Potential of wind turbines to elicit seizures under various meteorological conditions

Visually sensitive seizures: An updated review by the Epilepsy Foundation

Light flashes, patterns, or color changes can provoke seizures in up to 1 in 4000 persons. Prevalence may be higher because of selection bias. The Epilepsy Foundation reviewed light-induced seizures in 2005. Since then, images on social media, virtual reality, three-dimensional (3D) movies, and the Internet have proliferated. Hundreds of studies have explored the mechanisms and presentations of photosensitive seizures, justifying an updated review. This literature summary derives from a nonsystematic literature review via PubMed using the terms "photosensitive" and "epilepsy." The photoparoxysmal response (PPR) is an electroencephalography (EEG) phenomenon, and photosensitive seizures (PS) are seizures provoked by visual stimulation. Photosensitivity is more common in the young and in specific forms of generalized epilepsy. PS can coexist with spontaneous seizures. PS are hereditable and linked to recently identified genes. Brain imaging usually is normal, but special studies imaging white matter tracts demonstrate abnormal connectivity. Occipital cortex and connected regions are hyperexcitable in subjects with light-provoked seizures. Mechanisms remain unclear. Video games, social media clips, occasional movies, and natural stimuli can provoke PS. Virtual reality and 3D images so far appear benign unless they contain specific provocative content, for example, flashes. Images with flashes brighter than 20 candelas/m² at 3-60 (particularly 15-20) Hz occupying at least 10 to 25% of the visual field are a risk, as are red color flashes or oscillating stripes. Equipment to assay for these characteristics is probably underutilized. Prevention of seizures includes avoiding provocative stimuli, covering one eye, wearing dark glasses, sitting at least two meters from screens, reducing contrast, and taking certain antiseizure drugs. Measurement of PPR suppression in a photosensitivity model can screen putative antiseizure drugs. Some countries regulate media to reduce risk. Visually-induced seizures remain significant public health hazards so they warrant ongoing scientific and regulatory efforts and public education.

Health effects of wind turbines on humans in residential settings: Results of a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

As the global number of wind turbines has increased steadily in recent years, as has the number of studies about putative health effects in residential settings, it is the review purpose to give an overview of the characteristics and methodologies of the scientific literature around the topic in order to identify research gaps and to derive implications for research and practice. Additionally, study findings from higher-quality observational studies as well as results that seem to be of interest for the scientific and political debate are presented.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted following systematic review methods. Comprehensive literature searches were carried out in several databases, and with extensive hand searches. All review steps were carried out in parallel by two reviewers or by one reviewer and in duplicate checked by another reviewer. The following important methodological criteria were investigated: Reporting, ethical aspects, generalization, selection bias, information bias, confounder bias. Findings from observational studies without a selection bias, information bias, and confounder bias are presented.

RESULTS

84 articles, that varied significantly in methods and outcomes assessed, met the inclusion criteria. Multiple cross-sectional studies reported that wind turbine noise is associated with noise annoyance, which is moderated by several variables such as noise sensitivity, attitude towards wind turbines, or economic benefit. Wind turbine noise is not associated with stress effects and biophysiological variables of sleep. Results on the impact of wind turbine noise on sleep disburbance, quality of life, and mental health problems differed among cross-sectional studies. There were few studies that addressed the potential impact of turbine noise on clinically apparent health outcomes. There were also few studies on visual risk factors or infrasound exposure. No literature was identified regarding low-frequency noise, electromagnetic radiation, and ice throw.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an extensive and diverse body of evidence around health impacts of wind turbines in residential settings, that increased sharply since 2010, showing particularly noise consequences concerning increased noise annoyance with its complex pathways; no relationship between wind turbine noise and stress effects and biophysiological variables of sleep; and heterogeneous findings concerning sleep disturbance, quality of life, as well as mental health problems. Research gaps concern the complex pathways of annoyance, the examination of clinically apparent health outcomes in comparison with non-exposed residents, an objective investigation of visual wind turbine features, the interaction between all wind turbine exposures, and epidemiological observational studies on field low-frequency and infrasound from wind turbines. Future research needs thorough high-quality and prospective study designs.

The influence of wind turbine visibility on the health of local residents: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The health effects of visible wind turbine features on residents were investigated. Further, it was examined, if visual annoyance has an influence on residents' health, and if wind turbine visibility impacts residents' health independently of or in combination with acoustical aspects.

METHODS

Medical databases, Google Scholar, public health institutions, and reference lists were searched systematically (PROSPERO registry number: CRD42016041737). Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstract and full texts, extracted data, and critically appraised the methodology of included studies. Study findings were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies from 19 publications of varying methodological quality were included (two cohort studies, fifteen cross-sectional studies). The pooled prevalence of high annoyance due to altered views and shadow flicker was 6% each. The results of other health effects were inconsistent, with some indications showing that direct wind turbine visibility increases sleep disturbance. Annoyance by direct visibility, shadow flicker, and blinking lights was significantly associated with an increased risk for sleep disorders. One study indicated reactions to visual wind turbine features may be influenced by acoustical exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

In interpreting the results, the differing methodological quality of the included studies needs to be considered. Direct and indirect wind turbine visibility may affect residents' health, and reactions may differ in combination with noise. Further, annoyance by wind turbine visibility may interact as mediator between visual exposures and the health of local residents. To confirm the results, more high-quality research is needed.

Estimating annoyance to calculated wind turbine shadow flicker is improved when variables associated with wind turbine noise exposure are considered

The Community Noise and Health Study conducted by Health Canada included randomly selected participants aged 18-79 yrs (606 males, 632 females, response rate 78.9%), living between 0.25 and 11.22 km from operational wind turbines. Annoyance to wind turbine noise (WTN) and other features, including shadow flicker (SF) was assessed. The current analysis reports on the degree to which estimating high annoyance to wind turbine shadow flicker (HAWTSF) was improved when variables known to be related to WTN exposure were also considered. As SF exposure increased [calculated as maximum minutes per day (SFm)], HAWTSF increased from 3.8% at 0 ≤ SFm < 10 to 21.1% at SFm ≥ 30, p < 0.0001. For each unit increase in SFm the odds ratio was 2.02 [95% confidence interval: (1.68,2.43)]. Stepwise regression models for HAWTSF had a predictive strength of up to 53% with 10% attributed to SFm. Variables associated with HAWTSF included, but were not limited to, annoyance to other wind turbine-related features, concern for physical safety, and noise sensitivity. Reported dizziness was also retained in the final model at p = 0.0581. Study findings add to the growing science base in this area and may be helpful in identifying factors associated with community reactions to SF exposure from wind turbines.

An assessment of quality of life using the WHOQOL-BREF among participants living in the vicinity of wind turbines

Living within the vicinity of wind turbines may have adverse impacts on health measures associated with quality of life (QOL). There are few studies in this area and inconsistent findings preclude definitive conclusions regarding the impact that exposure to wind turbine noise (WTN) may have on QOL. In the current study (officially titled the Community Noise and Health Study or CNHS), the World Health Organization QOL-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire provided an evaluation of QOL in relation to WTN levels among randomly selected participants aged 18-79 (606 males, 632 females) living between 0.25 and 11.22 km from wind turbines (response rate 78.9%). In the multiple regression analyses, WTN levels were not found to be related to scores on the Physical, Psychological, Social or Environment domains, or to rated QOL and Satisfaction with Health questions. However, some wind turbine-related variables were associated with scores on the WHOQOL-BREF, irrespective of WTN levels. Hearing wind turbines for less than one year (compared to not at all and greater than one year) was associated with improved (i.e. higher) scores on the Psychological domain (p=0.0108). Lower scores on both the Physical and Environment domains (p=0.0218 and p=0.0372, respectively), were observed among participants reporting high visual annoyance toward wind turbines. Personal benefit from having wind turbines in the area was related to higher scores on the Physical domain (p=0.0417). Other variables significantly related to one or more domains, included sex, age, marital status, employment, education, income, alcohol consumption, smoking status, chronic diseases and sleep disorders. Collectively, results do not support an association between exposure to WTN up to 46 dBA and QOL assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire.

Health effects related to wind turbine noise exposure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Wind turbine noise exposure and suspected health-related effects thereof have attracted substantial attention. Various symptoms such as sleep-related problems, headache, tinnitus and vertigo have been described by subjects suspected of having been exposed to wind turbine noise.

OBJECTIVE

This review was conducted systematically with the purpose of identifying any reported associations between wind turbine noise exposure and suspected health-related effects.

DATA SOURCES

A search of the scientific literature concerning the health-related effects of wind turbine noise was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and various other Internet sources.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies investigating suspected health-related outcomes associated with wind turbine noise exposure were included.

RESULTS

Wind turbines emit noise, including low-frequency noise, which decreases incrementally with increases in distance from the wind turbines. Likewise, evidence of a dose-response relationship between wind turbine noise linked to noise annoyance, sleep disturbance and possibly even psychological distress was present in the literature. Currently, there is no further existing statistically-significant evidence indicating any association between wind turbine noise exposure and tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo or headache.

LIMITATIONS

Selection bias and information bias of differing magnitudes were found to be present in all current studies investigating wind turbine noise exposure and adverse health effects. Only articles published in English, German or Scandinavian languages were reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to wind turbines does seem to increase the risk of annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbance in a dose-response relationship. There appears, though, to be a tolerable level of around LAeq of 35 dB. Of the many other claimed health effects of wind turbine noise exposure reported in the literature, however, no conclusive evidence could be found. Future studies should focus on investigations aimed at objectively demonstrating whether or not measureable health-related outcomes can be proven to fluctuate depending on exposure to wind turbines.

Wind turbines and human health

The association between wind turbines and health effects is highly debated. Some argue that reported health effects are related to wind turbine operation [electromagnetic fields (EMF), shadow flicker, audible noise, low-frequency noise, infrasound]. Others suggest that when turbines are sited correctly, effects are more likely attributable to a number of subjective variables that result in an annoyed/stressed state. In this review, we provide a bibliographic-like summary and analysis of the science around this issue specifically in terms of noise (including audible, low-frequency noise, and infrasound), EMF, and shadow flicker. Now there are roughly 60 scientific peer-reviewed articles on this issue. The available scientific evidence suggests that EMF, shadow flicker, low-frequency noise, and infrasound from wind turbines are not likely to affect human health; some studies have found that audible noise from wind turbines can be annoying to some. Annoyance may be associated with some self-reported health effects (e.g., sleep disturbance) especially at sound pressure levels >40 dB(A). Because environmental noise above certain levels is a recognized factor in a number of health issues, siting restrictions have been implemented in many jurisdictions to limit noise exposure. These setbacks should help alleviate annoyance from noise. Subjective variables (attitudes and expectations) are also linked to annoyance and have the potential to facilitate other health complaints via the nocebo effect. Therefore, it is possible that a segment of the population may remain annoyed (or report other health impacts) even when noise limits are enforced. Based on the findings and scientific merit of the available studies, the weight of evidence suggests that when sited properly, wind turbines are not related to adverse health. Stemming from this review, we provide a number of recommended best practices for wind turbine development in the context of human health.

Measuring electromagnetic fields (EMF) around wind turbines in Canada: is there a human health concern?

BACKGROUND

The past five years has seen considerable expansion of wind power generation in Ontario, Canada. Most recently worries about exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from wind turbines, and associated electrical transmission, has been raised at public meetings and legal proceedings. These fears have not been based on any actual measurements of EMF exposure surrounding existing projects but appear to follow from worries from internet sources and misunderstanding of the science.

METHODS

The study was carried out at the Kingsbridge 1 Wind Farm located near Goderich, Ontario, Canada. Magnetic field measurements were collected in the proximity of 15 Vestas 1.8 MW wind turbines, two substations, various buried and overhead collector and transmission lines, and nearby homes. Data were collected during three operational scenarios to characterize potential EMF exposure: 'high wind' (generating power), 'low wind' (drawing power from the grid, but not generating power) and 'shut off' (neither drawing, nor generating power).

RESULTS

Background levels of EMF (0.2 to 0.3 mG) were established by measuring magnetic fields around the wind turbines under the 'shut off' scenario. Magnetic field levels detected at the base of the turbines under both the 'high wind' and 'low wind' conditions were low (mean = 0.9 mG; n = 11) and rapidly diminished with distance, becoming indistinguishable from background within 2 m of the base. Magnetic fields measured 1 m above buried collector lines were also within background (≤ 0.3 mG). Beneath overhead 27.5 kV and 500 kV transmission lines, magnetic field levels of up to 16.5 and 46 mG, respectively, were recorded. These levels also diminished rapidly with distance. None of these sources appeared to influence magnetic field levels at nearby homes located as close as just over 500 m from turbines, where measurements immediately outside of the homes were ≤ 0.4 mG.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that there is nothing unique to wind farms with respect to EMF exposure; in fact, magnetic field levels in the vicinity of wind turbines were lower than those produced by many common household electrical devices and were well below any existing regulatory guidelines with respect to human health.

Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Wind power has been harnessed as a source of power around the world. Debate is ongoing with respect to the relationship between reported health effects and wind turbines, specifically in terms of audible and inaudible noise. As a result, minimum setback distances have been established world-wide to reduce or avoid potential complaints from, or potential effects to, people living in proximity to wind turbines. People interested in this debate turn to two sources of information to make informed decisions: scientific peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals and the popular literature and internet.

METHODS

The purpose of this paper is to review the peer-reviewed scientific literature, government agency reports, and the most prominent information found in the popular literature. Combinations of key words were entered into the Thomson Reuters Web of KnowledgeSM and the internet search engine Google. The review was conducted in the spirit of the evaluation process outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

RESULTS

Conclusions of the peer reviewed literature differ in some ways from those in the popular literature. In peer reviewed studies, wind turbine annoyance has been statistically associated with wind turbine noise, but found to be more strongly related to visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise. To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. If anything, reported health effects are likely attributed to a number of environmental stressors that result in an annoyed/stressed state in a segment of the population. In the popular literature, self-reported health outcomes are related to distance from turbines and the claim is made that infrasound is the causative factor for the reported effects, even though sound pressure levels are not measured.

CONCLUSIONS

What both types of studies have in common is the conclusion that wind turbines can be a source of annoyance for some people. The difference between both types is the reason for annoyance. While it is acknowledged that noise from wind turbines can be annoying to some and associated with some reported health effects (e.g., sleep disturbance), especially when found at sound pressure levels greater than 40 db(A), given that annoyance appears to be more strongly related to visual cues and attitude than to noise itself, self reported health effects of people living near wind turbines are more likely attributed to physical manifestation from an annoyed state than from wind turbines themselves. In other words, it appears that it is the change in the environment that is associated with reported health effects and not a turbine-specific variable like audible noise or infrasound. Regardless of its cause, a certain level of annoyance in a population can be expected (as with any number of projects that change the local environment) and the acceptable level is a policy decision to be made by elected officials and their government representatives where the benefits of wind power are weighted against their cons. Assessing the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging field and conducting further research into the effects of wind turbines (and environmental changes) on human health, emotional and physical, is warranted.