Dr Bruce Rapley has been researching the effects of acoustical energy on humans for 15 years and has made first-hand observations of those effects. He’s been following the Australian/New Zealand wind turbine noise controversy for some time. In 2011 he was a co-author of a paper on the problems of measuring wind turbine noise, submitted to the Australian Acoustical Society.
On March 18, 2014, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) released a position paper on wind turbines, noise and health effects. In essence, it said that there is no evidence that the noise from wind turbines causes any health impacts, and that whatever health effects exist do so only because of “misinformation” from people like me.
It took Rapley just 10 days to respond in an open letter that went through the AMA’s position paper on a sentence-by-sentence basis and eviscerated all but one of those sentences. Rapley’s letter is 9 pages long and very readable. If you want a concise series of replies to the wind industry’s talking points (which have seemingly been adopted whole hog by the AMA) then this is an excellent reference.
Rapley, Letter to the Australian Medical Association.
AMA, Position Paper (backup link).
Rapley et al, Environmental Noise: Better Measures and Reporting Needed, 2011 Paper for the Australian Acoustical Society
3 thoughts on “The Rapley Letter”
Everything on this website really should spell the termination of most if not all Windfarms. Governments should NOT be actively encouraging them with any subsidies or special rules. Governments should require proper placement of them with regard to residences AND with regard to turbines. If windfarms adhered to turbibe-to-turbine distances and used those same distances were applied with respect to residences, these things would NOT by themselves (considering proper placement) … NOT by themselves be economically viable.
Apologies for the lousy grammar
I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The more I read the worse it gets. I’ve never seen so many ad hominem & biased arguments in one place. You seem to have a completely false understanding of low frequency sound levels and their implications. You avoid the best research on the subject (NASA jet engine LFSL testing/methodology, Kelley, Tokita/Shimizu, SERI) and seem to intentionally leave out crucial facts/gloss over details that don’t support your assertions throughout your process.
Where’s the article for PEC anti-wind getting embarrassed in court? 100% previous condition rate among victims, testing done by one “victim” where recordings were made by her each time she felt affected by the noise with discomfort/pain ratings of 4-8 – except 40% of them occurred when the turbine wasn’t active! It seems http://www.pnas.org/content/87/17/6728.short might be more appropriate after all.