing careers to teaching, he had a long career in Accounting/Finance and Information Technology, largely in the Insurance Industry. See Dave's blog Cape Wind Conversation here.