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]
該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 忽略 hū lüè 了 le 幾個 jǐ gè 重要 zhòng yào 的 de 背景 bèi jǐng 因素 yīn sù : :
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].
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].
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].
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.
The article provides more balanced coverage, including quotes from the committee chair defending their work and noting the eventual journal acceptance [5].
**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.
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.
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].
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.
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.