Impacts of traditional food consumption advisories: Compliance, changes in diet and loss of confidence in traditional foods

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Food consumption advisories are often posted when industrial activities are expected to affect the quality and availability of traditional foods used by First Nations. We were recently involved in a project and asked to summarize details regarding the impacts of traditional food consumption advisories with respect to compliance, broader changes in diet and loss of confidence in traditional foods by people.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our review was not conducted as a formal systematic comprehensive review; rather, we focused on primary and grey literature presenting academic, health practitioner and First Nations viewpoints on the topic available from literature databases (i.e., PubMed, Web of Knowledge^SM) as well as the internet search engine Google. Some information came from personal communications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our overview suggests that when communicated effectively and clearly, and when community members are involved in the process, consumption advisories can result in a decrease in contaminant load in people. On the other hand, consumption advisories can lead to cultural loss and have been linked to a certain amount of social, psychological, nutritional, economic and lifestyle disruption. In some cases, communities have decided to ignore consumption advisories opting to continue with traditional lifestyles believing that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risk of following advisories.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We identified that there are both positive and negative aspects to the issuance of traditional food consumption advisories. A number of variables need to be recognized during the development and implementation of advisories in order to ensure a balance between human health, maintenance of cultures and industrial activity.</p

Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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^SMand 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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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 (e.g., 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.</p

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

Abstract 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