• Home
  • Current News
  • Peer-reviewed study shatters claims that wind turbines are “safe”

Peer-reviewed study shatters claims that wind turbines are “safe”

Written by Mark Duchamp, The World Council for Nature

Link found between infrasound emitted by wind turbines and complaints of “unbearable sensations” by residents. aussie windfarm In a groundbreaking study at Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater windfarm in the state of Victoria, Australia’s leading acoustical engineer Steven Cooper found that a unique infrasound pattern, which he had labelled “Wind Turbine Signature” in previous studies, correlates (through a “trend line”) with the occurrence and severity of symptoms of residents who had complained of often-unbearable “sensations”.

These include sleep disturbance, headaches, heart racing, pressure in the head, ears or chest, etc. as described by the residents (symptoms generally known as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), or the euphemism “noise annoyance” – ed). (1)

The acoustician also identified “discrete low frequency amplitude modulated signals” emitted by wind turbines, and found the windfarm victims were also reacting to those.

The Wind Turbine Signature cannot be detected using traditional measuring indexes such as dB(A) or dB(C) and 1/3 Octave bands, concludes his study. Narrowband analysis must be used instead, with results expressed in dB(WTS).

He suggests medical studies be conducted using infrasound measurements in dB(WTS) in order to determine the threshold of what is unacceptable in terms of sound pressure level.

The findings are consistent with the official Kelley studies published in the US more than 30 years ago, which showed that infrasound emitted by early, downwind turbines caused sleep disturbance and other WTS symptoms (2). These studies were shelved, upwind turbines were designed, and the regulatory authorities simply trusted the wind industry’s assertion that the new models did not emit dangerous infrasound. The Cooper study now proves they were wrong.

Another conclusion of his study is that the Danish method used for measuring low-frequency “noise annoyance” near wind farms is inadequate. So are the wind turbine noise standards applied to wind farms in Victoria, Australia and New Zealand, known as New Zealand Standard 6808. Just as inadequate are all other standards regulating “annoyance” near wind farms around the world. They simply don’t take infrasound into account.

The Waubra Foundation, Dr Sarah Laurie, Dr Nina Pierpont, Dr Robert McMurtry, Ms Carmen Krogh, Dr Michael Nissenbaum, Dr Chris Hanning, Dr Jay Tibbetts, Dr Sandy Reider, Dr David Iser, Dr Amanda Harry and scores of other medical practitioners and researchers from around the world are vindicated by this benchmark study, as are the residents reporting WTS symptoms themselves, many of whom have had to regularly or permanently abandon their homes.

Regarding the future, Steven Cooper recommends that further studies be conducted in order to establish “a threshold to protect against adverse impacts.” (1)

He also writes: “the vibration surges described by some residents as disturbance during the shutdown could be attributed to wind gusts exciting resonances of the blades/towers and requires further investigation“. (1)

This is a turning point. The wind industry can no longer claim that their machines do not emit enough infrasound to affect residents, nor that health professionals publicising the problems and calling for further research are causing the suffering, nor that wind farm victims are causing their own woes (the often-used argument that “it’s all in their heads” – i.e. the “nocebo effect”). Yet the wind industry and its abettors had clung to that straw despite the numerous accounts of ill-effects on animals. (3)


Mark Duchamp
+34 693 643 736


(1) Cooper study (released Jan 21 2015): http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/english/our-communities/communities/cape-bridgewater-acoustic-study-report/?language=en

(2) Neil D. Kelley study, (1985): http://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Acoustic-Noise-Associated-with-the-MOD-1-Wind-Turbine.pdf

(3) 1600 miscarriages at mink farm/:   http://wcfn.org/2014/06/07/windfarms-1600-miscarriages/  


Windfarms and birth defects:  http://wcfn.org/2014/03/31/windfarms-vertebrates-and-reproduction/

See also:

The statement from the residents who participated in the Cooper study:  http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2015/steven-coopers-cape-bridgewater-acoustic-research-commissioned-by-pacific-hydro-released/    

Peer review of the Cooper study by acoustician Dr Bob Thorne PhD: https://worldcouncilfornature.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/letter-from-bob-thorne-to-steven-cooper-21-jan-2015.pdf

Letter (peer review) from Robert Rand to Steve Cooper – 21 Jan 2015: https://worldcouncilfornature.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/letter-from-robert-rand-to-steve-cooper-21-jan-2015.pdf  

Letter (peer review) from Stephen Ambrose to Steven Cooper – 22 Jan 2015: https://worldcouncilfornature.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/letter-from-stephen-ambrose-to-steven-cooper-22-jan-2015.pdf

Radio interview of Steven Cooper: https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015/01/21/wind-energy-study-finds-links-to-impacts-reported-by-residents/  

Dr Sarah Laurie’s comprehensive testimony on the health effects of wind turbine sound and vibrations: http://wcfn.org/2015/01/18/health-and-wind-farms/

21 Peer Reviewed Articles On the Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise: http://stopthesethings.com/2014/12/17/21-peer-reviewed-articles-on-the-adverse-health-effects-of-wind-turbine-noise/

TV podcast on the Cooper study:  www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/wind-farm-science

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    Lurky Lurkerson



  • Avatar



    Even schoolboy maths show that any effect on global warming due to this man-made global warming concotion is thermodynamically impossible; try http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4

  • Avatar

    Why Stephen Wilde is so wrong 


    Stephen Wilde is currently promulgating his invalid physics all over various climate blogs.

    His “rising and falling parcels of air” are not contributing any new energy at all. We all know if you throw a stone into the air it does not return with more kinetic energy than you imparted to it. All Stephen’s conjectures tell us is that the atmosphere slows non-radiative surface cooling by non-radiative processes, as it also slows radiative cooling by radiation to the surface. We all know that happens, because we know Earth’s surface does not cool anywhere near as fast or as much as the Moon’s surface.

    So what, Stephen Wilde? Cooling from what temperature?

    You have not explained how the required thermal energy gets into the surface in the first place. The mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 does not supply anywhere near sufficient. On Venus there is less than 20W/m^2 getting through its atmosphere. How do these planetary surfaces get hot in the first place? The temperature will not build up above what radiation could achieve except by the addition of extra thermal energy by non-radiative processes. If the extra energy is supplied by radiation only, it will just be radiated away. There has to be more energy supplied than radiation can emit, because there are other energy losses too, like conduction, convection and evaporative cooling.

    The Sun’s direct radiation into the surface does not have a hope of raising the surface temperature of planets with atmospheres to the observed levels, and such surfaces are not black bodies (by definition) and so need even more radiation than a black body would, because they simultaneously lose energy by non-radiative processes as well as by radiation.

    Even James Hansen and Co. realized there was missing energy, and so they worked out that they needed as much again as the Sun supplied at TOA. Hence the whopping 100% back radiation figure that (by coincidence? /sarc) gives a net energy input of just over 390W/m^2 which nicely agrees with a black body temperature of 288K (15°C) all well fiddled into place. The only trouble is that the back radiation component does not penetrate the ocean surfaces that make up about 70% of the globe.

    So, Stephen Wilde, your little thought experiment that shows nothing more than that the atmosphere slows non-radiative surface cooling, is nothing new and in no way a complete explanation as to what happens regarding energy flows on all planets and satellite moons with atmospheres. Try it for Uranus.

  • Avatar

    Group of physicists


    Climate change will do not be catastrophic. At the most the world will see about half a degree of warming by the year 2059 after which there will be nearly 500 years of cooling. There is evidence that planetary orbits regulate natural cycles, and there is physics which proves the IPCC “science” wrong.

    Our growing group of persons qualified in physics has endorsed the physics I have been presenting for years now, and we have compiled evidence in support of the hypothesis (summarized on the “Evidence” page at http://climate-change-theory.com ) whilst also proving from the laws of physics why the IPCC “explanation” of the “33 degrees of warming” is incorrect. I have, as you know, published a book available on Amazon and in that a comprehensive study of 30 years of temperature and precipitation data from three continents that showed that increases in precipitation correlate with lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures for inland regions in the tropics in the months when the Sun passed almost directly overhead, Those results and the methodology have also been published in comments on Roy’s blog, but I repeat them below. The locations were separated by precipitation into three groups and the results were …

    Wettest: Max: 30.8°C Min: 20.1°C
    Medium: Max: 33.0°C Min: 21.2°C
    Driest: Max: 35.7°C Min: 21.9°C

    Regarding “models” it is a straight forward calculation to get any planet’s surface temperature. That method can be documented as in the manner of the articles in the Hockey Schtick blog site. That blog site, however, has some errors in their explanation of the energy flows, those errors (as well as PSI and WUWT errors) are documented on our group’s website.

    • Avatar



      All gases and dust in the atmosphere cool our planet. Any mass between you and a radiant energy source cools you, never warms. We get our energy from the sun. I think physicists forget this. Sure wish they had more common sense as well.

      • Avatar



        Exactly bob,
        Gases don’t absorb energy but disperse it. All gases dissipate heat. The AGW people will tell you that the atmosphere acts as a “blanket”. Well, where is this blanket,and what is it made of?
        Put a REAL blanket closely over your head and run a hair-drier underneath, will quickly demonstrate these properties of the gases of the atmosphere I’ve described.

        • Avatar



          Perhaps more in keeping with your comment bob…. “Any mass between you and a radiant energy source cools you, never warms”
          This is the insulation concept that the AGW people argue forth..ie the atmosphere surrounds the Earth like an insulating blanket and keeps us warm.
          As you rightly point out, “the radiant energy source” is OUTSIDE the atmosphere, and so the insulating effect is a DOUBLE edged sword.
          A hot water-cylinder’s insulation may be to keep water hot,…but in hot countries of the world, hot water cylinders (not plugged in)are used to keep water cool.
          I sure wish the physicists had more common sense too bob.

Comments are closed