The Claim
“Spent $3.3 million on another study into 'wind turbine syndrome', even though their own senate inquiries have shown there's no such thing. The committee had all articles rejected by scientific papers, and provided no advice to the government in its first 2 years.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim contains several verifiable factual assertions that are largely accurate:
The $3.3 million funding: In March 2016, Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) awarded $3.3 million for two research projects investigating potential health effects from wind farms - $1.94 million to study infrasound impacts and $1.36 million to examine sleep quality near wind turbines [1][2]. This occurred despite the NHMRC's own 2015 review finding "no consistent evidence" that wind farms cause adverse health effects [3].
The Senate inquiry findings: The claim references "their own senate inquiries" - in 2015, the Australian Senate conducted an inquiry into wind farms and health. The NHMRC's 2015 review (which informed the Senate inquiry) concluded: "After careful consideration and deliberation of the body of evidence, NHMRC concludes that there is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans" [3][4].
The Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines: The Coalition government established this four-person committee in October 2015 under then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, at a cost of approximately $500,000 over three years [5][6]. Documents confirm:
- The committee held only one face-to-face meeting in its first two years (2015-2017), conducting seven video conferences in 2017 [5][6]
- Committee research papers were rejected by multiple scientific journals including the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America and the Journal of Sound and Vibration before finally being accepted by Applied Acoustics in June 2018 [5][6]
- As of mid-2018, the committee had "yet to provide this advice" to government because it was still determining "exactly what needs to be measured" [6]
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual factors:
The funding decision was made by an independent medical research body, not politicians: The NHMRC is an independent statutory authority that makes funding decisions through peer review processes, not political appointees [3]. While the government could theoretically influence funding priorities, the NHMRC maintains its funding decisions are based on scientific merit. The $3.3 million was awarded through competitive grant rounds with only ~15% of applications typically funded [4].
The research was framed as addressing community concerns: The Abbott government established both the committee and the National Wind Farm Commissioner (at $200,000/year) citing community concerns about alleged health impacts of wind farms [5][7]. By 2018, the Commissioner had received 163 complaints related to noise, potential health impacts, and lack of community consultation [5].
International context of wind turbine syndrome: The claim doesn't mention that "wind turbine syndrome" is not consistently experienced globally. Countries like Germany, Denmark, and Spain (which have far more wind turbines per capita) report almost no health complaints, while English-speaking countries (Australia, UK, North America) report more [4]. Research suggests this is likely due to the "nocebo effect" - where negative expectations cause symptoms rather than physical effects [4][8].
The committee eventually published research: In June 2018, the committee's paper was accepted by the Applied Acoustics journal after previous rejections [5]. Professor John Davy, the committee chair, defended their work quality and noted video conferences were chosen because members lived in different cities [5].
Source Credibility Assessment
BuzzFeed article (Mark Di Stefano): BuzzFeed is a digital media outlet with mixed credibility. The author, Mark Di Stefano, was BuzzFeed Australia's Political Editor at the time. The article has a clear political framing, explicitly contrasting the $3.3 million wind turbine funding with "more than 100 climate change scientists" losing their jobs at CSIRO [1]. This comparison suggests partisan framing rather than neutral reporting. BuzzFeed has since shut down its Australian news operation.
SBS News article: SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) is an Australian public service broadcaster with statutory obligations to provide multilingual and multicultural broadcasting. SBS News is generally considered a credible mainstream news source. The article provides more balanced coverage, including quotes from the committee chair defending their work and noting the eventual journal acceptance [5].
Both sources are from 2016-2018 and accurately report the factual elements of the claim, though BuzzFeed's framing is more overtly critical.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government wind farm renewable energy policy Australia"
Finding: The Rudd-Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) took a markedly different approach to wind energy:
Renewable Energy Target (RET): The Rudd Labor government increased Australia's renewable energy target, creating strong policy support for wind farm development [9]. This contrasted with the Coalition's subsequent actions, which included a 2015 Senate inquiry into wind farm health effects and the establishment of the Wind Farm Commissioner and Scientific Committee [5][7].
Victorian state context: In 2011, the Victorian Liberal-National (Coalition) state government under Ted Baillieu effectively stopped wind farm investment by creating a 2km exclusion zone around existing homes - a policy not replicated under Labor governments [9].
Labor criticism of Coalition approach: Labor's shadow energy minister Mark Butler explicitly criticized the Coalition's wind turbine committee as "a waste of taxpayers' money" that was "in danger of perpetuating falsehoods about renewable energy" [5].
Direct equivalent spending on questionable research: No direct equivalent was found of Labor funding research into a health phenomenon that their own reviews had found lacked evidence. Labor's approach to renewable energy was generally more supportive, with less emphasis on investigating health concerns that had already been dismissed by major health bodies.
Balanced Perspective
While the claim accurately captures the key facts about the $3.3 million NHMRC funding and the underperforming Independent Scientific Committee, important context exists:
Legitimate rationale for the research: The NHMRC defended the funding by emphasizing the projects would be "high quality" involving lab work to eliminate variables [4]. Sleep expert Ron Grunstein stated: "There is a genuine scientific question here that needs to be solved definitively so we can inform both the public and public policy" [4]. The research aimed to provide definitive evidence to settle community concerns.
The broader political context: Under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Coalition showed significant skepticism toward renewable energy. Abbott famously called climate change science "absolute crap" and described wind turbines as "visually awful" [8]. The wind farm health focus occurred alongside CSIRO climate scientist job cuts, creating an appearance of misplaced priorities [1].
Expert consensus on wind turbine syndrome: Multiple health bodies (Australian Medical Association, NHMRC) found no consistent evidence linking wind farms to health effects [3][5]. Professor Simon Chapman, a public health expert at the University of Sydney, described wind turbine syndrome as "a socially contagious disease" and "a classic communicated disease" where symptoms spread through anxiety rather than physical causes [4][5][8].
Comparative analysis: This case appears unusual in Australian political history. While governments often fund research with mixed results, it's uncommon to fund multiple studies and a dedicated scientific committee into a phenomenon that prior government-commissioned reviews had already found lacked consistent evidence. Labor's approach to renewable energy was generally more supportive, suggesting this level of scrutiny on wind farm health was somewhat unique to the Abbott-era Coalition.
Outcome: The committee eventually had research accepted for publication in 2018, though its two-year delay in providing formal advice to government raises legitimate questions about value for money. The total expenditure on wind farm health-related initiatives exceeded $4 million when including the Commissioner's salary ($600,000 over three years) and committee costs [5][7].
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The core factual claims are accurate: $3.3 million was awarded for wind turbine health research despite NHMRC finding no consistent evidence of health effects; the Senate inquiry had reached negative conclusions; the Independent Scientific Committee had multiple papers rejected by journals; and the committee provided no formal advice in its first two years while holding only one face-to-face meeting.
However, the claim slightly conflates two separate funding streams: the $3.3 million NHMRC research grants (peer-reviewed competitive funding) and the ~$500,000 committee costs. The committee was separate from the NHMRC research, though both were established under the Coalition government's response to wind farm health concerns.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The core factual claims are accurate: $3.3 million was awarded for wind turbine health research despite NHMRC finding no consistent evidence of health effects; the Senate inquiry had reached negative conclusions; the Independent Scientific Committee had multiple papers rejected by journals; and the committee provided no formal advice in its first two years while holding only one face-to-face meeting.
However, the claim slightly conflates two separate funding streams: the $3.3 million NHMRC research grants (peer-reviewed competitive funding) and the ~$500,000 committee costs. The committee was separate from the NHMRC research, though both were established under the Coalition government's response to wind farm health concerns.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (9)
-
1
buzzfeed.com
Meanwhile, last month Australia's CSIRO announced it would cut dozens of scientists who were researching climate change.
BuzzFeed -
2
sciencealert.com
Australia's leading medical funding body has just awarded researchers more than AUD$3 million dollars (US$2.2 million) to investigate whether living near wind turbines can make people sick - so called 'wind turbine sickness'.
ScienceAlert -
3PDF
eh57 nhmrc statement wind farms human health 0
Nhmrc Gov • PDF Document -
4
theconversation.com
There is no direct evidence that wind turbines affect physical or mental health, according to a review of the evidence by the National Health and Medicine Research Council (NHMRC). The review found no…
The Conversation -
5
sbs.com.au
A scientific committee commissioned by the Coalition government to research the health impacts of wind farms provided no formal advice in two years.
SBS News -
6
smh.com.au
Documents also show a bureaucratic cash-splash on travel, treadmills and renovations.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
7
theguardian.com
Mark Butler says Coalition government wasting money on windfarm ‘conspiracy theories’ after Andrew Dyer’s salary revelation
the Guardian -
8
newscientist.com
Brain Scanner is Simon Oxenham's weekly column that sifts the pseudoscience from the neuroscience
New Scientist -
9
pv-magazine-australia.com
If you aren’t a long-term energy policy news junkie, you’d be forgiven for thinking the current crisis arrived fairly suddenly.
pv magazine Australia
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.