National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 魅せられる"生物学の面白さ"

To evaluate the quality of available evidence on the effects of environmental noise exposure on sleep a systematic review was conducted. The databases PSYCINFO, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science and the TNO Repository were searched for non-laboratory studies on the effects of environmental noise on sleep with measured or predicted noise levels and published in or after the year 2000. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Seventy four studies predominately conducted between 2000 and 2015 were included in the review. A meta-analysis of surveys linking road, rail, and aircraft noise exposure to self-reports of sleep disturbance was conducted. The odds ratio for the percent highly sleep disturbed for a 10 dB increase in Lnight was significant for aircraft (1.94; 95% CI 1.61–2.3), road (2.13; 95% CI 1.82–2.48), and rail (3.06; 95% CI 2.38–3.93) noise when the question referred to noise, but non-significant for aircraft (1.17; 95% CI 0.54–2.53), road (1.09; 95% CI 0.94–1.27), and rail (1.27; 95% CI 0.89–1.81) noise when the question did not refer to noise. A pooled analysis of polysomnographic studies on the acute effects of transportation noise on sleep was also conducted and the unadjusted odds ratio for the probability of awakening for a 10 dBA increase in the indoor Lmax was significant for aircraft (1.35; 95% CI 1.22–1.50), road (1.36; 95% CI 1.19–1.55), and rail (1.35; 95% CI 1.21–1.52) noise. Due to a limited number of studies and the use of different outcome measures, a narrative review only was conducted for motility, cardiac and blood pressure outcomes, and for children’s sleep. The effect of wind turbine and hospital noise on sleep was also assessed. Based on the available evidence, transportation noise affects objectively measured sleep physiology and subjectively assessed sleep disturbance in adults. For other outcome measures and noise sources the examined evidence was conflicting or only emerging. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of the evidence was moderate for cortical awakenings and self-reported sleep disturbance (for questions that referred to noise) induced by traffic noise, low for motility measures of traffic noise induced sleep disturbance, and very low for all other noise sources and investigated sleep outcomes.

WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep.

A. Minstens vijf van onderstaande symptomen zijn aanwezig geweest gedurende de laatste twee weken en wijzen op een verandering ten opzichte van het eerdere functioneren. Tenminste één van de symptomen is een depressieve stemming (1) of verlies van interesse of plezier (2). 1. Depressieve stemming gedurende het grootste deel van de dag, bijna elke dag; 2. Duidelijke vermindering van interesse of plezier in bijna alle activiteiten; 3. Duidelijke gewichtsvermindering zonder dat dieet wordt gehouden, of gewichtstoename; 4. Slapeloosheid of overmatige slaperigheid; 5. Psychomotore agitatie of remming; 6. Moeheid of verlies van energie, bijna elke dag; 7. Gevoelens (die waanachtig kunnen zijn) van waardeloosheid of overmatige schuldgevoelens, bijna elke dag; 8. Verminderd vermogen tot nadenken, concentratie of besluiteloosheid, bijna elke dag; 9. Terugkerende gedachten aan de dood, terugkerende suïcidegedachten zonder dat er specifieke plannen gemaakt zijn, of een suïcidepoging of een specifiek plan om suïcide te plegen. B. De patiënt heeft niet ook kenmerken van een manische episode. C. De symptomen veroorzaken in significante mate lijden of beperkingen in het sociaal of beroepsmatig functioneren of het functioneren op andere belangrijke terreinen. D. De symptomen zijn niet het gevolg van de directe fysiologische effecten van een middel (bijvoorbeeld drug, geneesmiddel) of een somatische aandoening (bijvoorbeeld hypothyreoidie).

Toolkit 설정 편집

Thirty years of North American research on public acceptance of wind energy has produced important insights, yet knowledge gaps remain. This review synthesizes the literature, revealing the following lessons learned. (1) North American support for wind has been consistently high. (2) The NIMBY explanation for resistance to wind development is invalid. (3) Socioeconomic impacts of wind development are strongly tied to acceptance. (4) Sound and visual impacts of wind facilities are strongly tied to annoyance and opposition, and ignoring these concerns can exacerbate conflict. (5) Environmental concerns matter, though less than other factors, and these concerns can both help and hinder wind development. (6) Issues of fairness, participation, and trust during the development process influence acceptance. (7) Distance from turbines affects other explanatory variables, but alone its influence is unclear. (8) Viewing opposition as something to be overcome prevents meaningful understandings and implementation of best practices. (9) Implementation of research findings into practice has been limited. The paper also identifies areas for future research on wind acceptance. With continued research efforts and a commitment toward implementing research findings into developer and policymaker practice, conflict and perceived injustices around proposed and existing wind energy facilities might be significantly lessened.

/pdf/thirty-years-of-north-american-wind-energy-acceptance-277oetpv5z.pdf

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Energy use is central to human society and provides many health benefits. But each source of energy entails some health risks. This article reviews the health impacts of each major source of energy, focusing on those with major implications for the burden of disease globally. The biggest health impacts accrue to the harvesting and burning of solid fuels, coal and biomass, mainly in the form of occupational health risks and household and general ambient air pollution. Lack of access to clean fuels and electricity in the world’s poor households is a particularly serious risk for health. Although energy efficiency brings many benefits, it also entails some health risks, as do renewable energy systems, if not managed carefully. We do not review health impacts of climate change itself, which are due mostly to climate-altering pollutants from energy systems, but do discuss the potential for achieving near-term health cobenefits by reducing certain climate-related emissions.

/pdf/energy-and-human-health-2ln6h51aj0.pdf

Energy and Human Health

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 Knowledge SM 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 (eg, 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

http://masg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/KnopperOllson_HealthEffectsWind_2011.pdf

Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature

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.

https://www.livingstoncounty-il.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PR-Ex.-74-Knopper-et-al.-2014.pdf

Wind turbines and human health.

Setbacks for wind turbines have been established in many jurisdictions to address potential health concerns associated with audible noise. However, in recent years it has been suggested that infrasound (IS) and low frequency noise (LFN) could be responsible for the onset of adverse health effects self-reported by some individuals living in proximity to wind turbines, even when audible noise limits are met. The purpose of this paper was to investigate whether current audible noise-based guidelines for wind turbines account for the protection of human health, given the levels of IS and LFN typically produced by wind turbines. New field measurements of indoor IS and outdoor LFN at locations between 400 m and 900 m from the nearest turbine, which were previously underrepresented in the scientific literature, are reported and put into context with existing published works. Our analysis showed that indoor IS levels were below auditory threshold levels while LFN levels at distances >500 m were similar to background LFN levels. A clear contribution to LFN due to wind turbine operation (i.e., measured with turbines on in comparison to with turbines off) was noted at a distance of 480 m. However, this corresponded to an increase in overall audible sound measures as reported in dB(A), supporting the hypothesis that controlling audible sound produced by normally operating wind turbines will also control for LFN. Overall, the available data from this and other studies suggest that health-based audible noise wind turbine siting guidelines provide an effective means to evaluate, monitor, and protect potential receptors from audible noise as well as IS and LFN.

https://www.livingstoncounty-il.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PR-Ex.-325-02-24-15-Health-based-audible-noise-guidelines.pdf

Health-Based Audible Noise Guidelines Account for Infrasound and Low-Frequency Noise Produced by Wind Turbines

The risk of arsenic exposure to deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) living in areas of naturally and anthropogenically elevated arsenic levels was determined using three separate calculations of arsenic daily intake: Estimated daily intake (EDI), bioaccessible EDI (BEDI), and actual daily intake (ADI). The present work is of particular interest, because the risk assessments were determined for animals naturally exposed to arsenic. Gastric fluid extraction was used to obtain bioaccessibility data for soil and plant samples collected from three study sites (background, mine forest, and tailings) in Yellowknife (NT, Canada). Calculations using the EDI indicated that deer mice living in tailings habitat (average soil arsenic concentration, 1,740 +/- 2,240 microg/g) should have been experiencing serious health effects as a result of their exposure to arsenic. Using BEDI and ADI in the risk assessment calculation, however, resulted in an order-of-magnitude decrease in calculated risk. In addition, results calculated using the BEDI and ADI were not significantly different, suggesting that using bioaccessibility provides a more realistic estimate of potential risk. The present results provide evidence that the use of EDI in traditional risk assessments may seriously overestimate the actual risk, which in some instances may result in expensive and unnecessary clean-up measures.

Addressing arsenic bioaccessibility in ecological risk assessment: A novel approach to avoid overestimating risk

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. 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). 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. 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.

/pdf/measuring-electromagnetic-fields-emf-around-wind-turbines-in-2wpa61wa5r.pdf

Christopher A. Ollson

Papers

Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature

Wind turbines and human health.

Health-Based Audible Noise Guidelines Account for Infrasound and Low-Frequency Noise Produced by Wind Turbines

Addressing arsenic bioaccessibility in ecological risk assessment: A novel approach to avoid overestimating risk

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