The shocking truth about wind power
The summer holidays provide an opportunity for many of us in our largely urbanised population to revisit rural landscapes as we travel to visit relatives, go camping or engage in that Aussie summer favourite, a trip to the beach.
The encroachment of urban developments and industrial structures on previously bucolic vistas comes as a shock as we pass remembered landscapes suddenly altered by the telltale signs of human existence.
A new housing estate, factory, freeway, rail line, mine or power station; all change our natural environment in fundamental and inescapably distinct ways.
We may wistfully recall a sleepier, untouched time and place; but the change is quickly forgotten as we pass, and its impact fades until the next visit.
For those who inhabit changing landscapes however, the changes can disrupt one’s sense of place and sense of identity, and can lead to feelings sometimes associated with grief and loss.
As our steadily growing human population leaves its mark across the globe, with seven billion of us now sprawling out across seven continents, there are few places on Earth now left untouched.
This is having dramatic impacts on the natural environment, but the changes are largely accepted because of the benefits they bring to society (including the trappings of Western lifestyles many of us have come to expect): high speed Internet, road transport infrastructure commensurate with our predilection for cars, and reliable electricity and water supplies.
Much of this infrastructure development occurs infrequently, being big ticket items that are so costly that governments shy away from them, and substantial investments therefore only take place every decade or so.
In Australia, this has left us with much ageing and inadequate infrastructure, particularly in the energy and transport sectors. We are likely to see significant changes in terms of infrastructure development to address this in coming decades. As the planning and development of this new infrastructure takes place, it will be important to keep in perspective its purpose and to choose technologies that pose the least environmental risk and are the safest in terms of their impact on human and ecological health.
Part of the impetus in the energy sector is the declining quality of existing infrastructure – our 40-50 year-old coal-fired power stations have passed their use-by date, and it is only the cost of their replacement (and the histrionics of their politically powerful owners) that appear to compel governments to award ongoing licences to operate.
There are even more compelling pressures to upgrade our energy infrastructure however; the mining, transportation, and burning of coal for electricity generation poses serious threats to human health and is responsible for hundreds, possibly thousands of avoidable deaths each year from the toxins and pollution it produces. Coal kills; and whether we burn it here or ship it offshore for others to burn, it will lead to loss of life and the development of serious illnesses and human suffering.
Not only does coal pose a health threat, it is the principal villain in driving dangerous climate change worldwide, making its replacement, therefore, one of the big potential wins in cutting national emissions and reducing Australia's very high level of emissions per person.
Gas, too, poses serious risks: given the shift to shallow coal seam gas mining as traditional natural gas reserves diminish, fertile farmland is being lost to industrial wastelands, and underground water tables threatened by the use of mining chemicals untested for human safety. Coupled with the emerging evidence that coal seam gas poses as big a threat to atmospheric pollution as coal (it may have an even higher lifecycle emissions profile than coal), this leaves renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind in the box seat in terms of safety for human health and as climate friendly technologies.
There are powerful vested interests however in preventing the widespread roll out of these technologies and recent activities suggest these interests are promoting anxiety and concern in the community regarding the safety of some renewable energy technology, such as wind power.
Often these concerns can be heightened by a sense of disruption with regard to place identity and are understandable human responses to changes in the known environment.
It is important, however, not to confuse these responses with genuine concern for public health and wellbeing, and the community must be careful not to allow those with vested interests to exploit the public’s sense of vulnerability around change and lack of access to credible information by promoting fears about the safety of wind power.
Recent reviews of the scientific literature demonstrate that there is no credible, peer reviewed scientific evidence that demonstrates a link between wind turbines and adverse health impacts in people living in proximity to them.
A new paper has been developed by a coalition of Australian health groups should assuage community concerns on this topic. The Health and Wind Turbines position paper, released by the Climate and Health Alliance yesterday, finds that while large-scale commercial wind farms have been in operation internationally for many decades, often in close proximity to thousands of people, there is no evidence of any associated increases in ill-health.
Change in our known environment can be challenging. Investing in safe community infrastructure is important for all of us. In making decisions about our future energy supply, we must consider the costs of current forms of electricity generation on climate change and health for all members of the community, including those living in proximity to infrastructure.
Fortunately for the community and the climate, wind power offers a safe, reliable, climate-friendly alternative to harmful and high emissions from coal, and is available now at prices we can afford.
Fiona Armstrong is the Convenor of the Climate and Health Alliance, a national coalition of health care stakeholders.
Comments on this article
Let's Have some Facts About the Health Impact of Wind Turbines
George Crisp et others who promote the wind turbine cause would do well to read the report available from the following link produced just over a month ago in the USA regarding the health impacts caused by commercial wind farm technology.
See here http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/bruce-mcpherson-infrasound-and-low-frequency-noise-study/
Or for those of you too lazy to do so, here's an extract from the Conclusions relative to health impacts.
"5.2 Adverse Health Effects.
This research revealed that persons without a pre-existing sleep deprivation condition, not tied to the location nor invested in the property, can experience within a few minutes the same debilitating health effects described and testified to by neighbors etc..."
The Shocking truth about wind power
is the fact that they use rare earth minerals which according to the Chinese is in short supply and causes problems for the miners as well as dispersing toxic fumes. There is around 300 tonnes per industrial turbine blade. They cause CO2 emissions with their construction of copper, fibreglass, along with the aforementioned as well as the world's worst pollutant of 300 tonnes or more of concrete. They are costly,inefficient. Exist because of carbon credits.. They need to be built a long way from people whether you accept the fact or not people have walked off million dollar properties cannot live with the noise etc. Try living near a turbine complex (after all that is really what they are) not for a week or two as some people will get sick but like an epidemic not everyone gets sick but a lot do so do the RESEARCH. Start with Europe's ill wind and why is Denmark selling their electricity from turbines and buying reliable energy from other countries and have stopped any more complexes being built on shore they are not windmills but industrial turbines. Also see Rare Earth Mineral Mining in China on YouTube.
History of coal - well what's the difference Dr Crisp?
Re George Crisp comment: "That is completely false. Early attempts at regulating coal burning date back 800 yrs, and several british monachs regulated coal burning as it was recognised even then to cause harm."
Oh my my! How evil is that! For 1200 years the evils of coal have been regulated - perhaps several thousand years after its initial use by man.
Yet wind turbines came onto the industrial scene only 20 years ago? Is there any room for comparison? Perhaps with the very different wind mills of antiquity - there is some comparison - they both spin: the modern ones are 150m tall and the old wind mills are too small to compare. And now we shall engage into Liberal and anti-wind bashing because there are attempts to regulate the evils of the wind industry?
Dr Crisp my apologies but logical debate with you gets a little tiring and pointless when you bring up such examples.
To Anne
Anne Great Comment, youare so correct, people often dont understand what is in the products they buy or use or think is green... PH
The Real Shocking Truth About Wind Power
Fiona, we would all like the world to be a better place, for people, for animals, for the environment, but unfortunately we also need to deal with reality. You make the claim that coal "kills",obviously indirectly, but so too does renewable energy. For example, in each large wind turbine, they contain several hundred kilos of rare earth metals (as do solar panels). The process to extract these rare earth metals, is not only capital intensive, but also produces significant radioactive waste. We often fail to "see" things as they really are, but rather how we would like them to be. That is certainly the case with renewable technology, as it too can also "kill" indirectly like coal. The fact that these wind turbines are often built in overseas countries such as Denmark (known for its green credentials), does not mean they don't contain elements that are also harmful to health/environment. Remember the famous line from the Kung Fu series from the Master to Kane (Grasshopper) - "I do not seek the answer, but to understand the question".
Dear Crisp
Do you know the BTEX measurements, prior to legislation? if same level of BTEX scrutiny was placed on all products & services, would be a lot of products & services to be banned..Measuring BTEX in olive oil is a refined scienceII.Food preservative benzoate & citic acid combine to form benzene in citrus drinks. Do we see debates on this.
Human BTEX intake thru groundwater.is not going to be changed by csg..Cities is where BTEX issues are, no one wants to talk about it.. volatile... review BTEX degradeation and BTEX in water.. please check on how much Benzene is allowed in water waysin national parks... more than 500 times, ADW standard or that allowed by legislation in CSG fracs..Let alone the high Benzene amount allowed inrivers whee people often let youngins swim,, aka tewantin..
Note your point about reducing human contact with various chemcials, but in relation to BTEX, the dangers are in the city, not with CSG, do some fate / transport studies.
Farms been watering stock in QLD for over a 100yrs..with water containing BTEX, depending on what bore depth .. long before CSG // Oil // Coal were being produced.. Also some farm chemicals, sprayed on food crops contain BTEX.. However life goes on with most folks impervious to this information.
Enough of this, have a good 2012. We could have a great discussion one day.. My mother in law died from cancer after 30 yrs of cooking directly over open wood fires.. Benzene is released from wood when it burns..I do understand BTEX...Regards P
Nuclear's sensational safety record
326 days since their last meltdown, that's marvelous.
There are approximately 500 nuclear reactors in operation around the world, plus 85 which have been decommissioned and which have exploded/melted down - two at Chernobyl and four at Fukushima. Most reactors are still at the mid-point of their working lives. So there's a 1 in 13 chance per reactor unit that it'll blow up before it gets to end of it's natural life. If that's a great "safety record", I'd hate to see a bad one.
BTEX
Dear hoberg
You are being evasive, what exactly do you disagree with:
- BTEX chemicals are volatile organic compounds found in fossil fuels deposits including coal seams.
- They can contminate groundwater.
- Take Benzene: It is highly toxic - cuasing bone marrow suppression and cancer - there is no safe exposure.
You are confused about NTN - the non-issue, if there is one, is the previous use of BTEX as an additive in fracking fluids. This practice was ceased after being banned by the Qld govt . However, it has no bearing on the BTEX chemicals that can be liberated through extraction, that may contaminate water and/or be released into the air.
I am certainly not saying CSG is the only source. Same goes for coal / oil . We should be trying to prevent all exposure to all harmful chemicals.
History of coal
"Not everyone realises or feels how an environmental hazard affects their health - much like the hazards of coal burning and smoking took many decades to prove, and those initially raising suspicions were derided and ridiculed by the medical fraternity. "
That is completely false. Early attempts at regulating coal burning date back 800 yrs, and several british monachs regulated coal burning as it was recognised even then to cause harm. by the mid 20th century most countries started introducing clean air acts as it was obvious to all that air pollution was harmful.
We knew smoking caused lung cancer by the 1950's - it wasn't a lack of knowledge but comercial interst and power that prevented action.
With modern investigative techniques, reporting etc we are unable to demonstrate harm from wind turbines despite the enormous exposure tht has occured over the last 3 -4 decades around the world. Only anecdotal reports such as yours exist.
It would seem a very different story.
dear crisp
once again you are showing a complete lack of knoeldge on BTEX and groundwater issues... Like I said, dont use those worn out thro away lines, do some independant study, so You can discuss issues, than having to recourse to the worn out arguments, based on little fact..If you are serious about BTEX as an issue, there are many actions that can be taken in citiies to reduce peoples exposure to BTEX, where it is in the atmosphere, as you will find , inhilation is the way they cause damage to people...If you wish to rant with inuendo and facts, you wont get support, the greens and even NTN have backed down over BTEX,as they did realize it is a non issue... P
Dear Dr Crisp
If you're a medical doctor, perhaps you and George Papadopolous could rendezvous and attend a wind farm together. It would be useful if you could then initiate a study into such adverse health effects as are claimed by some people.
If these health effects are real, perhaps having two counter-rotating turbines might help?
Dear Mr Hoberg
Just because construction materials use BTEX compounds is no reason to foul up the rest of our environment.
Further, new buildings are only sick for a short period of time, while the compounds volatilise out. Groundwater, on the other hand, can be fouled up for decades.
Grass-cutting need not contribute these compounds - use an electric mower, and charge its batteries from you rooftop solar (or wind power). Sooner or later we'll all be doing this.
Dear Crisp
Pls do homework,chem list for frac in QLD,look@ DERM site, or CSG co. for chems used & concentrations.U can find these chems in every day items.toothpaste, ice cream have frac chems in them@ higher concentrations than used in fracking. After your homework, you would find some facts about BTEX, all on gthe Australian govt websites.. paints and architecrual finshes produce 50 times more BTEX into the environment ( and generally in cities where more people live..) folks who cut their grass contribute close to 100 times more BTEX to the envirneoment than the complete oil and gas exploration and production in Australia.. Vehicles produce more than 600 times.... The pharacutical industry and dairy product manufacturing produce about the same as all the OIL andGas exploration and Productionbusiness in Australia.
BTEX is pervasive in our society, you need to be more worried about BTEX in a city....where they are very prevalent and produced in such quantities, that we cant escape them, as they are volatile & degrade, the transport path for BTEX chemicals generally do not enter the body thru water, but thru inhalation.
Pavillion Co is topical, read the docs. it bears no relation to CSGin QLD, geologically or regulatory. Water Issues existed for a long time & known to the 196 folks who are affected. NICNAS have not individually assessed these chemicals for use in our diet, and their many uses in daily life. Many frac chems are also approved by the TGA .
Easyto be emotive & not be able to review the facts.P
What's the point of listening to a man dedicated to the machine?
My dear Dr Crisp,
You must be hardier than other people I guess, and your publicly known devotion to the spread of wind turbines, doesn't help your testimony either. My admiration of wind turbines ended under similar circumstances to yours - I got seriously ill, within minutes, whilst trying to investigate the claims of my supposedly "paranoid" neighbours on a cloudy windy day. One word against the other.
Not everyone realises or feels how an environmental hazard affects their health - much like the hazards of coal burning and smoking took many decades to prove, and those initially raising suspicions were derided and ridiculed by the medical fraternity. Some, particularly asthmatics, will find smoke inhalation intensely irritating, whilst others will inhale for years and die without even developing lung cancer.
Is this the way that any intelligible debate on wind turbines shall continue? Your qualified: what prevents from medically examing those who have had their health destroyed by wind turbines?
What's your point?
@George Papdopoulos
Just got back from Rottnest Is off Perth. Spent a week at Longreach probably < 300m from the wind turbine. It didn't stop spnning the whole week, not once. Occaissionally it could be heard, but it was not intrusive. I didn't meet a single person who oblected, in fact, most find it graceful.
It supplies much of the Islands electricity and I believe desal.
I would be happy to return there on Holiday, as I know would many other families.
Research, diligence and honesty
@Peter Hoberg
Chemicala are used at various stages during CSG operations, including drilling lubricants and in a proportion of wells that are fracked. The companies do not publish a list of chemicals. They cite commercial reasons. The vast majority of chemicals used have not been assessed ( see NICNAS - MDB Senate enquiry appearance and submission ) this is not disputed by CSG companies.
BTEX chemicals also exist int he coal seams ( and other fossil fuels deposits ), they are liberated by mining / extraction. As a result can enter surface water or potentially groundwater ( as in Pavillion, USA ) and cause air pollution ( they are volatile ).
There is a big diference betwenn solar PV and CSG / unconventional gas. The former does not occur in 40,000 distributed underground sites across the Murray Darling basin in proximity to Australias prime agricultural land and precious aquifers.
Solar thermal mostly uses mirrors, concrete and water 9 and perhaps some soduium / potassium salts for heat storage ).
Why no mention of nuclear power?
Fiona - You detail well the negative externalities of coal and gas following which you say "this leaves renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind in the box seat in terms of safety for human health and as climate friendly technologies."
Why do you not also mention nuclear power? It supplies around 14% of all the world's electricity; it is a proven technology; it delivers reliable baseload power 24/7; and it has a remarkably good safety record. I would be interested to know your reasoning for ignoring it.
need to do a little more honest and open minded research
Hello with regards to para on CSG, i would expect Climate spectator to do a little more due diligence before using throw away lines, or using guarded phrases, with attached inuendo..
Gas, too, poses serious risks: .. and underground water tables threatened by the use of mining chemicals untested for human safety. CSG doesnt use mining chemicals, all the chemicals are on the major CSG compnay websites, easy to check, and in what concentrations they are used.......
Coupled with the emerging evidence that coal seam gas poses as big a threat to atmospheric pollution as coal (it may have an even higher lifecycle emissions profile than coal), this leaves renewable energy technologies such as solar ... Have you actually looked into the chemicals and hazardous materials in Solar.....especially the maufacturing and end of life disposition...let alone the mostly single source point of your comment, it is far from the common consensus among Universities and other bodies..
Bbest to do some basic research looking accross the board, not in one viewpoint.. Did you ever think to ask DERM / QLD Governement, how much SALT do farmers bores bring to surface in a year...
PS, would sooner have a wind turbine than solar cells in my backyard,,,.regrds P.
Energy Efficiency Opportunities
Can PowerwoRx e3 be used with Solar Panel/Wind Turbine installations and/or Reverse Metering?
PowerwoRx e3 is an excellent addition to any solar panel/wind turbine installation regardless of the configuration including the use of Reverse Metering (where electricity is fed onto the grid by the user). Some common configurations are:
‐ Solar or wind is used to supplement the systems energy needs
‐ Solar or wind is connected to the grid via a bi-directional electric meter (Reverse Metering)
‐ The system is off grid and relies on 100% solar energy for all the energy needs. All three of the PowerwoRx technologies benefit a system which incorporates solar and wind energy generation:
‐ Surges & spikes are more frequently internally generated than external. Solar Power Center protection is accomplished by a device called an MOV (Metal Oxide Varistor). When the voltage rises the PowerwoRx prevents the spike from potentially damaging the expensive electronics including the Inverter.
‐ Harmonics are more prevalent in a solar generated power system due to the nature of how the AC waveform is created by the Inverter. These Harmonics waste electricity, are damaging to appliances and electronics.
PowerwoRx significantly reduces Harmonics and Noise in the system
‐ Improved Power Factor translates into reduced I2R losses, increasing system capacity and reducing energy use.http://iconic.continentalpowerworx.com/
being a "winging POME'
I have seen what these large scale wind generators look like on many occastions, in built up areas like estarys, in rural areas like the Yorkshire Dales in the north of England, at sea of many coast lines of Wales and England and I think that the air we breath is far better for them, most anything that reduces acid rain like we have not yet seen in Australia (google it) asma cases that have gone from one kid in my school to nearly a third in the UK. I would rarther see every house have a generator. Stop winging, you might end up like some of your fore bearers? We need them and solar and water and savings or we will screw this place up like a lot of Eastern Europe. Well done for write up and the publication thank you
Next time Fiona goes on Summer holidays...
Next time Fiona goes on summer holidays I suggest she organises to spend some time in the windy breathtaking picturesque, wind turbine studded, rural regions of Australia.
She could organise free accomodation housesitting in an abandoned home in the surrounds of her wind turbine idols.
It would be interesting to hear how she feels about wind turbines after such an experience.
The shocking truth about wind power
You missed the little discaimer at te top of this opiece that says "Advertisement"
"Climate and Health Alliance"