Health

Steven Cooper’s Study, has Windweasels in a Panic! The Truth is Not What they Wanted!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Steven Cooper’s Cape Bridgewater Bombshell Sends Wind Industry into Flat Panic

February 12, 2015 by 1 Comment

atomic-bomb-e1355417893840

In the three weeks or so that have passed since Steven Cooper’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm noise study hit the press (see our post here) the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers have been in absolute panic mode.

Pacific Hydro – the operator of the Cape Bridgewater disaster, which paid for the study, but deliberately limited its terms of reference – has gone into absolute “damage control” (see our post here).

Having completely underestimated Cooper’s ability and, lulled into its own sense of delusional belief that its victims are simply “making it all up”, Pac Hydro has enlisted the “help” of the usual band of useful idiots, in an effort to manipulate and control the media and its reporting of Cooper’s groundbreaking research.

The wind industry’s shills – like the Clean Energy Council and the Australian/Victorian Wind Alliance (aka Andrew Bray) – clearly haven’t bothered to read the highly technical and detailed study, which, with its six appendices, runs to nearly 800 pages and, in the unlikely event that they have, are clearly incapable of understanding it.

Or, perhaps, the predictable response from the wind industry and its baggage train of parasites is best captured by Upton Sinclair’s pithy observation that:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salarydepends on his not understanding it.”

Moreover, as we have pointed out before, it’s not Cooper’s study they need to worry so much about but the dozens of others that – following his insights – will involve matched control groups; will involve physicians, including sleep specialists, for example; and be scaled up to include dozens, if not hundreds, of victims at wind farms, both in Australia and around the world.

Properly qualified experts (ie those with acoustic and vibration engineering qualifications, with decades of experience in that field) have identified the significance of Cooper’s study; and rightly applauded it for its rigour and insights; despite Pac Hydro’s deliberate efforts to limit the scope and reach of the study (see our post here).

What those in the know have to say contrasts pretty sharply with the shrill press releases and media comments pouring out of the wind industry cheer squad; as you’d naturally expect from people equipped with little more than self-interest, and media and marketing degrees.

But this merry band of media manipulators has well and truly lost control of the media game.

As it is with the wind industry “case” more generally, what these spruikers pitch up rarely stacks up against the true facts; and is full of internal inconsistencies, fluff, guff and good old-fashioned lies.

One of the giveaways is the Clean Energy Council’s response to the study when it started ranting that it “would not support further research” into Cooper’s findings. What on earth are they so afraid of?

It’s a style that has all the persuasive power of Little Britain’s vacillatingQueen of Darkley Noone, Vicky Pollard, whenever she’s put on the spot.

Vicky-Pollard-2136549

None of which is lost on STT Champion, Annie Gardner who came out with this crystal clear Opinion piece, published in the Hamilton Spectator. Over to Annie.

Hamilton Spectator
Opinion
7 February 2015

Study is World First Research
Ann and Andrew Gardner, Penshurst

I write in response to the article ‘Study “suggests” health and wind farm noise link’ published recently in the Hamilton Spectator.

It would appear that many adverse comments are not related to the study, but opinions proffered from the media release. The study report is very comprehensive and could not be read, absorbed and understood in a few days, let alone a few hours. The same issue of concern would also apply to the Hamilton Spectator, where the facts have unfortunately been misrepresented in the above article.

World first

This study is world first research, where the brief was to work backwards and discover what wind or noise levels agreed with the complaints made by residents at Cape Bridgewater over six years.

The measurement results show what has been known since Dr. Neil Kelley and NASA’s work, funded by the US Dept. of Energy in the 1980’s which originally identified the direct causal relationship between symptoms and sensations and impulsive Infrasound/Low Frequency noise from various sound sources which included wind turbines, gas turbines and military aircraft.

The study has a number of world first claims that are simply ground breaking. This is the first time a wind farm operator has undertaken a “transparent” study where the wind farm worked with residents and provided all the wind farm data and unlimited access to the study team.

Identified problems

The study is the first that has considered sensation as an observation by residents.

This study has identified problems with instrumentation and measurement of infrasound, and has then provided answers and suggested standardisation for other researchers.

Whilst Pacific Hydro are being cautious with their comments, other wind farm proponents or members of the wind energy consortium are being extremely mischievous with their criticism, as reported in this article, of what has been detailed scientific research.

The limitations which the wind industry are busily highlighting are those which were placed on the acoustic engineer Steve Cooper, purely by Pacific hydro, the developer of the Cape Bridgewater wind farm.

The features cited as lacking were –

  1.  Large sample size. The brief by Pacific Hydro to Steven Cooper was for ONLY THREE HOUSES to be studied.
  1. Peer review. Pacific Hydro refused to allow Steven Cooper’s study to be peer reviewed.
  1. No control group. There was no control group purely by design of Pacific Hydro.
  1. No assessment of “compliance” with the permit conditions under instructions of Pacific Hydro.

Contrary to the statement in the article (para 3) the observations from the diaries used in the study were not reporting “health complaints”.

Observations

Contrary to the statement in paragraph 10 of the article, the participants were not “made aware of what the wind farms” (there is only one) “were doing whilst their responses were being recorded”.

Contrary to comment in this article by the wind industry representatives, this study can EASILY be replicated at other wind farms, in particular the Macarthur wind farm, in this district.

The symptoms experienced at Macarthur wind farm are IDENTICAL to those which residents at Cape Bridgewater suffer from. Some families living around the Macarthur wind farm have been forced to move away, whilst others are forced to leave their homes repeatedly, in order to get a decent night’s sleep.

Hundreds of complaints

AGL and ALL levels of government and government bodies, in particular the Victorian Health Department, are in receipt of hundreds of complaints from residents at Macarthur, but are in total denial, and have done NOTHING to acknowledge, or rectify this truly unacceptable situation.

The wind farm proponent interviewed had a swipe at the residents making complaints, even when the turbines were turned off and, by not reading the report, failed to identify the qualification of some sensations (of a lower magnitude) and further investigations that showed pulsations in the turbine towers and the ground following wind gusts.

Around the Macarthur wind farm, residents suffer from infrasound emitted by the turbines, even when they’re not operating, similarly to Cape Bridgewater. Even when the turbines are turned off, we feel the same “sensation”, being headaches, ear pressure, nose pressure, heart palpitations, nausea, dizziness etc., and still cannot sleep at night.

Movement

Due to the mammoth scale of these towers, there is movement ALL the time, whether high or low winds, in addition to when they’re turned off. Due to the extreme size of the towers, they still continue to vibrate, thus emitting infrasound waves. The laws of physics show such structures exhibit natural frequencies that are associated with structural resonances in the infrasound region. Nobody with appropriate qualifications and experience can deny this. The residents at Macarthur have comprehensive evidence and noise testing, showing infrasound emitted whilst the turbines are not operating.

The truth is emerging, and will continue to be exposed as more evidence is brought to light, but for those receiving millions of taxpayer dollars, the truth is beginning to hurt, and it appears they are in damage control.
Hamilton Spectator

Annie Gardner

Derek Byrne and his Family, Forced to Endure the Torture From Wind Turbines.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

“It’s a disaster”: Family affected by windfarm’s turbine flicker

The family say it makes day-to-day life difficult.

DEREK BYRNE AND his family live around 330 metres from wind turbines, and say that a ‘flicker’ from energy-generating machines is causing them major problems.

They live near the wind farm in Athea in Co Limerick, and the turbines can be seen from their front window.

The wind farm was erected in August 2013, and Byrne said that they’ve been experiencing the flicker since soon after the turbines appeared.

Why it happens

The flicker occurs because when the sun is low and shining from behind the turbine, the blades block some of the light briefly.

They experience the flicker in the whole house, said Byrne, who lives there with his wife and children.

“Even if you’re in a room with closed blinds. The whole house flickers black. It’s every two seconds for about 20 minutes.”

“When the sun is low at both stages during the day the flicker is at its most prominent.”

Byrne said he has been in touch with SSE Airtricity since December 2013, and that they have told him that there is usually a programme to stop the turbines when the flicker occurs.

“After numerous complaints there is still the flicker,” he said.

Like an “airport apron”

The family have also been experiencing noise due to the turbines, with Byrne saying it is akin to “an airport apron at night time”.

He said the noise is obvious “even with all the windows closed and the TV turned up”.

Every morning I arrive home at 7.30am and it’s like arriving into Shannon airport. It is very unpleasant.

Byrne said there are four houses in the area directly affected by the turbines. “Over the Christmas period it was at its worst,” he said. “It’s been a disaster, absolutely a disaster.”

It lasts longer in the winter months, and can happen up to three times a day.

Were they warned about it? “No we weren’t warned anything about the nearest turbine to us,” said Byrne.

“We were informed about six months before it went up,” he said of the wind farm, adding: “We’re not against wind energy or renewable energy.”

“I’m blessed I work night shifts,” he concluded. “It’s very unfair on the children.”

What does Airtricity have to say?

The electricity from the wind farm is generated by Airtricity, but SSE Renewables built the Athea project.

A spokesperson for SSE Renewables said:

We are aware that some residents living close to our Athea wind farm in Co Limerick are experiencing some intermittent issues with shadow flicker.We are investigating the cause of these issues and we’re working hard to resolve them as quickly as possible. We recognise the impact these issues are having on the residents concerned and while we work on putting in place a permanent solution to resolve these issues we continue to maintain regular contact with them.

Of the noise, it added:

“We are also working to implement a noise control system at the site. We will utilise this system to ensure that all turbines at the wind farm continue to operate at industry guideline limits.”

More Proof of the Harm Wind Turbines are Causing! Someone needs to be held accountable!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Australian Research Yields Insights on Wind Turbine “Signature”

FEBRUARY 8, 2015
tags: ,

Acoustician Steven Cooper was commissioned by the Australian utility, Pacific Hydro, to investigate the complaints of families near the wind plant at Cape Bridgewater, Australia. The Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Acoustic Study is a 235-page report, packed with data, including six appendices which amplify and detail the findings of the study.

According to the Waubra Foundation’s analysis (“Acoustic Engineering Investigation at Cape Bridgewater Wind Facility” 2/1/15),

The purpose of the investigation was simply to find out what was causing the symptoms and sensations, resulting in sleep disturbance and health damage, reported to Pacific Hydro between 2009 and 2014 by the residents of three homes sited between 600 – 1600 metres [from just over 1/3 mile to 1 mile] from wind turbines sited at the Cape Bridgewater Wind Project in Victoria, Australia. [see maps below]

In The Australian “Turbines may well blow an ill wind over locals, ‘first’ study shows” (1/21/15), Graham Lloyd reported :

Funded by wind farm operator Pacific Hydro, the study was conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria where residents have long complained about headaches, chest pains and sleep loss but have been told it was all in their minds.

Waubra’s image of Cape Bridgewater Wind plant ( part of Pacific Hydro’s Portland Wind Energy Project)

There were several “firsts” to this study.

  • Cooper took a variety of measurements in and around the three homes during both times when the turbines were operating and when they were shut down–with the cooperation of Pacific Hydro.
  • The measurements went beyond standard dB(A), to capture harmonics peculiar to wind turbines as the blades pass by the stationary mast. This yielded new readings, branded by Cooper “wind turbine signature” or WTS.* Infrasound below the audible range was captured, as well.
  • The residents kept continuous diaries, recording their experience of noise (which can be heard), vibration (which can be felt), and sensations (which were considered to be reactions to infrasound). The diary entries were later correlated with recorded measurements.

Participants in the study, six individuals from three households, described their appreciation of the study findings in the Waubra Foundation’s pages devoted to the Cooper study.

Mr Cooper’s investigations also found correlation between the “high severity” sensations we experience as noted in our diaries and his measurements of wind turbine infrasound inside our homes. “High severity” describes the times when the symptoms or sensations are so severe that we feel we have to immediately leave our homes. These high severity impacts happen regularly for those of us who live, stay or visit our homes at Cape Bridgewater. Some of our health practitioners have advised us to permanently leave our homes in order to escape the symptoms and regain our health. Unfortunately some of us have developed permanent health problems known to result from continuing exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise so that even permanently moving away will not restore our health to its pre-wind turbine level.

Stephen Ambrose, an acoustician with a distinguished career devoted to protecting individuals from excess noise, congratulated Cooper on his effort. In his letter, Ambrose noted the advances made by the study, “Your correlation of human response journal entries with scientific waveform analysis clearly shows hearing is not limited to audible sounds. Research continues to reveal that the ear has multiple functions and capabilities.”

Another U. S. acoustician, Robert Rand wrote, “The correlation of sensation level to WTS tone level in the infrasonic and audible bands brings wind turbine acoustics right to the door of medical science. Medical tests in the homes, long overdue, can now be correlated directly to WTS. May the medical testing in homes begin without further delay.”

Canadian researcher Carmen Krogh, who has monitored findings from self-reporting projects as well as the recent Canadian government study, said

Through the study design, your exhaustive infrasound measurements, the detailed diaries kept by the families, and Pacific Hydro’s cooperation, this study has advanced the understanding of the role of infrasound and human responses associated withindustrial wind turbines. Such collaborative efforts have set a new standard for conducting future research.

Australian Bob Thorne, who had previously studied the Cape Bridgewater experience of residents, pointed out  several unique contributions of Cooper’s study and said:

The obvious support from both PacificHydro and the residents is the stand-out feature of the study and it is clear from the text that the outcomes were not envisaged by yourself or the study participants at the commencement of the study. The approach taken is highly professional and supportive to both your client (PacificHydro) and sympathetic to the residents who provided you with their assistance.

The Cape Bridgewater Wind Project consists of 29 2-MW wind turbines located in Victoria Australia. The turbines are MM82 manufactured by Senvion (formerly licensed as REpower). A German company,Senvion is the fifth largest maker of wind turbines.

*The acronym WTS associated with this study should not be confused with the widely-used WindTurbine Syndrome, coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the Johns Hopkins-trained doctor, to signify the cluster of symptoms she identified in investigating the health complaints of individuals who lived near wind turbines.

Cooper-study-attended-setup-house-87

Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, Australia

Click to see Appendix 1, map is on p.2

Ads by SpeedCheckAd Options

from → developers, health, industrial wind, newspaper, noise and infrasound low frequency noise
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Wind pushers Ignore the Damage They’re Causing!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Low-Frequency Wind Turbine Noise: a Recipe for Unhappy Mothers and Unhealthy Babies

February 7, 2015 by

sleeping

Noise is always and everywhere a public health issue.

Last year, in a piece looking at the importance of silence to healthy, happy communities, The Economist, quoting Poppy Elliot from the Noise Abatement Society, wrote that:

[A] quiet environment is necessary to enable people to fulfil their intellectual and creative potential. She points to a report on the health effects of noise published by the World Health Organisation in 2011, which found that in western Europe, excessive noise was second only to air pollution as a cause of environmental ill-health.

STT agrees. But common sense rarely needs an advocate; if you’re still not convinced, see our post here.

As the World Health Organisation puts it:

There is plenty of evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, anddisturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show the adverse effects.

That little chestnut comes from the WHO’s Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – for more of the same, see the Executive Summary at XI to XII.

Sleep deprivation is, by far and away, the most common adverse health effect caused by turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here).

That unassailable fact has been well-known to the wind industry since the 1980s –  thanks to the work done by Neil Kelley and Co (see our postshere and here and here): conclusive scientific research establishing low-frequency turbine noise as the cause of sleep disturbance and other adverse health effects, which the wind industry buried, the NHMRC ignored, but which STT found without too much trouble (see our postshere and here).

And so much has recently been confirmed (again) in Steven Cooper’s groundbreaking study at Cape Bridgewater (see our posts here and hereand here).

While the occasional poor night’s sleep is used to excuse substandard work performance, grumpy attitudes at the breakfast table and the burning need for a third cup of coffee, the absence of a decent night’s kip takes on special significance for the parents of newborns, especially mums.

The focal point for these parents is sleep; or, rather, the somewhat cruel lack of it.

Discussions rarely stray far from how well bubs slept?; how well dad might have slept? (the importance of which, is often downplayed or dismissed by mum); or whether mum managed to get any sleep at all? (although, few are so bold to downplay or dismiss the importance of thatcomplaint!).

Anyone who has been part of the process knows the joys of being woken, night after night, at three in the morning with a poke (and failing that, a kick) in the ribs from the other half, and a grumbled “it’s your turn”.

While, in the morning, dad, bleary eyed, might trundle off to work a little worse for wear, it’s mum that usually fronts up to the full responsibility of looking after the wriggling bundle of joy that kept everybody up for most of the night.

Faced with a wildly erratic and surging sea of postnatal hormones, little or no sleep and the anxiety that only an inconsolable infant can bring, it’s little wonder that young mums can end up feeling a little down in the dumps.

Mother In Nursery Suffering From Post Natal Depression

For first time mums, those pressures can quickly mount; and only get worse if there’s any outside agent interfering with her ability to snatch a little sleep, from time to time.

But, for all of the nocturnal dramas, the upside for mum is looking down on the face of her well-fed young precious, as he or she drifts off to the land of nod.

sleeping baby

For mums, breastfeeding is not only a time to provide their pride and joy with life-giving nourishment, it’s a moment when the maternal bond is built; and becomes eternal.

Getting as much sleep as baby’s demands permit, naturally leads to happier mums and healthy, well-fed babies.

So, you’d think that nursing mothers would know and appreciate just how important sleep is to both mothers and infants?

But not, apparently, if they’ve been recruited as spruikers for the wind industry.

In Australia, the needs and rights of nursing mothers are taken seriously (as well they should be). And, so much so, an advocacy group called the Australian Breastfeeding Association has been going into bat for breastfeeding mums for over 50 years.

Now, one of the ABA’s numbers, Angela McFeeters, from Portland has decided to tip a bucket on both common sense and maternal instinct, with this little effort, attempting to explain away and excuse the misery dished up to residents by Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm disaster.

spec

McFeeters is a paid up member and spokesperson for Andrew Bray’s Victorian/Australian Wind Alliance – a merry band of eco-fascists happy to spruik on behalf of their wind industry clients, and to profit from the misery of others.

McFeeters has been caught out as being little more than a wind industry Patsy, by none other than Melissa Ware – one of Pac Hydro’s long-suffering victims at Cape Bridgewater; and one of the subjects of Steven Cooper’s study.

Melissa-Ware

Here’s an open letter from Melissa that puts McFeeters well and truly back in her box, as only a mother who has been there and done that could do.

Australian Breastfeeding Association head office

1818-1822 Malvern Road
MALVERN EAST VIC 3145

Email: info@breastfeeding.asn.au

OPEN LETTER

The article above has recently been published in the Portland Observer by Bill Meldrum “Wind Alliance rejects health claims”; I object to the incorrect statements made within it by Ms Angela McFeeters, an ABA representative at Portland and spokesperson for the Victorian/Australian Wind Alliance. I draw it to your attention for discussion, review and management of.

As one of the six resident participants in the Steven Cooper Acoustic Testing Program at Cape Bridgewater of Nov 2014, I have firsthand knowledge of impacts and conditions living in proximity to the industrial wind energy plant of 29, 2MW turbines at Cape Bridgewater causing health impacts and disturbance to us and to many others exposed to infrasound and other disturbing industrial ‘noise’ emissions around Australia.

I suggest the ABA has a duty to become more fully informed of these public health impacts to assist new mothers and babies; to become informed of the issues by reading the links below and further extensive information compiled and available at; wind.watch.org, the Waubra foundation or Stop These Things websites.

Ms McFeeters would not have the medical expertise to publically declare any conclusions on the status of my health, only my GP or Specialist have the comprehensive understanding of and authority to make any statements regarding health or impacts to it.   Ms McFeeters has over the past 12 months anonymously attended community consultation meetings related to the acoustic study being conducted by the owners of the wind farm, Pacific Hydro and has heard the impacting conditions we have reported to the company and the Government Authorities over the past six years.

This is not the first biased public statement or comment Ms McFeeters has aired whilst representing the Wind Alliance and the wind industry.

Her assumptions and implied accusations in this article are based without visiting my house, nor noting medical conditions first hand, as my GP’s, Specialists or the Acoustic Engineers that have conducted studies inside my home.   The study undertaken by Mr Cooper is groundbreaking and assists with the resolve of problems of noise, vibration and sensation through greater understanding and knowledge gleaned by cooperatively working together.   Cooperation was undertaken for the first time ever by residents, a wind farm and an independent acoustician working with the goal of getting to the bottom of the problems. I doubt Ms McFeeters has read or understands the importance of the research or the publically released conclusions.

The most damaging impact of wind farms to public health, including my own is the serious issue of sleep deprivation. As a representative of the ABA, dismissal of the very real health impact of sleep deprivation caused by wind farm disturbance is unfeeling and callous in its disregard. Dismissing disturbances documented within the Acoustic study could damage mothers and infants living near and impacted by wind farms, not only in the Portland region but around the nation.

Sleep disturbance and post natal depression go hand in hand; her biased public opinions and her obligation to abide by the code of ethics of the ABA do not.   I ask which qualifications, expertise and knowledge allows her to refute health impacts that have been well documented and confirmed as far back as 1985 in the US Kelley report and do you endorse the opinions of this Alliance?

Disturbed fertility and menstrual cycles in women living near wind turbines in Denmark, Canada and Australia are being reported from both residents and by health professionals.

Health professionals, medical practitioners, acoustic experts and researchers who have firsthand knowledge of the severity of reported health problems call for urgent multidisciplinary research in this area and include:

Professor Bob McMurtry, Dr Roy Jeffery, Associate Professor Jeff Aramini, Carmen Krogh and Mr William Palmer from Canada; Dr Alan Watts, Dr Wayne Spring, Dr David Iser, Dr Gary Hopkins, Dr Andja Mitric Andjic, Dr Sarah Laurie, Mr Les Huson, Mr Steven Cooper, Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen and Dr Bob Thorne from Australia; and Associate Professor Rick James, Mr Rob Rand, Mr Stephen Ambrose, Emeritus Professor Jerry Punch, Dr Jay Tibbetts, Dr Sandy Reider, Dr Nina Pierpont, Dr David Lawrence, Dr Paul Schomer, Mr George Hessler, and Dr Bruce Walker from the USA with others from Europe.  Wind turbines are increasing in size and are being placed closer to larger human populations and justifiably, there is growing concern all over the world.

For any breastfeeding counsellor or representative within the ABA to be ignoring the serious issue of sleep deprivation is a very real concern. Evidence about sleep deprivation and its role in post natal depression is well accepted. Is this evidence being ignored by the ABA counsellors in the Portland region? Does the ABA disagree with the concerns of the Health and Acoustic Professionals and Researchers listed above?

As a concerned mother and advocate of breastfeeding I ask you to investigate. Impacts of infrasound on breastfeeding cannot be dismissed out of hand by someone without the authority or proper and independent knowledge to do so.

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/acoustic-engineering-investigation-at-cape-bridgewater-wind-facility/

http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/files/2015/01/Cape-Bridgewater-Acoustic-Report.pdf

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2015/steven-coopers-cape-bridgewater-acoustic-research-commissioned-by-pacific-hydro-released/

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-to-the-ama-re-its-recent-paper-concerning-wind-turbines/

Read the above, acknowledge the depths of this issue and release a public apology. Proper and independent health studies are going to be conducted in the homes of impacted people near these energy plants and until this further study is undertaken and released by the Australian Government then no-one should conclude there are no impacts on residents’ health and quality of life.

Melissa Ware

Cape Bridgewater

Breastfeeding-Mom

Wind-weasels Run, when the Truth Begins to Surface!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

US Wind Farm Operator Settles to Shut Down Neighbours’ Dynamite Damages Case

February 6, 2015 by


****

A telling-scene there, from the film A Civil Action; which is pretty much how things panned out for a US wind farm operator in Michigan recently.

STT has been following a monumental piece of litigation that blew up over the Lake Winds wind farm in Mason County, for a while now (see our posts here and here and here).

Now, finally, and as predicted by STT, the wind power outfit concerned has been forced to open its cheque book, in order to cut a settlement with the long-suffering neighbours.

Back in 2013, 17 plaintiffs sued the operator, seeking substantial damages for the health impacts, property value losses and the loss of the enjoyment and use of their properties, caused by wind turbine generated noise and vibration.

With the jury panel taking their seats – and clearly acting under the adage about discretion being the better part of valour – the wind power outfit involved, Consumers Energy threw in the towel, just as the first of their (numerous) victims, Cary Shineldecker was about to go into the witness box.

Nothing like a credible witness, heading off to tell a sympathetic jury of his peers (ie, law-abiding American citizens) about his years’ of suffering, to focus the minds of lawyers representing a wind power outfit that has shamelessly visited a sea of sonic of misery upon him (and his young family); and which has otherwise destroyed the lives of a dozen or moreinnocent young families.

The wind industry operates under a pact that its members must never, ever allow one of these cases to go to a final decision and judgment.

The usual course is to cut a deal behind closed doors; well away from the glare of the media.

Faced with mounting damages claims in Denmark (see our post here), the Danish wind industry has taken to buying up its actual and potential victims’ homes – and even whole villages – calling in the bulldozers, and flattening the lot (see our post here).

The wind industry in Australia – which is also a signatory to the “never let‘em get to judgment pact” – quietly buys out its victims’ properties, bulldozes them (see our post here) and makes damn sure they stitch up the unfortunate (soon to be homeless) family with bullet proof gag clauses (see our posts here and here) – that their lawyers enforce with the zeal and vigour of the Old GDR’s Stasi (see our post here).

worried lawyer

STT hears that – as you might expect in a situation where the operator’s lawyers would have been working in a pool of cold sweat – the settlement in the Lake Wind’s case was very favourable to the plaintiffs.

The wind power outfit didn’t have a legal leg to stand on: along the way, it had lost every step in, and associated with, the plaintiffs’ primary action, with a judge twice declaring that the wind farm was in clear breach of its noise criteria.

It was – as they in betting circles – “on a hiding to nothing”.

So, in reality, it had no other option than to throw money at the problem and attempt to bury it. However, in full credit to the victims, they at least managed to avoid the full extent of the standard gag clause, that prevents victims from ever talking about the health impacts caused by the defendant’s operations.

Here’s Michigan Capitol Confidential with a round-up on what happened.

One Lawsuit Settled, But No Truce in Wind Energy Debate
Michigan Capitol Confidential
Jack Spencer
31 January 2015

A lawsuit in which residents living near the Lake Winds wind plant south of Ludington claimed the facility was making people sick has been settled out of court. Cary Shineldecker, one of the plaintiffs in the case, isn’t allowed to discuss details of the settlement, but is still allowed to talk about the alleged negative health effects that can be suffered by those who live near such facilities.

“What I think is different about this settlement is that, although the details of the settlement are confidential, I’m not gagged from speaking out about the problems with wind energy,” Shineldecker said. “I think everything we’ve done here has helped the community and residents. For too long, supporters of wind energy have been able to silence and discredit those who have to live with the effects of it.

“We saw how they silenced Jerry Punch and his group,” Shineldecker continued. “When his group was working on a study that refuted what wind energy supporters wanted to be reported about the health impacts of wind turbines, they (the wind energy supporters) shut them up.”

On April 1, 2013, a group of 17 residents who lived near the Lake Winds wind plant – others joined the group later – filed a lawsuit against Consumers Energy in Mason County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit alleged that people were experiencing dizziness, sleeplessness, headaches and other physical symptoms primarily due to noise generated by the wind plant’s 56 giant wind turbines, which the plaintiffs claimed had been erected too close to homes.

“We filed the lawsuit based on health impact, property value loss and loss of enjoyment and use of our property,” Shineldecker said.

Lake Winds is the first wind plant developed by Consumers Energy. The $250 million facility was constructed as part of the utility’s efforts to meet the state’s renewable energy (wind) mandate.

The lawsuit brought by Shineldecker and his co-plaintiffs was only the first one involving the Lake Winds plant. Before the end of 2013, Mason County had declared that the wind plant was not in compliance with its noise ordinance. Consumers Energy took the county to court over that determination. It lost at the Circuit Court, and that case is currently under appeal.

According to Shineldecker, the residents’ lawsuit was resolved during the late summer and autumn of 2014.

“It was just about to go to trial; in fact I was in court waiting to be the first to testify, when we were told a settlement had been reached,” Shineldecker said. “It took about two months to work out the wording; then ours was actually finalized the week of Dec. 17.

“To me, we were helping others by being willing to take a stand,” Shineldecker added. “One of these days the facts are going to come out. Twenty years from now the health impacts of living with these industrial wind turbines will be common knowledge. It will be like the way it happened with cigarettes. But right now those who know the truth are a minority.

The talking points used by AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) haven’t changed from what they were saying five years ago. I believe that in our democracy, right will win in the end, but only after a lot of sacrifices have been made.”

Shineldecker also said that his family’s property, which he is selling off in portions, is now going for 78 percent of its appraised value.

David Wand, deputy director of strategic communications for AWEA, did not respond when offered the opportunity to comment. Consumers Energy declined to comment as well.
Michigan Capitol Confidential

Just when the going was about to get a little tougher than usual for America’s highly paid wind industry spruikers, the AWEA, it’s good to see David Wand waving his namesake and disappearing into the ether; very “Harry Potter”!

harry potter invisibility cloak

Perhaps these boys should give Harry Potter a call, so they can have an invisibility cloak on stand-by, from here on in?

With a pack of jubilant plaintiffs ready to crow long and loud about just what Consumers Energy (one of the AWEA’s clients) has done to their lives, their health, their well-being and the value of their homes – no wonder Consumers Energy and the AWEA went AWOL. Funny about that.

STT predicts that the wind industry’s “run and hide” tactic (for a taste of it in action – see our post here) will fast become de rigueur for the wind industry and its parasites, as the tide finally turns on an industry that – when it comes to moral turpitude, and a general callous disregard for its victims – only has the tobacco and asbestos industries to beat.

Fine company, indeed.

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

Wind Power will NOT Keep the Lights, or the Heat, ON!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Power Goes AWOL Right When Freezing Brits Need It Most

February 4, 2015 by 7 Comments

cold lady

The hackneyed myth that wind power “powers” millions of homes with wonderful “free” wind energy is taking a beating around the globe (seeour post here).

The idea that a wholly weather dependent power generation source can ever be – as is touted endlessly by the wind industry and it parasites – an “alternative” to conventional generation is, of course, patent nonsense.

If there wasn’t already a complete power generation system built around on-demand sources, such as gas, coal, nuclear or hydro – then a country trying to run on wind power would – unless it was keen to revisit (or remain in) the stone age – would inevitably need to build one (see our post here). So far, so insanely costly, and utterly pointless.

Now, just when winter starts to bite, and the Brits are looking for some extra sparks to toast their crumpets, brew their tea, to warm their homes and keep the icicles from their noses and toes, their massive fleet ofblade-chucking, pyrotechnic, sonic-torture devices has completely downed tools – proving once and for all that wind power is the greatest fraud of all time.

Here’s The Telegraph with, yet another tale of just why it is so.

Electricity demand hits highest this winter – as wind power slumps to its lowest
The Telegraph
Emily Gosden
20 January 2015

UK electricity demand hit its highest level this winter on Monday – while wind turbines generated their lowest output, official figures show.

Cold weather saw UK demand hit 52.54 gigawatts (GW) between 5pm and 5.30pm, according to National Grid.

At the same time, low wind speeds meant the UK’s wind turbines were producing just 573 megawatts of power, enough to meet only one per cent of demand – the lowest of any peak period this winter, Telegraph analysis of official data shows.

Earlier on Monday wind output had dropped even lower, generating just 354 megawatts at 2pm, or 0.75 per cent of Britain’s needs – the lowest seen during any period this winter.

ukgrid_19jan_2015

The analysis will fuel concerns that despite receiving billions of pounds in subsidies, Britain’s wind farms cannot be relied upon to keep the lights on when they are needed the most.

Britain now has about 12 GW of wind capacity installed on and offshore – meaning during Monday’s peak demand period, wind farms were generating less than five per cent of their theoretical maximum output.

Gas, coal and nuclear power plants instead provided the vast majority of the UK’s electricity needs.

A spokesman for National Grid said that Britain’s spare margins – the safety buffer between supply and demand – had remained “adequate”.

On average, UK wind farms produce about 28 per cent of their theoretical maximum power output.

But critics warn that cold snaps when demand soars can often coincide with periods when the wind doesn’t blow.

They argue that Britain’s energy security will become ever moreprecarious as old coal and gas power plants are closed and the country becomes more reliant on intermittent wind farms.

Dr Lee Moroney of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank critical of wind farms, said: “Low wind speeds frequently accompany low temperatures as happened yesterday.

“The proliferation of wind farms encouraged by Government policy is misguided because a reliance on wind energy in these conditions leads to inevitable extra costs for consumers.

“Either reliable backup electricity supply from conventional sources must be provided when the wind does not blow, or extra costs in the form of constraint payments are incurred when there is too much wind on the system. It is a lose-lose situation for consumers.”

National Grid’s data, which covers the period since December 1, shows that the second highest peak demand – 50.9GW on December 4 – also coincided with the second lowest peak wind contribution, at just 1.5 per cent.

However other periods of particularly high peak demand, such as the evenings of December 9 and 10, coincided with much higher wind power output, with turbines meeting 18 per cent of demand.

The data also shows that Christmas Day was the only day when solar panels contributed anything at all to peak demand – because it was the only day when peak demand fell in daylight hours.

Demand on December 25 peaked after 12.30pm as families cooked their Christmas dinners.

On all other days demand peaked after it got dark – the vast majority between 5pm and 5.30pm.

Ministers were last year forced to approve a series of emergency powers to help prevent blackouts this winter, by firing up old power plants or paying factories to switch off.

National Grid said it had not yet needed to use any of the emergency powers.

Jennifer Webber, director of external affairs for wind industry body RenewableUK, said: “It’s wrong to cherry-pick statistics for short periods when the wind didn’t blow, as they’re unrepresentative of the full picture of the benefits wind provides for the UK.

“To get a proper idea of how well wind is performing as a vital part of our energy mix, you have to look at National Grid’s official figures over a meaningful period. In December, wind energy provided a record monthly high of 14 per cent of all the UK’s electricity needs.

“As a whole, 2014 was wind energy’s most productive year so far in this country, generating nearly 10 per cent of Britain’s electricity – equivalent to the annual demands of a quarter of all British homes.”

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “We need a diverse energy mix to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels and renewables, including wind, are helping us to achieve this.

“Over £10bn was invested in clean energy in 2014 and the sector could also support up to 200,000 jobs by 2020.”
The Telegraph

Another fine piece of “doublethink” and “doublespeak” from wind industry spin-kings, Renewable UK and DECCs – in the other-worldly, Orwellian tradition under which they operate; and which they deploy in their efforts to control the energy ‘game’ (see our post here).

When the hard numbers see it pressed on its central claim about “powering” millions of homes, the wind industry and its parasites start back-pedalling at a full pelt, whine about “cherry-picking data” and resort to waffle about ‘averages’, ‘overall benefits’ etc, etc (that’s if they haven’t already run off and hidden from their interlocutors – see our post here).

And, in this case – resorting to their classic “hey, quick look over there” tactic – the spinners pitch up the well-worn lie about wind power ‘investment’ creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs (see our post here); as if that will be some kind of consolation when Brits are all left freezing in the dark.

STT just loves their exhortation about the need to measure wind power output “over a meaningful period”, which, apparently, means “averaging” wind power output over a month or more.

Funny, you know, that power punters – selfish lot that they are – tend to consider having power available when they need it, as a “here and now” kind of thing. So let’s see how things are “averaging” out over at the ICU:

ICU Respiratory_therapist

DECCs and Renewable UK are obsessed with the ultimate (nonsense) goal of Britain running exclusively on wind power – and every malicious move they make is aimed at seeing wind power totally ‘displace’ fossil fuel generation sources.

If their (impossible) ‘dreams’ were ever realised, it would be interesting to see how the (few) remaining businesses would manage to operate without power for hours on end, every other day; and how householders might toast their crumpets, and keep warm and well-lit homes whenever the wind does what it’s done since the dawn of time.

STT buffed up the crystal ball and conjured up this forlorn image, that might be somewhere near the mark:

studying candle

Open Letter Regarding Low Frequency Noise Due to Wind Turbines

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Australian Breastfeeding Association head office

1818-1822 Malvern Road
MALVERN EAST VIC 3145

Email: info@breastfeeding.asn.au

 

OPEN LETTER

 

The article below has recently been published in the Portland Observer by Bill Meldrum “Wind Alliance rejects health claims”; I object to the incorrect statements made within it by Ms Angela McFeeters, an ABA representative at Portland and spokesperson for the Victorian/Australian Wind Alliance. I draw it to your attention for discussion, review and management of.

 

As one of the six resident participants in the Steven Cooper Acoustic Testing Program at Cape Bridgewater of Nov 2014, I have firsthand knowledge of impacts and conditions living in proximity to the industrial wind energy plant of 29, 2MW turbines at Cape Bridgewater causing health impacts and disturbance to us and to many others exposed to infrasound and other disturbing industrial ‘noise’ emissions around Australia.

 

I suggest the ABA has a duty to become more fully informed of these public health impacts to assist new mothers and babies; to become informed of the issues by reading the links below and further extensive information compiled and available at; wind.watch.org, the Waubra foundation or Stop These Things websites.

 

Ms McFeeters would not have the medical expertise to publically declare any conclusions on the status of my health, only my GP or Specialist have the comprehensive understanding of and authority to make any statements regarding health or impacts to it.   Ms McFeeters has over the past 12 months anonymously attended community consultation meetings related to the acoustic study being conducted by the owners of the wind farm, Pacific Hydro and has heard the impacting conditions we have reported to the company and the Government Authorities over the past six years.

 

This is not the first biased public statement or comment Ms McFeeters has aired whilst representing the Wind Alliance and the wind industry.

 

Her assumptions and implied accusations in this article are based without visiting my house, nor noting medical conditions first hand, as my GP’s, Specialists or the Acoustic Engineers that have conducted studies inside my home.   The study undertaken by Mr Cooper is groundbreaking and assists with the resolve of problems of noise, vibration and sensation through greater understanding and knowledge gleaned by cooperatively working together.   Cooperation was undertaken for the first time ever by residents, a wind farm and an independent acoustician working with the goal of getting to the bottom of the problems.  I doubt Ms McFeeters has read or understands the importance of the research or the publically released conclusions.

 

The most damaging impact of wind farms to public health, including my own is the serious issue of sleep deprivation.  As a representative of the ABA, dismissal of the very real health impact of sleep deprivation caused by wind farm disturbance is unfeeling and callous in its disregard.  Dismissing disturbances documented within the Acoustic study could damage mothers and infants living near and impacted by wind farms, not only in the Portland region but around the nation.

 

Sleep disturbance and post natal depression go hand in hand; her biased public opinions and her obligation to abide by the code of ethics of the ABA do not.    I ask which qualifications, expertise and knowledge allows her to refute health impacts that have been well documented and confirmed as far back as 1985 in the US Kelley report and do you endorse the opinions of this Alliance?

Disturbed fertility and menstrual cycles in women living near wind turbines in Denmark, Canada and Australia are being reported from both residents and by health professionals.

Health professionals, medical practitioners, acoustic experts and researchers who have firsthand knowledge of the severity of reported health problems call for urgent multidisciplinary research in this area and include:

Professor Bob McMurtry, Dr Roy Jeffery, Associate Professor Jeff Aramini, Carmen Krogh and Mr William Palmer from Canada; Dr Alan Watts, Dr Wayne Spring, Dr David Iser, Dr Gary Hopkins, Dr Andja Mitric Andjic, Dr Sarah Laurie, Mr Les Huson, Mr Steven Cooper, Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen and Dr Bob Thorne from Australia; and Associate Professor Rick James, Mr Rob Rand, Mr Stephen Ambrose, Emeritus Professor Jerry Punch, Dr Jay Tibbetts, Dr Sandy Reider, Dr Nina Pierpont, Dr David Lawrence, Dr Paul Schomer, Mr George Hessler, and Dr Bruce Walker from the USA with others from Europe.   Wind turbines are increasing in size and are being placed closer to larger human populations and justifiably, there is growing concern all over the world.

 

For any breastfeeding counsellor or representative within the ABA to be ignoring the serious issue of sleep deprivation is a very real concern.  Evidence about sleep deprivation and its role in post natal depression is well accepted.  Is this evidence being ignored by the ABA counsellors in the Portland region?  Does the ABA disagree with the concerns of the Health and Acoustic Professionals and Researchers listed above?

 

As a concerned mother and advocate of breastfeeding I ask you to investigate.  Impacts of infrasound on breastfeeding cannot be dismissed out of hand by someone without the authority or proper and independent knowledge to do so.

 

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/acoustic-engineering-investigation-at-cape-bridgewater-wind-facility/

 

http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/files/2015/01/Cape-Bridgewater-Acoustic-Report.pdf

 

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2015/steven-coopers-cape-bridgewater-acoustic-research-commissioned-by-pacific-hydro-released/

 

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-to-the-ama-re-its-recent-paper-concerning-wind-turbines/

 

Read the above, acknowledge the depths of this issue and release a public apology.  Proper and independent health studies are going to be conducted in the homes of impacted people near these energy plants and until this further study is undertaken and released by the Australian Government then no-one should conclude there are no impacts on residents’ health and quality of life.

Melissa Ware

Windpushers Do Not Protect the Health of Vulnerable Children, (or anyone else)

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

West Norfolk mother tells of blindness fears for son over wind farm scheme

Karen Robinson with her son Ronnie Robinson (9) in the garden at Clenchwarton Hall, showing the current view. ANL-150129-112536009

Karen Robinson with her son Ronnie Robinson (9) in the garden at Clenchwarton Hall, showing the current view. ANL-150129-112536009

Ronnie Robinson suffers from primary congenital glaucoma, a severe visual impairment in which his eyes cannot cope with changing light conditions.

Developers of the Ongarhill wind farm, which is due to be debated by the West Norfolk Council planning committee next week, say conditions attached to any permission, and technology on the turbines themselves, will prevent shadow flicker from affecting residents.

But Ronnie’s mum Karen says she has been warned by doctors that she will have to leave her home on Hall Road, Clenchwarton if the plan goes ahead, in order to save his sight.

She said any flicker would leave Ronnie at risk of becoming disorientated and banging his head.

The slightest knock could mean he loses all his remaining vision.

Mrs Robinson, who moved to the area from Hertfordshire five years ago, said: “The whole reason we moved here was because it was off the road and it was safe for him to live.

“Why should we suffer just because they want to put turbines there? We moved here for a better life.”

A planning report, published last week, recommended that councillors approve the wind farm proposal, subject to the completion of a legal agreement for an ecological improvement plan within three months.

But opponents are unhappy with what they claim will be the unacceptable impact on localresidents and wildlife.

Mrs Robinson, who will be addressing Monday’s planning meeting, also fears the noise of the turbines would affect Ronnie, as he relies on his more sensitive hearing due to his eye problems.

But Cath Ibbotson, project manager for developers Coriolis Energy, yesterday said they had discussed Mrs Robinson’s concerns with her and were taking them seriously.

She said: “Tried and tested technology exists to switch off turbines at appropriate times and therefore prevent any shadow flicker occurring at the property or in the grounds for those few hours a year when it might otherwise do so.

“The council has proposed that a planning condition would be attached to any planning permission to ensure this.

“In respect of noise, anyone who has visited a wind farm for themselves will know how quiet turbines are in operation. However, national noise limits exist to protect residents.

The council have proposed in this case that the Ongarhill wind farm would have to operate to even more stringent limits, and we have agreed that we would do so. Again, this would be secured through planning conditions.”

Monday’s planning committee meeting will take place at the Lynn town hall, starting at 10am.

Monte McNaughton…..Best Choice for Victims of Wind Turbines in Ontario! (That’s all of us!)

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ending Ontario’s wind experiment

Credit:  Monte McNaughton MPP | Posted 26 January 2015 | www.netnewsledger.com ~~

How do we ensure that when one government abuses its power, we don’t have to live with the consequences for a generation? Through the supremacy of our democratically elected legislative assembly in Ontario.

In 2009, the Ontario Liberals misused their majority when they stripped municipalities of their long-standing land planning rights in order to impose the wind turbine experiment. They then used executive orders to hand out sole-sourced deals ‎to line the pockets of their wind developer friends. These 20-year deals provide guaranteed pricing to developers for wind power that is above market rates—because wind power cannot be produced in Ontario at reasonable market rates. They also guarantee revenue even when turbines are asked not to produce wind power.

The Ontario Liberals deliberately ignored the interests and wishes of rural Ontario and made all consumers, both urban and rural pay for it—to the tune of $1 billion to $3 billion annually, with increases projected every year. That’s $20 billion to $60 billion over the next two decades. This accounted for only 3.4% of Ontario’s electricity generating capacity, but represented 20% of the total commodity cost of electricity in the province.

And the bad news doesn’t end there—for the last two years, our electricity system has been forced to dump more than double the amount of power generated by wind turbines into other jurisdictions, and at a 75% discount on what we paid to produce it.

Why? Because we are producing more electricity than we need, and because the wind turbines in Ontario produce most of their power during off-peak hours – when we don’t need it all.

And how are the turbines helping the environment? Since wind power is unreliable it requires additional backup power from other generation sources, such as gas-fired generation, which—you guessed it—increases air emissions.

France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain have all had to reverse course on wind power. The reason – the exorbitant costs on consumers with no benefit.

So how do we get out of this mess? If a future government issued another executive order to terminate the McGuinty-Wynne wind power scheme and keep it out of public view, then taxpayers would be on the hook for the entirety of the commitments – as was done by Dalton McGuinty in 2010 with the proposed power plants in Mississauga and Oakville. If, however, the democratically elected legislature passed an explicit statute to end the wind power rip-off, Ontario could determine what compensation, if any, would be paid, and to whom.

Enacting legislation to repeal the Liberal wind power boondoggle is the right way forward. As Premier I will do just that and introduce measures in the legislature to correct this abuse of power by the Ontario Liberals.

Visit http://www.Monte.ca/wind to learn more about McNaughton’s plan to end Ontario’s wind energy experiment, and other issues that are part of his plan for Ontario.

Wind Pushers Everywhere Terrified That the Truth Will Be Known to All!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

What REAL Experts are Saying About Steven’s Cooper’s Wind Farm Noise Study

January 27, 2015 by

steve cooper

In our recent post we popped up the study done by Steven Cooper at Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm, that’s sent the wind industry and its parasites into complete melt-down.

Its keenest advocates have turned on Pac Hydro, with the kind of hate-filled vengeance (usually reserved for traitors) for letting Cooper off the leash in the first place (see our post here).

And a band of others – with their trotters firmly in the wind industry subsidy trough – have chimed in, in an hysterical effort to pooh-pooh Cooper’s study.

This band of Twitter jockeys – made up of pseudo-scientists, mock-medicos and eco-fascist barrackers have been uniformly desperate in their attempts to deride and attack Cooper personally; and in their attempts to demonstrate that the study is somehow “flawed”.

Curiously – none of them hold any qualifications relevant to the task at hand – save and except the ability to compress non sequiturs into 140 characters.

In a classic bait and switch technique, this reliable band of useful idiots start out by branding Cooper’s study as a piece of “academic work”; and then set out to attack it on that basis.

The study is not “academic work” of the kind familiar to those firmly ensconced in sandstone citadels, but is, rather, a field study where data was gathered; set against the hypothesis that there is a relationship between the adverse health impacts complained of by neighbours and turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

On that basis, the study can be seen as a robust piece of basic research; ready for further testing.

The idea of science (well, it used to be) is to propound some hypothesis directed at a particular relationship; to gather some evidence in relation to that hypothesis; and then throw that evidence firmly against the hypothesis, in an effort to disprove it. What Karl Popper called “falsifiability”; which he defined as the essential feature of science.

Science is not conducted by a show of hands or a popularity contest. Having a million scientists (or Twitter followers) “agree” with a particular hypothesis does not add to the robustness of that hypothesis. Indeed, the entire point of science is constant conjecture and repeated challenge to establish and maintain a robust and reliable body of fundamental human knowledge. Humans have been at it – in an organised way – for around 300 years and have improved their lot as the direct result of that quest.

And it most certainly isn’t conducted on the basis of the popularity of an ideologically driven agenda, generated by carping and nitpicking on Twitter; or during ABC propaganda love-ins.

In 1907 – when Albert Einstein – then, a lowly Austrian patent clerk – started scratching out what became known as his theory of “relativity”, young Albert was very much on his lonesome. In fact, he was roundlyridiculed and criticised by his contemporaries – and it took decades before his theory was taken seriously. The lack of “agreement” among physicists with Einstein’s theory did not, however, render the theory false or incorrect.

Einstein (correctly) identified that: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”. Physicists are still trying to prove Einstein’s theories wrong – and so it should be.

If the eco-fascist cheer squad were, in fact, serious scientists, they would be out in paddocks and inside homes armed with microphones and sensors, gathering their own datasets to throw against the hypothesis, in an effort to disprove it; and advance science.

Cooper’s methods and approach sit fairly and squarely within that model: the target hypothesis was set; and data was thrown against it. The hypothesis remains; leaving it standing to be belted again and again, until such time as evidence shows the hypothesis to be invalid.

If any scientist seeks to protect their pet hypothesis (eg, the nonsense “nocebo” effect, for example) then your Spidey senses should be tingling: the “scientist” in question is then simply an advocate for their idea; the whole concept of scientific progress is to belt the hypothesis repeatedly with evidence relevant to that task. If the hypothesis remains, then so be it.

In the case of Cooper’s study, limitations on the length of the study and the size of the dataset (number of participants etc) were firmly set by Pac Hydro – the wind power outfit in question, which paid for the study as its Penance for being the object of over 6 years of residents’ well-justified complaints.

No such controls or limitations are placed on “academic research” – here, Pac Hydro’s deliberate controls and limitations were driven by, obviously, commercial considerations, and aimed at protecting a corporate reputation under threat (ie, “damage control”).

So it seems a bit rich that the Twitter jockeys are attacking Cooper’s study as “flawed” on that basis.

Among the raft of limitations placed on Cooper by Pac Hydro, was its rejection of Cooper’s request that the study be peer reviewed, prior to its release. Pac Hydro, sensing it already had a public relations disaster in the making, deliberately decided to prevent peer review of the study, which would have only added weight and validity to its results.

However, as a piece of basic scientific research, Cooper’s study stands alone; and is, therefore, easily capable of being:

  • reproduced;
  • scaled up to include more homes and residents;
  • further validated and supported with the inclusion of a representative cohort as a control group in any further study; and
  • therefore, repeated, validated and extended, both here, and all around the world.

So far, so scientific.

But instead of letting the eco-fascist cheer squad, wind industry and its parasites “own” the debate about the validity of Cooper’s study, why nothear from two highly qualified and experienced acoustic engineers, instead of media manipulators armed with arts and sociology degrees?

rand_feb_5_web

Rob Rand and Stephen Ambrose have, between them, published dozens of peer reviewed articles on wind turbine noise impacts (a few are available here); have over 65 years of acoustics experience between them; and have been working specifically on low-frequency noise and infrasound emissions from wind turbines for nearly 20 years.

stephen ambrose nina pierpont

Let’s hear what properly qualified experts have to say about Steven Cooper’s study.

January 21, 2015

Dear Steven,

Re: Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Acoustic Study

Congratulations on this superlative work investigating the neighbor reports and correlating (unintended) adverse effects of the facility. The scope and detail of your report is sure to assist acoustic investigators, planners, utilities, and the public to understand without any further doubt or dismissal what wind turbine neighbors have been saying for years, as you so clearly sum up,

“What we found was that previously they were complaining about the noise, but it wasn’t really the noise, it was sensations.”

The report’s establishing of tonal energy at the blade pass and harmonics along with higher frequencies with sidebands as the wind turbine signature, puts to rest any further tendency by acoustic professionals to rely on constant-percentage bands to attempt to assess neighbor impacts from wind turbine signals.

The correlation of sensation level to WTS tone level in the infrasonic and audible bands brings wind turbine acoustics right to the door of medical science. Medical tests in the homes, long overdue, can now be correlated directly to WTS. May the medical testing in homes begin without further delay.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Pacific Hydro for sponsoring the study and providing turbine on/off conditions for evaluation.

Best Regards,
________________________
Robert W. Rand, ASA, INCE
RAND ACOUSTICS

Original letter from Rob Rand

January 22, 2015

Ref: Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Acoustic Study

Congratulations, I commend you for pursuing scientific truth by investigating the human response to large wind-turbines in the acoustic environment. Your correlation of human response journal entries with scientific waveform analysis clearly shows hearing is not limited to audible sounds. Research continues to reveal that the ear has multiple functions and capabilities. This study merits recognition by acoustic and public health professionals for more research.

Your study goes far beyond the 1980s Neil Kelley et al. studies that identified operating wind-turbines can produce airborne transmissions that humans detect as “sensations”. Bray/James research showed that one-third octave band filters could not measure the low-frequency peaks produced by wind-turbines.

Neighbors’ complaints were ignored by the majority. Acoustic experts failed to understand the limitations of their instruments and analysis methods. The Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Analysis Study should end blaming the neighbor. Neighbors deserve respect. Experts earn respect.

Before wind turbines, the highest negative community reaction was “vigorous community action to stop the noise”. Wind turbines have raised the bar to “home abandonment”. This life-saving option is not affordable; most experience diminished quality of life, degradation of health, and loss of wellbeing. The population majority remains unknowing and unaffected by wind turbines because they live far away or genetically protected from “sensations”. I was surprised to learn that I should not live near a wind turbine neighbor. I have no sympathy; I have real empathy.

Thank you and best wishes.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE, Board Certified
Principal Consultant

Original letter from Stephen Ambrose

writing_a_letter