Comprehensive study settles the debate about the impact of wind turbine noise on humans

Wind turbines spark strong reactions, especially when people worry about how the swishing sound might affect their minds and bodies.

A new peer reviewed article took that question into the lab and measured what changed in the brain and in performance when people listened to recorded turbine sound that matched real conditions.

The researchers ran a simple test. Volunteers heard either wind turbine sounds, road traffic, or silence while their brain activity and task performance were tracked. The listeners did not know which sound was which.

Lead author Agnieszka Rosciszewska of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (AMU), guided the work with colleagues in the fields of cognitive neuroscience and acoustics.

Studying wind turbines and humans

The team used a short laboratory exposure that mirrors everyday listening, at about 65 decibels sound pressure level, which is similar to normal conversation at about 3 feet (0.9 meters).

The playback levels corresponded to what you would measure near a modern turbine sited roughly 1,640 feet (500 meters) away in steady wind.

They recorded electroencephalography to track changes in brain rhythms during a reading task and then ran two well known cognitive tests on attention and reasoning. Listeners also rated how stressful or annoying the sound felt compared with traffic or silence.

Across measures, short exposure to turbine sound did not dent attention or reasoning compared with the other conditions. Brain wave patterns that index focus and control did not shift in a way that would signal cognitive strain.

In addition, participants did not rate turbine sound as more stressful or bothersome than city traffic. Most listeners described the sound as steady broadband noise and showed low annoyance scores.

Turbine noise is not the problem

“Although these results cannot be generalized, they support the concept that the interlinkage between exposure to wind turbine noise and human cognitive functioning is not a cause-and-effect relationship,” wrote Rosciszewska. 

If the sound itself is not doing the damage, what explains reports of headaches, fogginess, and unease near wind farms. An open access study reviews the evidence for an expectation driven pathway.

“Health complaints are more likely to be explained by the nocebo response,” wrote Fiona Crichton from the University of Auckland.

The nocebo effect is the flip side of placebo, where learning to expect harm increases perception of symptoms and stress.

Why beliefs matter more than decibels

Visibility and prior beliefs change how people judge the same sound. Surveys show that annoyance from wind turbine sound arises at lower sound levels than many other everyday sources, and that attitudes and context explain a lot of the spread in responses. 

That pattern has been documented in exposure response modeling that compared wind turbines with aircraft, road, and rail noise, where turbine annoyance tended to be higher at the same level.

Those findings fit what this lab work saw when people did not know what they were hearing. Without labels or priming, the turbine sound was just another steady hum.

Large field studies help answer the health question outside the lab. A national Canadian study of 1,238 adults living as close as a quarter mile to turbines found that sleep quality, headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, and perceived stress were not related to calculated outdoor turbine sound up to 46 A-weighted decibels.

“Beyond annoyance, results do not support an association between exposure to WTN up to 46 dBA and the evaluated health related endpoints,” reported David S. Michaud, Health Canada. That matches the pilot lab result in direction, even though the methods differ.

Labs help assess turbine impacts

Blind listening removes expectation from the equation. When people cannot tell what the sound is or whether it matters, the brain and behavior readouts provide a baseline for the raw acoustic effect.

Here, that raw effect did not show up as reduced attention, slower reasoning, or a brain rhythm pattern that signals mental fatigue. Ratings of stress and annoyance also stayed low.

Noise policy weighs both evidence and public concern. The World Health Organization’s European guidelines include wind turbine noise among sources that planners should manage, and they note the broader health burden of environmental sounds from traffic and other sources.

This study points to a practical lesson for communication. If belief and context amplify symptoms, then accurate, calm information and good project design can help reduce worry and reduce annoyance.

Limits you should note

A short listening session cannot stand in for months of living near turbines. The authors acknowledge that the work does not speak to very long exposure, and lab playback cannot capture every weather and terrain pattern outside.

The volunteer group here was small and young. Future studies should look at broader age ranges and people with different noise sensitivities.

Wind turbine noise and the future

Expectation is testable. Experiments can induce belief in a safe way and compare it with blind listening to estimate how suggestion alters symptom reports and attention.

Longer sessions matter too. Researchers can repeat the same cognitive battery after hours of continuous sound to see whether attention wobbles when fatigue sets in.

Some claims focus on frequencies below what we hear. The best available evidence suggests that infrasound near turbines is usually at or below common environmental levels, and that expectation and visibility drive complaints more than sub-audible energy.

This lab work did not isolate infrasound, which calls for careful follow ups with controlled filtering and matched levels.

The sound near a well-sited turbine can be noticeable. In blind, realistic listening with careful brain and behavior measures, it did not produce measurable mental harm.

Context, belief, and visibility appear to do more to shape the body’s response than the steady whoosh itself.

The study is published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–