NSW health minister says concerned about impact of wind farms

Despite reassuring noises about large-scale renewable energy coming out of the new-look federal Coalition, and an increasing number of sympathetic state governments, the Australian wind industry is far from out of the woods.

Last Friday, while federal environment minister Greg Hunt was announcing the appointment of a National Wind Farm Commissioner, the NSW minister for mental health (and deputy minister for health), Pru Goward, was speaking at a meeting at the Yass Memorial Hall, about the future of wind energy projects around the Hume electorate.

GullenRange20130713
Gullen Range wind farm, NSW

According to a report from the Yass Tribune, of the approximate 150 people who attended the meeting, the majority were against the establishment of wind farms, and Goward was one of them.

“Increasingly, I am on the view that there is some validity on the health effects,” she told the meeting, whose main focus was Trustpower’s proposed 109 turbine ind farm in nearby Rye Park.

“There are a number of people with health problems … it is clearly not psychosomatic,” Goward said. “They impact upon the landscape and have an immediate effect upon land value.

“I am with this community and plan on putting pressure on the state government.

“I want to look after the health, prosperity and look of this beautiful area. We have to make sure not to let these wind farms divide us.”

She also called for further land value and environmental reports to be done.

Goward, as we have reported here before, has form in Australia’s anti-wind movement. She has tried to prevent the ACT government from funding wind farms in the region, and in her role as NSW planning minister, acted to force Chinese project developer Goldwind to move 9 turbines at its Gullen Range wind farm near Crookwell.

The ACT government is now holding another auction of wind capacity, with 1,100MW of proposals competing for 200MW of contracts, including some wind farms in the surrounding region.

Trustpower, the NZ company that operates the Snowtown I and II wind farms in SA, last year won a tender for the purchase of the NSW government’s renewable energy assets for a total of $72.2 million, including 80% of the 4.2MW Crookwell wind farm. It has more than 2000MW of wind projects in the pipeline in Australia.

In June, Trustpower CEO Vince Hawksworth, invited former PM Tony Abbott to visit Snowtown to get up close and personal with the technology and see if he still found it “visually awful”.

But wind energy has had a particularly bad run in the NSW seat of Hume. Its former federal member, Alby Schultz, went on to become the first “patron” of high profile Australian anti-wind group, the Waubra Foundation.

And the current federal member, Angus Taylor, is also known to attend the odd anti-wind rally – he was at the Yass meeting on Friday – although he is on the record as being pro-solar, and usually qualifies his opposition to wind farms as being aimed at the subsidies.

At the Yass meeting, Taylor – who has also gone to pains to let the record know he is not a climate sceptic – reserved his judgement of the Trustpower proposal.

“Unfortunately with these topics you will never get a 100 per cent agreement,” he said, “but you have to figure out what you want and come together to have your voice heard.”

Trustpower, meanwhile, is doing its part to address community concerns. According to an ABC News report from August, the company has been reviewing almost 120 public submissions on the Rye Park Wind Farm near Boorowa and is finalising its formal response.

Already, it has changed the project’s layout to ensure it would not negatively impact on landholders, and reduced the number of turbines from 126 to 109.

“We’ve also included an additional connection option for the wind farm, so that we could introduce flexibility for potential staging of the project depending on the market availability,” said Trustpower spokesman Rontheo Van Zyl.


Van Zyl said the company would also be holding talks with landholders to gauge their interest in receiving compensation to offset the impacts.

“In fact we’re focusing on meeting anybody and everybody within, say, three kilometres of the wind farm in the next few months to consult and ensure they’re aware of the project, the changes we’ve made.”

“But as part of that we’ll also be visiting any of the eligible dwellings with the proposal, to see if there’s any interest in taking up the offer and, yes, there will be a voluntary planning agreement.”

Comments

50 responses to “NSW health minister says concerned about impact of wind farms”

  1. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    Psychosomatica still doesn’t link an illness to the supposed cause.

  2. Peter Campbell Avatar
    Peter Campbell

    “… it is clearly not psychosomatic,” Goward said…”
    And her medical qualifications are?
    Oh, OK, then. What advice does she have from credible medical authorities?
    Oh, well, um. Anything at all?
    I see.

    1. Chris Fraser Avatar
      Chris Fraser

      I suspect the Minister won’t get very much support from EPA and NHMRC …

    2. Bob_Wallace Avatar
      Bob_Wallace

      She has a BA in economics, does she not?

      Why would you question her medical qualifications based on her academic work? I hear she got honors of something like that.

      1. Peter Campbell Avatar
        Peter Campbell

        Fair enough! I have honours and a PhD in biochemistry, so why would anyone question my expertise in history.

  3. Sean Avatar
    Sean

    Goward has long been an opponent of wind farms, and has run on the issue in her electorate of goulburn.

  4. Coley Avatar
    Coley

    Bung the landowners a few quid and watch their objections dry up, but if the objectors do the same to some ‘credible’ medical bodies, then sure enough, they will find people with ‘valid’ symptoms.
    I honestly think, based on experience, that most objections come from people who are in the area of windfarms but not close enough to benefit from the compo being offered by the operators, and then suffer the agonising illnesses known as envy and jealousy.

    1. MaxG Avatar
      MaxG

      hahaha 🙂

  5. onesecond Avatar
    onesecond

    That’s so ridiculous. Here in Germany approval for wind farms goes UP in communities living close to wind farms. The general very high upproval is even higher in people that live close to wind farms.
    Of course “conservative” people are afraid of anything new and are therefore useful idiots for the coal industry. Easy to whip them up in a “headache and I sleep worse” frenzy.

    1. JeffJL Avatar
      JeffJL

      But that is foreigners Onesecond, not good Australians (or other English speaking nations). You people in Europe such as the Danes and French are all communists and not affected by the energy put out by wind turbines.

      1. nakedChimp Avatar
        nakedChimp

        They also sleep upside down down there.. must be the reason 😉

        1. Coley Avatar
          Coley

          I know, it takes me ages to adjust every time I visit ‘down under’

  6. Miles Harding Avatar
    Miles Harding

    Rather than offering the residents compensation, they could offer them some shares in the projects. That should cure the many and varied ailments.

  7. Mike Dill Avatar
    Mike Dill

    So does she have an opinion about coal dust and NOx poisoning affecting their health? She needs to focus on the things that are actually killing people.

  8. Bob Fearn Avatar
    Bob Fearn

    The Canadian government did an exhaustive study of wind farm health effects. The summery is here – http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php

  9. George Papadopoulos Avatar
    George Papadopoulos

    One more cynical article written by “members” the “pro-wind church” about the alleged members of the “anti-wind movement”…

    1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
      Bob_Wallace

      George, you’re a hoot!

      1. George Papadopoulos Avatar
        George Papadopoulos

        And Bob I wonder what you are?

        1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
          Bob_Wallace

          A fact driven individual, George.

          1. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            I am afraid to say that you are driven by prejudice – that is why you called me a “hoot”…

          2. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            Please, George. Many of us have read your posts. We are familiar with you.

            You earned your reputation. Live with it.

          3. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Oh yes Bob, personal attacks to deter the reality check I give to the followers of the “wind religion”

    2. Colin Nicholson Avatar
      Colin Nicholson

      So this is how the Conservatives spend the public health dollar. I must remind Senator Xenaphon when he is up for re-election, that he could have championed asthma (environmental effects are suspected but not well understood), or any number of other fatal diseases compounded by the environment. Of course locations of wind farms are completely uncontaminated by domestic violence so the money won’t be missed there neither

      1. George Papadopoulos Avatar
        George Papadopoulos

        Senator Xenophon did very well picking up on this issue – the research cited by the recent NHMRC review (Mary Morris’s survey) identified that about 40% of rural residents were affected by wind turbine noise nuisance in a 10km radius: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waterloo-wind-farm-survey-2012/

        1. Colin Nicholson Avatar
          Colin Nicholson

          Would this be the report with a single mention of reference 8?

          Would this be the report with the summary

          After careful consideration and deliberation, NHMRC concluded that there is no consistent evidence
          that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans. This finding reflects the results and
          limitations of the direct evidence and also takes into account the relevant available parallel evidence
          on whether or not similar noise exposure from sources other than wind farms causes health effects.
          NHMRC found no direct evidence that exposure to wind farm noise affects physical or mental health.
          The few associations reported by individual studies may have been due to chance. The parallel
          evidence indicates that there is unlikely to be any significant effects on physical or mental health at
          distances greater than 1,500 m from wind farms.
          NHMRC found consistent but poor quality direct evidence that wind farm noise is associated with
          annoyance. While the parallel evidence suggests that prolonged noise-related annoyance may result in
          stress, which may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, annoyance was not consistently defined
          in the studies and a range of other factors may have contributed to its reported association with wind
          farm noise.

          1. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Colin I see you have difficulties understanding the report – so let me paraphrase it slightly (half cup full vs empty):

            “There was insufficient information for the NHMRC to conclude that wind turbines cause harm to human health. From the limited data available we cannot make any recommendation apart from that residents living within 1.5kms from wind turbines might be harmed…”

          2. MaxG Avatar
            MaxG

            1.5km … might be… based on evidence such as???

          3. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            At least George I know what a recommendation is. Where is this “recommendation apart from…..” made in the NHMRC reports? Re paraphrasing that is your problem George you want to “paraphrase” everything. In debate “paraphrase” is another term for spin. Why not just take the report as it is verbatim – no need to “paraphrase”. Note the word “parallel” Note that it says that the reports on annoyance are of poor quality (since it did not exclude ref 8, one assumes it is included in this finding). Speaking of reference 8, where is the copy of the letter which accompanied the survey? Normally in such a report, the entire survey word for word would be included as an appendix or annex.

          4. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            You realise that the NHMRC position paper was based on a literature – not professional opinion?

            Shame you also missed the point that “There is consistent but poor quality evidence that proximity to wind farms is associated with annoyance and, less consistently, with sleep disturbance and poorer quality of life”

            https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/files/consultations/drafts/nhmrcdraftinformationpaperpublicconsultationfebruary2014.

          5. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            shame you missed the point that it had draft stamped all over it.
            shame you don’t know what a consultation paper is and what it aims to do (I refer you to the last sentence of para 1.1)
            shame you can’t even post a correct link

          6. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Colin I don’t need you to tell me what a literature review is. If you can’t read a document in its totality then I am wasting my time having a discussion with you.

          7. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            You have not addressed why it has draft stamped on it. You have not addressed the issue of the limitations stated in 1.1. You have not explained why a draft document should be quoted rather than the final report. And if you don’t need me to tell you what a lit review is, then you certainly need someone to do that

          8. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            And you have addressed nothing of the many points I have raised – just avoidance of the issues and selective fluffing with technicalities.

          9. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            Oh so draft splashed across a report is just a “fluffy technicality”. The limitations section of a report (which defines the boundaries) is just a “fluffy technicality” Is that how you teach people to do things George? If you can get hold of any old draft owners manual, which in fact has draft splashed across it then Sure you can drive a car in accordance with that manual … . If the limitations in an approved manual say this “the data in this manual is not guaranteed if the car is operated in temperatures higher that 40 degrees” Sure you can just ignore that bit and read the rest of the manual and belt off into the desert on a 50 degree day. Now I know why so many farm implements have very clear warranties that the equipment must be operated in accordance with an approved manual.

          10. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Yes you do pick on fluffy technicalities – if you had bothered to read the final paper (which I wasn’t aware of until now) you have read something very similar to the draft report – go to p5 and 6 https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh57a_information_paper.pdf

            But no, just quote the convenient bits that don’t even support your views and try sound sophisticated at the same time…

          11. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            But George that is what I cut and pasted in my long post 5 or so posts ago. Go back and read it please. If you didn’t know of the 2015 final paper, then you really and truly do not know what a literature review is about

          12. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            You found the bits I was referring to? The poor and consistent evidence of noise nuisance and harm?

          13. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            Yep, the evidence was consistent and poor. That is what I posted above is it not? (so I take it, you didn’t read the post in the first place). Its like the earth being flat. The evidence is consistent (ie all the claims that the earth is flat describe the same flatness), but any evidence of the earth actually being flat is poor.

          14. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Colin, thank you – you now demonstrate what I feared – a recalcitrant attitude – no one slight bit of doubt in your wind turbine gods – not one bit of concern about the fact that pretty much most of the published evidence (primary research – not reviews) implicates wind turbines in causing noise nuisance and harm.

          15. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            But George it was you who introduced the NHMRC report into the conversation in the first place. Most action on medical problems is determined by committee via a survey of all the available scientific evidence then taking submissions and issuing reports for comment before arriving at a final determination. Somebody might win a Nobel prize with a breakthrough on the topic, and we all will need to revise our positions, but at the moment, the NHMRC has surveyed all the primary research and published evidence and come to a series of conclusions. You obviously now dissent from the NHMRC report?

          16. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Colin, it is the NHMRC report that confirms the presence of poor and consistent evidence of harm. It also confirms the absence of published conclusive evidence. No where does it say that wind turbines are safe and benign – it infers there probably are problems within 1.5km. That is why I quoted it. It is your interpretation that is seriously flawed and I suspect is influenced by your pro-wind ideology.

          17. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            The words are “The parallel evidence indicates that there is unlikely to be any significant effects on physical or mental health at distances greater than 1,500 m from wind farms”. The detail of the parallel evidence is in para 6.1.2 and the words from that section are “There is no evidence to suggest that the health effects from wind farm noise would differ from health
            effects of other noise sources at similar levels. Based on the studies referred to above, wind farms would be unlikely to cause health effects at distances of more than 500 m, where noise levels are generally less than 45 dBA” Then it continues
            “At this distance, effects on sleep are likely to be modest at the population level. At distances of more than 1,500 m from wind farms, where the wind farm noise level may be in the order of 30–35 dBA, sleep disturbance is unlikely” Likewise George the words are “poor quality evidence”

          18. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            Colin you are going around in circles. I draw your attention to my previous points.

          19. Colin Nicholson Avatar
            Colin Nicholson

            Not really in circles George I’m steadily posting the whole report Verbatim refuting each one of your “paraphrases”. You see you have just given me the opportunity to post the clause with the unlikelihood of health effects down to 500 metres. I might go back to quoting Pedersen shortly

          20. George Papadopoulos Avatar
            George Papadopoulos

            And Colin if you want to read a study missed by the NHMRC here’s one off the hotplate – I haven’t read it myself yet:

            http://stopthesethings.com/2015/10/20/irish-wind-farm-study-proves-turbine-noise-causes-disease/

        2. MaxG Avatar
          MaxG

          He might have been better off looking at health related issues caused by coal mining and transportation.
          We picked our plot of land outside the 50km radius of coal burners for a reason.

  10. MorinMoss Avatar
    MorinMoss

    Wind farms are a leading cause of pre-existing mental illness.

    1. MaxG Avatar
      MaxG

      in particular in the LNP community 🙂

  11. Douglas Hynd Avatar
    Douglas Hynd

    I hope she directs to the evidence for this concern – certainly on a scale of health problems caused by differing modes of electrical power production wind farms and potential impact through climate change on evidence would be somewhere around the bottom of the list.

  12. MaxG Avatar
    MaxG

    Its time to get rid of these clowns; I reckon these pollies rather get sick of their own spin than that of wind turbines.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.