February 7, 2025 

Introduction:

I recently had the opportunity to interview Carmen Krogh from Ontario, Canada. Carmen is an author and co-author of a number of peer reviewed articles that are published in scientific journals. Carmen and a team of health professionals have conducted a study about neighbours vacating their homes when living near Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTS). This study was ethics reviewed, and 67 participants were interviewed by trained interviewers.  

 I am a member of a family who left their home in Wisconsin due to the negative impacts that we are convinced were caused by the IWTs operating in our community. I reached out to Carmen and asked her to discuss her research findings regarding the impact of having to leave a home. We are aware other families who have also abandoned their homes in WI due the effects they attribute to the operation of large scale IWTs.  

Question:

Carmen, you have spent over 15 years researching the potential effects associated with siting IWTs too close to family homes. How did you become interested in this topic?  

Response:

I became interested in this topic by accident. We received a flyer in our mailbox announcing that a wind turbine developer was holding an information session and proposing a wind energy project in our area. My husband and I thought this was an interesting idea but since I knew very little about this, I decided to research the idea. I was surprised to find that internationally, neighbours from Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, England and the United States of America were reporting effects when living near these facilities.  

 I started to meet with Canadian Federal and Ontario Provincial authorities as well as my local municipality. Then some neighbours who were experiencing effects from the wind energy projects, started calling or emailing me. Their described symptoms were consistent internationally and could include one or more of the following range of symptoms: sleep disruption, cardiovascular issues, vertigo, cognitive dysfunction, headaches and migraines, mood disorders, and stress and anxiety.  

Comment: 

Interestingly, these are some of the same symptoms people are describing in WI related to the operation of the large-scale wind turbines. Because of this, some families, like mine, have left their homes. 

Question:

Recently, you conducted a study on vacating a home when living near the Industrial Wind Turbines. Can you elaborate on how this study got started? 

Response:

I was in touch with a number of Ontario and international neighbours who had either left their homes or wished they could. I had been thinking of conducting a study on this topic but hadn’t progressed towards its development. 

 However, during an invited talk, I raised this and expressed a need for a study. A member of the audience stood up and said that she always kept a suitcase with her as she was constantly moving in order to alleviate the effects of being near operating turbines. It was apparent that those present were affected by this. 

 The session concluded and a couple came up to me and we started talking about conducting such a study. The conversation evolved to the point that they were receptive to seeing what would be involved. Subsequently, I provided more details and a budget. To my delight, I received the projected funding support. In addition, a local neighbour became aware of this study and also contributed towards the study. A first priority was to determine how far away participants be from the turbines in order to participate in our study. Since the Health Canada “Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study” required that their participants were living within 10 km from IWTs, for consistency, we used that same requirement.  

 Such a study is expensive, but these contributions supported costs for the ethics review process; the software needed to capture and assess the themes obtained as a result of the participants’ interviews; costs to transcribe  the audio to text files - most of which were one hour in length with some longer as we did not curtail the time if needed;  printing costs for recruitment, consent forms, invitations and other requirements; and costs to pay for Open Access availability. We were committed that all our study participants and those interested in this topic could download our research results from the published journals at no cost.  

Question:

What are your findings?  

Response:

To date we have published seven Open Access articles in peer reviewed scientific Journals with two more articles pending – one on the effects of noise and the final one on an aftermath associated with leaving a home or contemplating to do so.  

 The published topics include preliminary results [1] followed by an overview of findings [2]. An analysis of the methodology used for this study was conducted. [3] Since many of our participants described the consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act we published an article on this topic [4]. Another substantive topic focused on our participants’ descriptions of their adverse health effects and the medical diagnoses provided by participants’ physicians and physician specialists [5], another important topic that arose was participants’ personal views associated with IWTs and effects on security, trust and social justice. Some of our participants initially had supported the IWTs until they experienced negative effects and were unable to obtain remedy [6], The seventh publication describes the effects on pets, animals and well-water [7]. 

Author’s note: for convenience, the reference citations are listed at the end of this section. 

Question:

Do you have anything you would like to add? 

Response:

For consideration, Berglund of the World Health Organization provided guidance on the use of Precaution that may be helpful.  

a. The precautionary principle. In all cases, noise should be reduced to the lowest level achievable in a particular situation. Where there is a reasonable possibility that public health will be damaged, action should be taken to protect public health without awaiting full scientific proof. 

 b. The polluter pays principle. The full costs associated with noise pollution (including monitoring, management, lowering levels and supervision) should be met by those responsible for the source of noise. 

 c. The prevention principle. Action should be taken where possible to reduce noise at the source. Land-use planning should be guided by an environmental health impact assessment that considers noise as well as other pollutants [8]. 

Wrap-up:

I appreciate you spending time with me regarding this important topic. Your commitment to the exploration of the impacts of industrial wind turbines is far reaching and powerful. Blessings to you for all you have done and continue to do.