Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of wind turbines

Abstract

SummaryIn an effort to address climate change, governments have pursued policies that seek to reduce greenhouse gases. Alternative energy, including wind power, has been proposed by some as the preferred approach. Few would debate the need to reduce air pollution, but the means of achieving this reduction is important not only for efficiency but also for health protection. The topic of adverse health effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines (AHE/IWT) has proven to be controversial and can present physicians with challenges regarding the management of an exposure to IWT. Rural physicians in particular must be aware of the possibility of people presenting to their practices with a variety of sometimes confusing complaints. An earlier version of the diagnostic criteria for AHE/IWT was published in August 2011. A revised case definition and a model for a study to establish a confirmed diagnosis is proposed.

Response to McCunney et al.: Wind turbines and health: An examination of a proposed case definition

“…[3] The medical significance of this table item remains a mystery as numerous medical conditions have common symptoms. The third-order criteria presented in the case definition by McMurtry and Krogh[2] are symptoms consistent with the ‘well-known stress effects of exposure to noise’,[15] which ‘… are familiar to environmental noise control officers and other “on the ground” professionals’. [5]…”

“…McMurtry and Krogh have specified that a licensed practitioner must conduct a thorough history, physical examination and investigation and rule out alternative explanations before ‘presumed diagnosis’ of AHE/IWT is warranted. [2] To achieve the category of ‘confirmed diagnosis’ McMurtry and Krogh have specified that additional investigative procedures are required and have proposed sophisticated investigative procedures, such as ‘measurements electrophysiologically and by biomarkers’. [2] Reader feedback has since commented that given the accumulation of evidence for a causal link between sleep disturbance and cardiovascular disease, it is not prudent to wait for serious events to accrue.…”

“…[2] To achieve the category of ‘confirmed diagnosis’ McMurtry and Krogh have specified that additional investigative procedures are required and have proposed sophisticated investigative procedures, such as ‘measurements electrophysiologically and by biomarkers’. [2] Reader feedback has since commented that given the accumulation of evidence for a causal link between sleep disturbance and cardiovascular disease, it is not prudent to wait for serious events to accrue. Therefore, it would be expedient to measure intermediate phenotypes, such as biomarker, which are known to lie along the patho-physiological pathway between health and disease.…”

“…McMurtry and Krogh[2] presented Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of wind turbines to assist medical practitioners presented with patients reporting AHE/IWTs. Noise and Health published the views of McCunney et al .…”

Human Health, Rights and Wind Turbine Deployment in Canada

“…Based on this review Colby et al (2009) In 2011 CanWEA advised the public "the association has always acknowledged that a small percentage of people can be annoyed by wind turbines in their vicinity.… When annoyance has a significant impact on an individual's quality of life, it is important that they consult their doctor" [54]. McMurtry and Krogh (2014) [55] present a diagnostic criteria tool to assist practicing physicians who are presented with patients impacted by IWT annoyance [56].…”