Chief Exec of the British Wind Energy Association has accused wind farm opponents of peddling a series of inaccuracies, half-truths and lies.
The Independent on Sunday published the interview with McAffery after the wider press ran with a story about the recently invented phrase ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ last week.
McAffery pointed to a 2004 World Health Organisation report which showed that wind energy was one of the most benign forms of electrical generation in terms of direct and indirect health effects. Her frustration is apparent as she says “despite this wealth of scientific evidence, the myth persists that wind energy is harmful…”
Anti wind energy campaigner – Dr Nina Pierpont, alleges that wind turbines cause sleeplessness, tinnitus and even virtigo. Despite what McAffrey describes as a “veneer of scientific respectability”, Dr Pierpont’s findings, contained in her self-published book, are not agreed with by low frequency noise experts. The BWEA chief said “the work flies in the face of decades of established medical research…. bad science is not just misleading; it can be damaging and disruptive, as the MMR and autism débâcle has clearly shown”.
Dr Pierpont’s book airs her theory that a new condition “wind turbine syndrome” is resulting in health problems for people living close to wind farms. In response, the main NHS website stated: “This study provides no conclusive evidence that wind turbines have an effect on health or are causing the set of symptoms described here as ‘wind turbine syndrome” – explaining that “the study design was weak, the study was small and there was no comparison group”. Dr Pierpont’s findings have not been reviewed by recognised experts in the field.
Pierpont is a well-known campaigner against wind energy projects in North America. Until her work is published in a reputable medical journal and is reviewed by independent qualified experts it will be hard to view her allegations as anything other than yet another story designed to scare people living close to wind farm proposals.
McAffrey criticised poorly carried out research seeking to undermine the case for wind energy. She said “if the UK is to meet its commitment to reducing our carbon emissions and tackling climate change, then we have to transform the way we produce and use our energy. That means we need to expand our use of renewables, especially wind energy.”
“The energy debate, including that surrounding the expansion of wind energy must be based on facts, not myths. Opponents of wind energy must not be allowed to continue to cloud the debate with such egregious misinformation and distortions.”
Beth Harrington
August 18th, 2009
McAffrey is all wrong and accusations will not hide the truth about industrial wind installations.
From New York to Japan. form Toronto to Australia people are suffering debilitating health problems. Please cut and paste this video likn to view Australia story.
Howard Goodall
August 18th, 2009
There are literally hundreds of people in the USA, Canada and the UK who have testified to the debilitating effects of living with wind turbines. Perhaps McAffery should take her nose out of WHO reports long enough to stand in front of each and every one of them and call them liars to their faces.
BWEA’s arrogance passes all understanding.
Clive Burke
August 26th, 2009
There AREN’T 1,000 of people suffering health problems from turbines, this is just yet another manufactured lie designed to further the hidden agendas of NIMBTY’s over the wishes of the 90 odd persent of people who still support the construction of turbines.
Harbinger
August 29th, 2009
The whole raison detre for wind farms is built on bad science and non-science from computer models. The global climate has not suffered and is not suffering from fossil fuels, which are the basis of our current high living standards and will continue to be so.
Every week more evidence appears that CO2 is not driving temperature and that we are entering a cooler cycle in the face of increasing CO2 levels. Those levels are in the main the result of outgassing from the previous warm cycle, which was preceded in the sixties by a cool cycle, which was preceded in the 30’s by a warmer cycle, which was preceded by…. and so on.
Vicky Portwain
September 2nd, 2009
Unfortunately most scientists disagree. Also wind turbines generate green electricity. That is a fact demonstrated by the electricity metres and not computer models. Wind energy is also a contributor to security of our energy supply.
Lynn Davies
September 10th, 2009
The illusory “ill-health” effects of windfarms are a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. What happens is that evil-minded nimbies go round shouting that a windfarm will ruin your health. There’s no actual evidence for this. But if you’re feeble-minded enough to believe that kind of nimby nonsense, there’s a chance that you’ll begin to imagine adverse symptoms, simply because that’s what you’ve been told will happen.
What this means is that it is the crazy nimbies who are creating problems of ill-health, not the turbines.
Ergometer
September 19th, 2009
Regardless of whether or not burning fossil fuels contributes to the global warming effect – and I am a sceptic due to the difficulty in doing good climate science – they are going to run out in the foreseeable future. It took 2 billion years to create our fossil fuel reserves and we will consume them in just a few centuries. Already the cost of oil and gas has become volatile as demand starts to outstrip supply. The cost of oil extraction has risen as sites become more and more inaccessible. Therefore we have to find sustainable alternatives, of which wind is one.
For those that haven’t seen it, I would strongly recommend David MacKay’s book, Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air. You can download it free from http://www.withouthotair.com . MacKay does the arithmetic in a compelling manner.
For those complaining about health effects and the like – I would recommend reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre to gain understanding of how investigations into such claims should be carried out in order to be taken seriously.
For some other examples of bad science and politics driving health scares read Booker and North’s book, Scared to Death.
Gordon
October 4th, 2009
Funny how some contributors shout about bad science and then ignore the scientific evidence.
Please have the decency to read what physicians and acousticians are saying about noise thresholds and sleep disturbance before calling turbine victims liers.
Many wind turbine arrays are exceeding WHO recommended noise thresholds for the health of adults and children and, ironically, would be prosecuted and issued with ASBO’s under the Noise Act (35dB(a) threshold) were they in urban areas and not specifically excluded.
It is no accident that the government had to dream up a special noise protocol for the wind industry rather than implementing the standard ‘background plus’ method that is used for every other industrial installation. Many would not pass the standard test.
ETSU-R-97 itself says in the preamble that it: “…gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administration burdens on wind farm developers and local authorities.” That says it all really – it is indicative guidance written by and for the industry. It has also not been reviewed or revised, as originally recommended, since its inception. It was written when 40-60m turbines in remote moorland locations were the norm. It is now being used to justify the construction of 125m turbines within 500-600m of fairly large settlements.
It was formulated by acousticians working for the wind industry and has never, as far as I have been able to find out, been subject to scrutiny by physicians with expert knowledge in the area.
As well as Dr Nina Pierpoint’s peer-reviewed research on ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ – - see ‘Sleep disturbance and wind turbine noise’ June 2009 by Dr Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, Honorary Consultant in Sleep Disorders Medicine to the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
There is also a useful summary of international experience of wind turbine noise nuisance and research in ‘Noise Radiation from wind Turbines Installed near Homes: Effects on Health. With an annotated review of the research and related issues.’
By Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS
It would be useful if wind industry representatives and pro-wind campaigners would stop calling people NIMBY’s and actually address the issues.
Gordon
October 4th, 2009
It is amusing to read this sort of stuff from McAffery, the chief spinmeister for the wind industry, when they have been, and are, guilty of promoting inaccuracies and lies.
One might mention their persistant use of the 0.86 tonnes per MWh ‘emissions factor’ used in substitution calculations This figure went against the 0.43 emissions factor used and recommended by DEFRA, DTI, Carbon Trust and Ofgem for years before the BWEA was eventually embarassed by ASA rulings into halving it.
I would also mention the BWEA’s No. 1 Myth about Wind Power – “Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside.” (BWEA ‘Top Myths about Wind Energy’). compare this with what David Mackay, DECC’s recently appointed Chief Scientific Adviser is saying about the scale of onshore wind build. Summed up in a recent headline: “Large swathes of the British countryside will have to be ‘industrialised’ to generate enough alternative energy to prevent blackouts by 2016, according to a key Government adviser.”
vicky portwain
October 7th, 2009
Gordon
I am afraid that you risk ‘inaccuracies’ when it comes to your comment on the noise guidelines for wind turbines i.e. ETSU was written by the most experienced acoustic experts in the country including input from public sector (non industry) environmental health officers and not solely by the wind industry as your comment suggests.
Emission offsets from wind farms are difficult figures to predict accurately due to the constant change of fuel mix – some things are however black and white (like the authors of ETSU) and this is when people’s real knowledge about the issues is exposed.
I would very much like to know who has ‘Peer Reviewed’ anti – wind farm campaigner Pierpoint’s work- given the NHS clearly thought it was a (reading between the lines) very poor piece of work).
neil
January 19th, 2012
Hi All Just came across this site. Good to see that yet another site funded by your electricity bill is here to give us all the usual lies. You can easily see the brainwashed greens by their response. “Turbines will save the world, they are quiet, they will save my babies”, anyone who has a brain knows this is utter rubbish and the BWEA or Renewables UK is less trustworthy than a load of dodgy car salesmen. Turbines ruin lives, devalue property and are forcing millions into fuel poverty. There is no “fuel security” in a generator that only produces electricity if the wind is blowing, not when you want to use it. I hope that every green, Renewables UK worker and wind developer have the opportunity to ponder this “MYTH” when a loved one of theirs is on an operating table and the wind stops blowing. With the backup needed to keep the light on Turbines save a fraction of the CO2 claimed. WE cant be sure how small the savings are the government and the industry are keeping all those facts secret and just do the usual job of giving us more lies when we anyone dares to model the real world savings. If wind turbines are so great and there is no true problem, just a lot of nimby complainers, why does the BWEA spend so many millions making out that anyone who opposes wind is a liar or a fool. Well fool on you anyone who believes their lies
neil
January 19th, 2012
Hi, Just noticed the moderation note, I will be interested in the depth of your censorship. N
wind
February 8th, 2012
Neil
Why do you think the site is funding by electricity bill payments?
neil
April 7th, 2012
HI Wind, Sorry but your question shows how little the public knows. Who do you think is paying for Renewables UK who run this site, yes thats right all the wind developers and who is paying millions for all these get rich quick merchants, yes you and I by way of our electricity bills. The only people spreading lies are the wind industry. Time has now shown that wind turbine syndrome is recognised and families in the UK starting with Jane Davis are getting compensation of hundreds of thousands of pounds. A note here is that they had to sign a gaging clause, the industry that has no noise problems would not like anyone to know the truth would they?