Part 2: An Interview with Dr. Jerry Punch, a retired, experienced, certified audiologist

March 23, 2025

Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Jerry Punch regarding issues reported by some people living close to large-scale industrial wind turbine (IWTs) projects. Dr. Punch is a retired, certified audiologist with 50 years of clinical and research experience in his profession. He has a great understanding about the anatomy and physiology of the human ear, and how sound is produced, propagated, measured, and perceived by humans.

Question: In addition to the information you included in Part 1 of our interview, what are some of the key findings from your article, Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health: A Four-Decade History of Evidence that Wind Turbines Pose Risks, co-authored with Richard James, regarding wind turbine noise and human health?  

The impetus for that 2016 article was to refute what we regarded as some of the most recurring myths and untruths surrounding the effects of IWTs on human health. I’ll summarize our key findings as follows, using terminology that is consistent with current usage by expert acousticians: 

1. Large wind turbines generate both audible noise and infrasonic energy—now regarded as acoustic pulsations at infrasonic rates—that often lead to symptoms ranging from annoyance to pathological conditions such as headache, ear pain, dizziness, nausea, motion sickness, and vertigo, 

2. Annoyance, which is a well-documented issue for many people living near IWTs, is consistent with both the WHO’s definition of health and contemporary models of the relationships among annoyance, stress, and health, 

3. Acoustic pulsations at infrasonic rates appear to be intensified by the excitation of resonances inside closed structures and the human body itself, giving rise to unpleasant sensations that often disturb sleep, 

4. Recent research regarding these symptoms is largely consistent with Pierpont’s original description of Wind Turbine Syndrome. That research adds substance to the adage that “What we can’t hear can hurt us,” 

5. Wind turbine noise has unique characteristics when compared to other environmental noises. These characteristics include amplitude-modulated, intermittent, pulsating, and uncontrollable occurrences of acoustic energy that mirror the peak energy of the blade-pass frequency and the first several harmonics, 

6. Clearly, the short siting distances used by the industry for physical safety do not protect against AHEs. Researchers who have recommended imposing restrictive sound levels have suggested limiting those levels between 30-40 dBA for safeguarding health, which is consistent with nighttime, outdoor noise levels recommended by the WHO, 

7. Scientific evidence regarding factors other than audible noise or acoustic pulsations at infrasonic rates as an explanation for most of the serious health complaints near IWTs, including electromagnetic fields (dirty electricity), is weak. The preponderance of research suggests that infrasonic energy is the most viable explanation for such complaints, 

8. The A-weighted decibel scale, which effectively excludes very low-frequency noise, is inadequate to predict the level of outdoor or indoor infrasonic energy, to reveal correlations to infrasonic pulsations, or to show a definitive relationship with AHEs, and especially with specific health effects. New measurement methods are required to achieve these goals, 

9. Even though Wind Turbine Syndrome is not currently included in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding system, that system includes most of the acknowledged symptoms of the syndrome. Medical professionals, therefore, have the necessary tools to diagnose it, and that process has already begun on a limited scale, 

10. While some epidemiologically solid research has been done in the area of IWTs and AHEs, evidence from other sources, such as the Bradford Hill criteria, should not be ignored. Those criteria are useful in establishing causation of the effects of various environmental influences, including wind turbine exposure, 

11. While psychological expectations and the power of suggestion conceivably can influence perceptions of the effects of wind turbine noise on health status, no scientifically valid studies have yet convincingly shown that psychological forces are the major driver of such perceptions, 

12. Accurate estimates of the percentage of people who are affected by IWTs exist only for annoyance, not AHEs. Multiple reports, however, emphasize the relationships that exist among annoyance, stress, health, and quality of life, and indicate that a non-trivial percentage of people who live near IWTs experience AHEs. Those reports are consistent with numerous anecdotal and published scientific reports worldwide. Although it is reasonable to conclude that noise from IWTs does not cause AHEs in the majority of exposed populations, and that accurate estimates of AHEs are yet to be established, it is also clear that considerable numbers of people are affected and that they deserve to be heard and protected from adverse health impacts, 

13. The available literature, which includes research reported by scientists and other reputable professionals in peer-reviewed journals, government documents, print and web-based media, and in scientific and professional papers presented at society meetings, considered in conjunction with the Bradford Hill criteria for causation, is sufficient to establish a general causal link between a variety of commonly observed AHEs and noise emitted by IWTs, and 

14. Based on the totality of evidence presented, the controversy surrounding AHEs should not be polarized into two groups consisting of pro-wind and anti-wind factions. Rather, a third, pro-health perspective is needed. That view is that there is enough anecdotal and scientific evidence to indicate that noise emissions from IWTs cause annoyance, sleep disturbance, stress, and a variety of other, often life-altering, AHEs that warrant locating the turbines at distances sufficient to avoid such harmful effects. Without proper siting, those effects will occur in a substantial percentage of the population. A pro-health view holds that the precautionary principle must be followed in siting IWTs if health risks are to be avoided, and that it is unacceptable to consider people living near wind turbines as collateral damage. Industrial-scale wind turbines should not be located near people’s homes, educational and recreational facilities, and workplaces.  

15. Further scientific investigations of the dose-response relationship between IWT noise and specific health effects in exposed individuals are sorely needed. Hopefully, such research can and will be carried out by independent researchers with the full cooperation of the wind industry. The major objective of such research should be to reveal directions for the adoption of conservative siting guidelines that can be used by the wind industry to balance the energy needs of society with the need to protect public health. 

Statement: Thank you again, Dr. Punch, for taking time to answer my questions regarding large-scale industrial wind turbine noise and the adverse health effects reported by people living or working in the vicinity of these projects. Your research and insight are appreciated.  

References: 

1 Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300. 

2 Punch, J. & James, R.R. (October 2016). Wind turbine noise and human health: a four-decade history of evidence that wind turbines pose risks. The Journal at Hearing Health & Technology Matters, Available at: Microsoft Word - 16-10-20 Wind Turbine Noise Post-Publication Manuscript (HHTM Punch & James).