Prioritizing Health: A Systematic Approach to Scoping Determinants in Health Impact Assessment.

The determinants of health are those factors that have the potential to affect health, either positively or negatively, and include a range of personal, social, economic, and environmental factors. In the practice of health impact assessment (HIA), the stage at which the determinants of health are considered for inclusion is during the scoping step. The scoping step is intended to identify how the HIA will be carried out and to set the boundaries (e.g., temporal and geographical) for the assessment. There are several factors that can help to inform the scoping process, many of which are considered in existing HIA tools and guidance; however, a systematic method of prioritizing determinants was found to be lacking. In order to analyze existing HIA scoping tools that are available, a systematic literature review was conducted, including both primary and gray literature. A total of 10 HIA scoping tools met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were carried forward for comparative analysis. The analysis focused on minimum elements and practice standards of HIA scoping that have been established in the field. The analysis determined that existing approaches lack a clear, systematic method of prioritization of health determinants for inclusion in HIA. This finding led to the development of a Systematic HIA Scoping tool that addressed this gap. The decision matrix tool uses factors, such as impact, public concern, and data availability, to prioritize health determinants. Additionally, the tool allows for identification of data gaps and provides a transparent method for budget allocation and assessment planning. In order to increase efficiency and improve utility, the tool was programed into Microsoft Excel. Future work in the area of HIA methodology development is vital to the ongoing success of the practice and utilization of HIA as a reliable decision-making tool.

Health Impact Assessment of an oil drilling project in California.

OBJECTIVES: The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was conducted to evaluate the potential community health implications of a proposed oil drilling and production project in Hermosa Beach, California. The HIA considered 17 determinants of health that fell under 6 major categories (i.e., air quality, water and soil quality, upset conditions, noise and light emissions, traffic, and community livability). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This paper attempts to address some of the gaps within the HIA practice by presenting the methodological approach and results of this transparent, comprehensive HIA; specifically, the evaluation matrix and decision-making framework that have been developed for this HIA and form the basis of the evaluation and allow for a clear conclusion to be reached in respect of any given health determinant (i.e., positive, negative, neutral). RESULTS: There is a number of aspects of the project that may positively influence health (e.g., increased education funding, ability to enhance green space), and at the same time there have been potential negative effects identified (e.g., odor, blowouts, property values). Except for upset conditions, the negative health outcomes have been largely nuisance-related (e.g., odor, aesthetics) without irreversible health impacts. The majority of the health determinants, that had been examined, have revealed that the project would have no substantial effect on the health of the community. CONCLUSIONS: Using the newly developed methodology and based on established mitigation measures and additional recommendations provided in the HIA, the authors have concluded that the project will have no substantial effect on community health. This approach and methodology will assist practitioners, stakeholders and decision-makers in advancing the HIA as a useful, reproducible, and informative tool.

Health-based audible noise guidelines account for infrasound and low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines.

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 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.

Wind turbines and human health.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.