Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editorials

Wind turbine noise

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1527 (Published 08 March 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e1527

Rapid Response:

Re: Wind turbine noise

It is heartening to see the work of Chris Hanning recognised by the medical fraternity. The emissions from wind turbines are a real concern for the health of people who are forced to live near them.

The ill effects , described , have been positively identified by many, many epidemiologists, neurologists and other health professionals but sadly not by the UK Government which continues to promote the cause of the Wind Energy developers. The only logical conclusion being that the Government is more concerned with the profits of the energy companies than it is with the health of the Nation.

The UK Government is a signatory to the Rio Declaration which requires the Precautionary Principle to be invoked where there is uncertainty about the safety and well being of human kind, animals and plant life. Compliance with this legal duty would mean the prohibition of wind turbines near to peoples dwellings and the introduction of a 2km buffer zone until such time as the scientific evidence confirms there is no risk to human health.

Many cases of people feeling ill near to wind turbines and of people leaving their homes because they can not tolerate the adverse effects are well documented.

It is time the UK Government took this matter seriously, stopped all windfarm planning applications and approvals within2 km of peoples house, employed properly qualified and experienced scientists in the field of medicine to fully investigate this matter rather than relying on acoustic experts employed by the wind industry and to re write the ETSUR97 noise regulations so that they protect the people rather than empower the energy companies.

Competing interests: No competing interests

24 April 2012
Michael Addison
retired
none
England