Ban new wind turbines? Not if the bar for declaring them safe is impossibly high | RenewEconomy

Ban new wind turbines? Not if the bar for declaring them safe is impossibly high

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

How long do we wait for evidence of harm before accepting something is safe?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Conversation


The debate about wind farms is clearly not over yet. Last week Australia’s National Heath sand Medical Research Council awarded A$3.3 million to fund two new health studies: one to measure the effect of infrasound on sleep quality, balance, mood and cardiovascular health; the other to determine whether low-frequency sound from wind farms can disrupt sleeping patterns.

Given the past few years of prickly wind turbine politics, this has predictably caused quite a stir.

On one side, the usual suspects sought to capitalise on the NHMRC’s announcement. Independent senator John Madigan called for a moratorium on new wind farms, wanting all projects to be put on hold as a “precaution”.

Coalition senator Chris Back leapt to support his call, perhaps unsurprisingly given that he (along with Madigan and fellow senators Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day) have been described by Sydney University public heath professor Simon Chapman as “sworn enemies of infrasound”.

In contrast, many in the scientific community expressed their disappointment at what they see as a waste of millions of research dollars. They referred to studies from around the globe that have consistently failed to find solid evidence for a connection between infrasound and poor health.

However, funding further research on the possible health impacts of wind turbines is consistent with the NHMRC’s own conclusions in a February 2015 statement, which said:

Given [people’s] reported experiences [of ill health] and the limited reliable evidence, NHMRC considers that further, higher-quality research is warranted.

So the nation’s largest, most respected and most trustworthy medical research funding body actually agrees that more research is a good idea.

Down tools?

Tempting though it is, this piece isn’t about rehashing the current evidence of the health impacts – real or imagined – of wind turbines. That’s been done already and will clearly continue for a while yet.

What’s more interesting, to me at least, is this appeal for a moratorium, and the more general question of how useful a tool it is for making decisions about overtly science-based issues.

Madigan’s call is a typical invocation of the precautionary principle. This asserts that if there are reasonable (that is, evidence-based, scientific) grounds to believe something new might be unsafe – or at least presents risks that unacceptably outweigh the potential benefits – then we should not proceed with the new thing.

On the surface, it’s hard to argue with that.

But when it comes to wind turbines, there is nothing to suggest that Madigan, Back and like-minded folks will consider any level of risk acceptable.

Imagine for a moment that these new studies find no statistically defensible evidence to link infrasound to human ill-health. Will those calling for a moratorium accept the results and declare wind turbines safe (or at least safe enough to lift a ban)?

I suspect not. It looks to me as if what they are actually demanding is “proof of safety”, rather than evidence of “acceptable risk”. This is, of course, impossible. To use an oft-quoted example, we can’t prove that orange juice is 100% safe, yet it remains defiantly on our supermarket shelves.

I’d wager a year’s salary that Madigan and friends would declare any “acceptable risk” results to be insufficient, too short-term, or generally just biased and inadequate, and demand that yet more research is done.

The naysayers are not looking for counter-evidence to their claims, most probably because there are things about wind farms that they simply do not like. If they have been unswayed by the research showing no evidence of harm so far, it seems unlikely two more studies will change their minds.

How much science will it take to satisfy John Madigan? AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

But what about us down at the science end of town? As noted on The Conversation last year by my colleagues Jacqui Hoepner and Will Grant, “if a credible, scientifically rigorous study were to show a link between wind turbine operation and health effects, it should absolutely be taken seriously”. Agreed!

So for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that these new studies do end up producing empirically valid results that clearly suggest that infrasound from wind turbines can cause people harm. Would we science-loving citizens be prepared to bow our heads and accept the evidence; to admit that Madigan and his cohorts did the right thing by calling for a moratorium?

I’d like to think that I would. But I also imagine myself demanding more research, and I’m confident most other science-positive folks would, too. In our defence, though, we would of course be looking for evidence confirming the existence and likely extent of the harm, rather than seeking proof of some mythical, absolute guarantee of safety.

Precautionary tale

So what good will more, precautionary-principle-inspired science do? In reality, probably very little.

For one thing, practical, policy-related action can rarely wait for “all” the evidence to be in before decisions are made and actions taken (assuming such a magical, perfect-evidence situation could ever arise). Invoking the precautionary principle is not likely to simplify this situation.

Far from making decisions more evidence-based, the calls for a precautionary approach are liable to entangle us more deeply in the politics of decision-making. It’s blisteringly naïve to believe that when applied “correctly”, the precautionary principle will refocus warring factions’ attention on noble considerations like gathering sufficient, acceptable evidence and using this to guide us to the most objective solutions.

In fact, it’s arguments over what constitutes the right kind – and sufficient amounts – of evidence that lie at the heart of such disagreements, not what the evidence itself shows. Many people call for evidence-based policy – but when it’s the evidence itself that is up for debate, it’s important (as my colleague Will Grant has quipped) actually to have evidence-based evidence.

So how will this issue play out from here? Here’s my guess:

• a moratorium will probably not be called

• the new research projects will be conducted

• based on current available evidence, they will probably find little to support the idea that wind turbines located more than than 1,500 metres from humans have measurable negative health effects

• scientists will say “I told you so”

• Senators Madigan et al, should they still be around, will call for yet more research.


Source: The Conversation. Reproduced with permission.The Conversation


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. David 4 years ago

    …and what of the risk in continuing to increase our carbon emissions senator? there is reasonable evidence to suggest it could be dangerous but I don’t see you calling for the precautionary principle there yet how many people (and businesses for that matter) are subject to that risk compared to wind turbines?

  2. Pedro 4 years ago

    Gotta love the thought patterns:
    – Wind Turbines – Evidence they are harmful – nil or doubtful
    – Action: Moratorium

    – Coal mining and burning for power – Evidence it is harmful – without a doubt
    – Action – none, all good to go…

  3. solarguy 4 years ago

    Look I’m just sick of these fucken wind turbine hating weak heads. “And I have the cure” if they have vertigo from alleged infra fucken sound, then a lead injection under the left ear from my fucken rifle, should get things sorted.
    Shit I hope that wasn’t to extreme LOL.

    • Ken Fabian 4 years ago

      If you had a middle eastern name you could expect a visit by police and a permanent ban from flying for that. I share the frustration but I think these discussions are better without that kind of rhetoric.

      • solarguy 4 years ago

        Well it was meant as a joke Ken, even if it was born out frustration. But I get your point.

  4. JeffJL 4 years ago

    Working on the precautionary principle I propose we stop emitting CO2 to the atmosphere until we get evidence as to if it is hazardous to our well being or not.

  5. Chris Fraser 4 years ago

    Before committing to more research, why not call on all the global studies that been done ? If Australia does not exist on its own planet (and I expect many would be disappointed to learn that Australia doesn’t), then we have to accept the experience of hundreds of years of turbines in Europe. I suspect the only thing that makes Australia different is simply some social malaise that stems from a conflated sense of rugged individualism. Or put another way, too much importance on views of country squires that agree with the damaging views of Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott.The moratorium should really be on further wasted funding, until all sides agree on the terms of reference for completely independent findings. After those things are settled, all vested interests and politicians should be made to butt out.

  6. onesecond 4 years ago

    There are already tons of studies around the world. Wind in trees is a greater source for infrasound than wind turbines and infrasound at this level is exactly doing nothing. Another couple of million dollars down the drain for nothing.

  7. john 4 years ago

    I so remember doing a study on sound pressure levels in the early 1980’s and it showed high level of pressure both above the hearing threshold of most people and below in fact some levels were in the 110 DB range.
    That is equivalent to standing behind a jet aeroplane while it put its engines to full boost to take off.
    Thes levels mind were found in a consumer item that sold extremly well how come we have not seen any effects from the use of this item?
    So this stupid exercise in non science is an absolute joke

Comments are closed.

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