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.

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.

Background Automated Vehicles (AVs) are central to the new mobility paradigm that promises to transform transportation systems and cities across the globe. To date, much of the research on AVs has focused on technological advancements with little emphasis on how this emerging technology will impact population-level health. This scoping study examines the potential health impacts of AVs based on the existing literature. Methods Using Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping protocol, we searched academic and ‘grey’ literature to anticipate the effects of AVs on human health. Results Our search captured 43 information sources that discussed a least one of the five thematic areas related to health. The bulk of the evidence is related to road safety (n = 37), followed by a relatively equal distribution between social equity (n = 24), environment (n = 22), lifestyle (n = 20), and built environment (n = 18) themes. There is general agreement that AVs will improve road safety overall, thus reducing injuries and fatalities from human errors in operating motorized vehicles. However, the relationships with air quality, physical activity, and stress, among other health factors may be more complex. The broader health implications of AVs will be dependent on how the technology is adopted in various transportation systems. Regulatory action will be a significant determinant of how AVs could affect health, as well as how AVs influence social and environmental determinants of health. Conclusion To support researchers and practitioners considering the health implications of AVs, we provide a conceptual map of the direct and indirect linkages between AV use and health outcomes. It is important that stakeholders, including public health agencies work to ensure that population health outcomes and equitable distribution of health impacts are priority considerations as regulators develop their response to AVs. We recommend that public health and transportation officials actively monitor trends in AV introduction and adoption, regulators focus on protecting human health and safety in AV implementation, and researchers work to expand the body of evidence surrounding AVs and population health.

No abstract