Medical doctors, health professionals, and other scientists and professionals from around the world have written letters to the AMA voicing their outrage with the AMA’s seemingly careless statements. The AMA has not retracted nor changed their statement.
To read more letters to the AMA go here
Dr Bruce Rapley BSc, MPhil, PhD.
Principal Consultant, Acoustics and Human Health
Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., March 28, 2014
I recently became aware of your position statement on wind farms and health dated 14 March, 2014.
I have to say that this public statement has given me great concern with respect to a number of points which I will outline for you. read entire letter here
some excerpts below:
Your opening statement:
“Wind turbine technology is considered a comparatively inexpensive and effective means of energy production. ”
This raises a number of issues that I feel are inappropriate for a medical organisation to comment on.
Firstly, line one is a statement regarding the economics of wind turbines which has no place in a statement regarding potential health effects. It is not within your organisation’s professional competence to comment on economic matters and to do so raises questions regarding your credibility and apparent bias. How would your organisation feel about the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) making statements about medical practice?
Secondly, your position statement then passes comment on acoustic immissions:
“Wind turbines generate sound, including infrasound, which is very low frequency noise that is generally inaudible to the human ear.”
To the best of my knowledge, medical practitioners are not generally known for their skill or expertise in acoustics, other than that directly associated with audiometry. To pass comment on areas beyond your knowledge is dangerous and leaves you wide open to serious challenge. Purporting to be experts in areas outside of medicine does not serve your credibility well.
The statement goes on to comment on infrasound, comparing immissions from different sources, yet lacking any sort of scientiﬁc credibility because of the signiﬁcant lack of detailed evidence. Rather, the statements are reckless generalisations that provide no basis for comparison, let alone comprehension, other than in the broadest sense.
“Infrasound is ubiquitous in the environment, emanating from natural sources (e.g. wind, rivers) and from artiﬁcial sources including road trafﬁc, ventilation systems, aircraft and other machinery.”
Such broad comparisons do not enhance scientiﬁc debate and offer little enlightenment to the uninformed, rather, they are more likely to mislead due to their lack of speciﬁcity. It is a well-established fact that low frequency and infrasound immissions from industrial wind turbines differ signiﬁcantly in a
number of critical ways, compared to natural sources like wind and water. Further, man-made sources such as road trafﬁc all differ signiﬁcantly from natural sources of infrasound.
Next you appear to have become experts in engineering
“Infrasound levels in the vicinity of wind farms have been measured and compared to a number of urban and rural environments away from wind farms. The results of these measurements have shown that in rural residences both near to and far away from wind turbines, both indoor and outdoor infrasound levels are well below the perception threshold, and no greater than that experienced in other rural and urban environments.”
“The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infrasound or low frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they are currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity.”
is but another example of cherry-picking the data to suit your own position. To arrive at this position it is necessary to actively ignore any scientiﬁc data to the contrary. This is clear evidence of bias. What makes this all the more serious is that it appears to be based on the commercial proﬁt motive.As if adding insult to injury, the following sentence only serves to reinforce this bias viewpoint and ﬂies in the face of the ﬁrst principle of scientiﬁc methodology: OBSERVATION.
“The infrasound and low frequency sound generated by modern wind farms in Australia is well below the level where known health effects occur,”
There is a veritable mountain of evidence to the contrary, yet your organisation chooses to dismiss it. This can be interpreted in no other way than a deliberate attempt to distort reality. The number of observations of demonstrable harm are enormous.
The entire lengthy letter can be read here