Dr. Robert Y. McMurtry Statement Related to Health Canada Study and Denise Wolfe Synopsis.
Health
World Council for Nature Shares Info. On Wind Turbines!
Note: Infrasound & Low Frequency Noise is often referred to as “ILFN”
Simulation of infrasound waves propagating in the atmosphere
Source: BGR http://www.bgr.bund.de
IMPORTANT NEWS Nº 1:
Health Board: wind turbines are a hazard to human health
October 17th, 2014
GLENMORE, WISCONSIN, USA: “This week the Brown County Health Board went on record declaring that wind turbines “are a human health hazard“.
“Folks living in the Glenmore area near the Shirley Wind Project have been saying this for years though, and now they have the health department on their side. By state statute wind turbines can be within 1250 feet of a home. The Brown County Board of Health says that’s too close for comfort.”
Read more: windfarm a health hazard — don’t miss the video
The wording of the motion was as follows:
“To Declare The Industrial Wind Turbines In The Town Of Glenmore, Brown County. WI. A Human Health Hazard For All People (Residents, Workers, Visitors, And Sensitive Passersby) Who Are Exposed To Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise And Other Emissions Potentially Harmful To Human Health.”
Read more: ILFN potentially harmful
IMPORTANT NEWS Nº 2
Windfarm victims worldwide will feel vincicated by this:
In Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, Canada, complaints from windfarm victims “will lead to investigations and hefty fines. This is the first bylaw directly referencing ILFN and demanding fines of between $500 to $10,000 per day, and which may be, the bylaw states, in excess of $100,000.“
“The bylaw references charging fees to developers if ILFN causes residents problems. Common effects are, from chronic unrelenting noise: sleep disorders, hormone level disruption, increased risk of disease, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart arrhythmias, and possibly even cancer.”
Read more: a groundbreaking Wind Turbine Noise bylaw
BACK IN 2013, STEPHEN AMBROSE, Board Certified Member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and a Full Member of the Acoustical Society of America, testified in front of the Vermont Senate Natural Resources Committee:
“Regulatory boards are now unable to protect public health and wellbeing because the wind turbine industry has substituted their own measurement and assessment procedures through international committees.
“The wind turbine acoustic standards differ dramatically from other noise sources. Wind turbines are evaluated using A- weighted sound levels by removing all low frequency and infrasound from consideration. A-weighting lowers infrasound levels by 50 dB at 20 Hz and 70 dB at 10 Hz. This promotes false statements that wind turbines do not produce infrasound.
“I have measured infrasound using a sound level meter and a microbarograph. I have experienced the adverse health effects caused by infrasound. Again, I felt miserable with a headache, nausea, loss of cognitive ability, sleep interference and interruption.
“I felt better when only a few miles away from the wind turbines’ influence.”
“I recommend that anyone who thinks wind turbines are good acoustic neighbors to do what I did. Go to a wind turbine site, live as a neighbor, and sleep in their bed when the wind blows strong.“
Read more: Testimony from an acoustician with 35 years’ experience
THE BIBLE of WINDFARM EFFECTS on NEIGHBOURS:
This is just the concluding paragraph, but there is plenty more:
“A compliant project may still cause damage to neighbours for numerous reasons:
– first, the standard only refers to dBA and thereby omits reference to ILFN;
– secondly, even with regard to audible noise, the standard refers to a maximum of 40 dBA outdoors, whereas every other form of industrial or other noise in country and city is limited to 35 dBA maximum. There is no technical basis for such an aberration, and it is clearly, (intended or not), discriminatory;
– thirdly, in quiet rural environments, even 35 dBA will be intrusive and loud, if the background level is below 25dBA, which is not uncommon.
The ear responds to the peaks of sound levels, not the averages. The wind turbine noise standards all refer only to averages, and exclude ILFN, and do not account for the human response, so cannot protect people from predictable serious harm to their health.”
The definitive document on wind turbine noise
Tom Harris, executive director of ICSC, talks about Suffering People Deserving Priority over Alleged Climate Problems.
ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral
Ottawa, Canada, November 2, 2014: “IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was right toadvocate “a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change” when he spoke to delegates tasked with approving the IPCC Synthesis Report, released on Sunday,” saidTom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The new direction governments should follow must be one in which the known needs of people suffering today are given priority over problems that might someday be faced by those yet to be born.”
“Yet, exactly the opposite is happening,” continued Harris. “Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest is wasted trying to stop improbable future climatic events. That is immoral.”
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor remarked, “U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon often makes unjustified statements about climate change and extreme weather. However, in their still unansweredNovember 29, 2012 open letter to the Secretary General, 134 scientists from across the world asserted, ‘The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 [now 18] years. During this period…carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly 9%…The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”
“Although today’s climate and extreme weather are well within the bounds of natural variability and the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, there is, most definitely, a climate problem,” said Carter. “Natural climate change brings with it very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must carefully prepare for and adapt to climate hazards as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide controls in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change impoverishes societies and reduces our capacity to address these and other real world problems.”
“The heavily referenced reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that, scientifically speaking, the global warming scare is over,” concluded Harris. “It is time to defund the IPCC and dedicate our resources to helping solve today’s genuine humanitarian problems.”
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.
ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.
For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visithttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org,
Wind Turbines….The Facts Blow Them Out of the Water…..Useless Machines!
Wind Turbine Campaign
People often ask me to explain ’ What have I got against wind turbines?’
Here are a few of their problems:
1 They exacerbate flooding due to the massive concrete bases being built on our hills for turbines which cause faster run-off during periods of heavy rain. Old wind farms, such as at Llandinam, have passed their sell-by date much earlier than expected and are being replaced by larger turbines, each of which requires a new concrete base. They old bases are left in the ground. As you will appreciate, the mountain will eventually be covered in concrete, a highly-polluting process itself, and this will increase flooding many-fold.
2 Proximity to wind turbines can cause high blood pressure, tinitus, sleeplessness and many other health problems, due to infra-sound – there is now much evidence of this in many countries, with massed chronic examples in the US, Canada and Australia. (many reports, including Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill, contained in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30th September 2011; Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment, by Dr Nina Pierpont, published 2009 by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe). The UK government insists on using a system called ETSU-97 for monitoring wind noise, but this is 16 years old, produced when turbines were far smaller, and there is much more sensitive equipment available now, which they refuse to use because it will reveal the shortcomings of the industry. Unbelievably, the Health & Safety Executive are kept well away from wind turbine developments, when every other form of activity in the UK is subject to their investigations, even harmless bookshops in Brecon.
3 Despite what government and the wind industry say, turbines devalue property and in many cases destroy any chance of selling the property – there is a lot of evidence from estate agents all over the UK.
4 In extreme cases people such as Jane and Julian Davis in Lincolnshire even had to abandon their property. There is no provision for compensation for such people.
5 Wind energy destroys local jobs: according to a report commissioned by the Scottish government 3.7 jobs in the UK are lost for every 1 wind one produced (Verso Economics: The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK 2011).
6 The Mid-Wales economy relies heavily on tourism, and many businesses will have to close and the economy devastated if hundreds more turbines are erected. It is completely unfair that Powys should bear such massive numbers of these alien, out-of-scale objects and have to pay some £3m to fight it through the public inquiries – that is why we have the highest hike in council tax in the country. See the PCC Red Kite newsletter.
7 Industrialising much of our finest natural landscapes that are vital for people’s wellbeing, tourism, etc, is totally unacceptable in a civilised society. We need natural landscapes unadulterated by monstrous metal structures, for our well-being.
8 Introducing gridlock into Mid-Wales highways over 7 years or more as is forecast by Powys CC (comment by Dale Boyington, Director of Highways, PCC in 2012) if current proposals go ahead will inevitably destroy much of the fabric of our society and culture, but this matters not a jot to those in Cardiff or Westminster.
9 This is leading to the disintegration of local communities, many of whom will be virtually imprisoned when surrounded by monstrous metal turbines nearly 500 feet high.
10 Billions of our money going abroad to foreign energy corporations (who form some 70% of our energy companies), furthering problems with our balance of payments.
11 Energy bills are rising alarmingly, mainly because of subsidies to wind energy, thus creating fuel poverty for so many in Mid-Wales, with consequent increase in deaths in winter.
12 Turbines kill birds (particular raptors) and bats, also spook many domestic animals. Horses are especially vulnerable.
13 Turbine bases destroy vast areas of peat blanket, the British equivalent of a rain forest and thus releasing vast tonnes of CO2.
14 The intermittency of wind energy makes it a pretty useless source of energy, leading to brown-outs, grid destabilisation and costly backup from traditional power stations which are forced to operate at inefficient levels, and thus creating more CO2 than if they operated normally without the turbines.
15 People regard nuclear power as being dangerous, yet more people have died from wind turbine accidents over the last five years than from nuclear ones. During the 5 years up to December 2011 there were 1,500 accidents and incidents on UK wind farms, with four deaths, according to Renewable UK.
16 During periods when the grid cannot cope with input from wind turbines the latter are told to shut down, yet are given hundreds of thousands of pounds for not producing any power.
17 Wind turbines each have a magnet as part of their structure, and some of the content for this comes from rare earth minerals mined exclusively in China. This process is dirty and dangerous, with waste products, including radioactive thorium apparently allowed to leech into the waterways. See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html
This book explains much of the above in greater detail:
The Wind Farm Scam by Dr John Etherington, £9.99 Stacey International publishers
David Bellamy
Watch this excellent film by Godfrey Bloom explaining the economics and the threats to our energy supply that will result from our government’s obsession with wind energy
Mynydd y Gwair, Watercolour by David Bellamy
There is a proposal to built a large Wind Turbine development on this beautiful unspoilt common land, with views across Swansea Bay, the Bristol Channel and the Decon coastline. The local people will loose their peace and serenity, and walkers will loose the sense of isolation and solitude so vital to restore well-being in many of us. And all for the sake of a small supply of intermittent electricity
We are both very concerned about the impact of proposed Wind Turbine developments in the Welsh Uplands. Numerous developments of large Wind Turbines are currently being proposed for many of the country’s most beautiful hilltops. Sixteen wind turbine developments already exist in Wales creating an unacceptable visual intrustion. Some turbine developments are currently being built such as Cefn Croes in Ceredigion where huge tracts of land are being devastated in order to install access roads. Visit Cefn Croeswebsite to see the damage. All this destruction in order to produce a very small and intermittent supply of electricity.
‘We are both working to bring about more awareness of the issues’
The two David Bellamys have met on two protest marches against wind turbine developments in Wales.
David and Jenny passionately believe in the principle of renewable energy but wind turbines are the least reliable or productive, and the most intrusive of all the renewable options.
Far from being a ‘green’ option, there are many arguments against them. For example – here are just two of the many facts
1. Their unreliability means that conventional coal, gas or oil fired power stations will still have to be kept running on standby in case the wind stops blowing, or blows too fast, thus any perceived saving of carbon emissions is a myth.
2. 1,000 tons of concrete is required to install each individual turbine. Concrete production is the second most polluting industrial process in the world.
Please take the time to educate yourself on this subject as we are being told by our government that this is the solution to reducing our carbon emissions but wind tubines cannot help to solve the problem of global warming in fact they may even be adding to it.
The only people to benefit from this industrialisation of our countryside will be the developers.
New Paper on Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound! by: J. Vanderkooy & R. Mann
New paper published by Vanderkooy and Mann: Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound
Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound
John Vanderkooy and Richard Mann
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Computer Science University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Date posted: 2 October, 2014
Abstract
To extract the optimum coherent infrasound signal from a wind turbine whose rotation is not precisely periodic, we use an optical telescope fitted with a photodetector to obtain reference blade passage periods, recording these together with the microphone infrasound signal. Signal processing of the quasi-periodic microphone signal is then used to obtain periodic data, which are analyzed by an appropriate length DFT to extract optimum values for the fundamental and harmonics of the coherent signal. The general procedure is similar to order domain analysis for rotating machines and is thoroughly explained and illustrated with measurements and analysis from a number of different wind farms. If several turbines are measured by a single microphone with blade passage periods obtained from several separate reference tracks, it may be possible to retrieve separate useful coherent signals from multiple turbines by appropriate processing.
Conclusion
Our paper shows how the coherent part of the infrasound from a single WT can be extracted from a microphone signal by using a blade passage reference track from the turbine under study.
Our analysis reveals a characteristic infrasonic pulse. We conjecture that the pulse from a single WT is caused by the interaction of the blades against the pylon, while the rather more complex background
signal relates to the radiation of the Tyler-Sofrin spinning modes.
The random component of the infrasonic signal exceeds the coherent part, and this random component is related to wind noise, which appears to be similar whether one is near or far from a wind farm.
Our paper avoids the issue of health effects from WT infrasound. Information on both sides of the controversy abounds in the literature. Read full article
Wind Company Admits That Barb Ashbee’s Home, was Uninhabitable….
Barb Ashbee: wind company “agreed that we couldn’t live there any more”
I’m sure everyone reading this has had the experience of phoning some corporate entity (Hydro, Bell, Visa, etc.) and heard the pre-recorded message, “This call is being recorded for quality assurances purposes…”. Yeah right. Well, a similar act is played out in the ERT hearings. Often the wind company will engage a court reporter to provide a transcript of the testimony. Other parties will be offered copies IF they pony up a portion of the costs. Often the MOE will do so. They will use this record further down the line when final submissions are made. What they likely will not do is get the transcript certified. Why, you ask? Because certified transcripts must be submitted to the ERT and then it becomes a public document that anyone can a have access to.
There’s lots of stuff that happens in an ERT that a wind company and their helpers (MOE) wouldn’t want the public to hear. I wish we could have afforded the cost of a court reporter for Nextera’s Adelaide ERT appeal. That’s the way the game is played.
So when an actual certified transcript becomes available, it’s a rare thing indeed. Such is the case with the St.Columban and K-2 appeals and excerpts appeared in the factum submitted for the court case in London in mid-November. Of particular note is the testimony of the post-turbine witnesses for those appeals. The first installment is Barb Ashbee’s testimony for both appeals.
Read on:
Evidence of post-turbine witnesses heard on all three appeals
The Dixon-Ryan Appellants called the evidence of two post-turbine witnesses, Barb Ashbee and Sandy MacLeod, both of whom were forced to leave their home because of the effects that the wind turbines were having on their health. Their evidence was subsequently entered before the Tribunal by way of transcript on the Drennan and Kroeplin appeals.
In 2005, Barb Ashbee and her husband moved into a home located in Shelbourne, Ontario. The home was intended to be their retirement property. Shelbourne is home to one of the first wind power projects in Ontario, the Melancthon EcoPower Project. The project consists of two phases and is comprised of approximately 123 wind turbines.
When Ms. Ashbee first learned of the project she was excited about the prospect of wind energy. She recalled telling her family and friends about how exciting it was that they were getting turbines, and would go out in her backyard and take pictures.
Ms. Ashbee’s home was affected by phase two of the project which began commercial operation in 2008. Ms. Ashbee’s home was located 457 meters from the closest turbine. She had four more turbines located within one kilometer, and another 15 turbines within two kilometers.
She began keeping a journal to describe what the noise sounded like and any symptoms she and her husband were experiencing.
Ms. Ashbee experienced sleep deprivation, stomach aches, heart palpitations, headaches, and dizziness. In addition, she began having nosebleeds and experiencing terrible cognitive and memory problems as time wore on.
Ms. Ashbee never sought medical attention specifically for the symptoms she was experiencing but did explain to her doctors what was going on with the wind turbines. Ms. Ashbee recounted that she informed her doctors about the wind turbines “because when I had the appointment with them I was severely sleep deprived and impacted and I wasn’t my normal self and I did want to tell them about what was going on.”
Ms. Ashbee immediately reported her symptoms to the project owner and they began conducting testing. Soon thereafter the MOE became involved in the process of monitoring the turbines and of receiving complaints. After the MOE and the project owner began testing on the project, they indicated to Ms. Ashbee that the project was in compliance with the guidelines and the 40dBA level permitted by the regulatory guidelines.
To try and mitigate the effects that the Ashbees were experiencing in their home, the wind company shut down the five turbines closest to their home. Despite this, the Ashbees reported still feeling a vibration and humming in the house, and they continued to be deprived of sleep and to experience headaches.24
The Ashbees tried to adjust to the turbine noise with ear plugs, but found no relief with these because the vibration was being felt throughout the house. They moved their bed out into the detached garage to see if it would help but this did not give much relief.25
During the period from May 8, 2009 to June 25th, 2009, at which time they left their home for good, the Ashbees moved into a tent in their backyard with their animals to gain respite from the vibration they were experiencing within their home.
Q. Okay. And so during the entire period did you remain in your house?
A. Yeah.
Q. And so you slept the entire time in your bedroom?
A. No, we got to the point we started looking for a rental and because our, like, we were all affected and we started, first I started looking for a rental, but we had three dogs, two cats to move and there’s not very many people that will rent with that many pets. And plus we were paying the mortgage and would have to pay out money for rent again and it was horrible.
And we thought well, we’ll rent a trailer, like, park it on the driveway; four wheel trailer thing. And I phoned around to a few places and there was nothing. I couldn’t find anything, nobody rented them.
We moved the bed out into the detached garage hoping it would be quieter out there so we wouldn’t have the vibration and noise and it was actually out there too. So it really didn’t help anything.
The wind company offered us a house a concession over from us and we did attempt to move into it. There were problems with it, with mould in it, so we couldn’t move in. So we were stuck, again.
So we ended up moving into a tent in the backyard because the turbines were being shut down at night and the vibration wasn’t there like it was in the house. You would feel it a little bit, a little bit of it but it wasn’t resonating like it was in the house. So we bought a tent. We went through two, actually, put the tent in the backyard, put our bed out there, a little table and a heater and a light and all the animals slept out there with us and that’s how we coped.
Q. And how long did you have to do that for?
A. May until we left.
Q. And when did you leave?
A. June 25th. I think it was May, early May. It’ll be in here, actually I guess. Do you want the date?
Q. If you have it.
A. May 7 we bought the tent.
Q. Okay. So then would May 8 be your first night in the tent?
A. Yeah, that was yeah, we set it up and put the bed in.
Q. And, sorry, you said you left June 25th?
A. Twenty fifth.
Q. So for almost two months did you sleep in the tent constantly every night?
A. Pretty much. The odd night when it didn’t seem too bad we would try it in the house. We put the spare bed in the tent and we still had the bed in there but there weren’t very many nights we were able to stay in the house.
Q. So did you have some alleviation from your symptoms while you slept in the tent?
A. Oh, yeah, we could sleep again, yeah. It still wasn’t the best because we were in a tent and it was still pretty cold still, but it was better than the house.26
Once Ms. Ashbee and her husband moved from their home, they no longer experienced any of the adverse health effects they had while living in the home.
Q. And so the symptoms that you described for us earlier, do you still suffer from any of those symptoms?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And when did those symptoms stop altogether?
A. Within pretty much within weeks, a month after we moved. Like, the sleep deprivation stopped immediately. The headaches stopped and that. I mean, the other effects, the upset and anger and that lasted a little bit longer, but as far as the stomach aches, the chest pressure, that was pretty much gone.
Q. Okay. And just so that we make sure it’s on the record, can you tell us how long you were in the environment when you were exposed to the wind turbines and these adverse health effects?
A. From early December 2008 to June 25th, 2009.
During cross examination, Ms. Ashbee was vigorously questioned about the source of the noise and vibration that she experienced in her home. The questioning was directed at demonstrating that her concerns arose not from the audible noise, but rather from some low frequency sound. This low frequency sound and its impacts is the same issue that Health Canada is now investigating through their study.
Q. And how long after they became operational did you notice that you were having problems?
A. Pretty much right away, like, within the first week, two weeks.
Q. And you talked about and I know from reading through your journal that the vibration was particularly a problem for you, correct?
A. Yeah, mm hmm.
Q. Would you say that that was the bigger problem than the noise?
A. It was as big a problem. The noise was a big problem. When they started shutting them down, it alleviated that, but the vibration was just as bad. Like, it didn’t fix that part of it.
Q. And you would know that because when five of the closest turbines were down around you, you were still bothered significantly by the noise?
A. The vibration.
Q. Or by the vibration, yes.
A. Yeah.
Q. Including the fact that you were in a tent and it was better in the tent than in your home, right?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Okay. And you think that’s because of the and I don’t mean to demean you by saying you think your belief is that that’s because there was vibrations at that time with the turbines down was the problem?
A. Well, it was in the house. Whether it was coming from the turbines or the electrical, I don’t know.
Q. Okay. So you still have never been given an answer on that?
A. No. Excuse me, there was a 160 spike measured by the wind developer, low frequency spike and so that was determined that it was in our house. It was measured. And Gary Tomlinson told me that that 160 hertz was coming off all the turbines, not just the one behind us.
Q. So when you say a spike, was that a one time thing?
A. No, it’s acoustical terminology. And I don’t know acoustics.
Q. You’re as blind as me on that.
A. They showed us the graph and it’s a spike. It’s continuous, but it shows the spike and they were outside measuring and inside measuring and a spike happened and they went oh, there’s a 160 spike and then the wind developer told us there’s definitely a problem with the low frequency in our house. So I don’t understand the rest.
Q. That was going to be my next question that you have said the wind turbine company acknowledged to you that there was a problem in your home because of the turbine, some aspect of the operation of the turbines?
A. Yeah.
Q. And to your knowledge, was that the reason for the buy out of your home?
A. They agreed that we couldn’t live there any more, yeah.
Although Ms. Ashbee and her husband suffered these adverse health effects, they did not seek medical attention. Ms. Ashbee chose not to seek medical attention because her doctors “were not very engaging with wind turbine problems” at the time she was experiencing her symptoms. Additionally, Ms. Ashbee felt that she knew that the wind turbines were what was causing her health problems.
Q. And it’s fair to say that they weren’t concerning you enough that you went to a doctor to have them checked out?
A. I knew what was causing them so.
Q. Okay, but even if you know the cause of something, it didn’t concern you enough to go to a doctor to have them check out whether or not they should be doing something, putting you on heart medication?
A. I talked to this doctor and I talked to my doctor in Toronto, and they weren’t very engaging with wind turbine problems. So I mean, I — what do you want me to do? I know what’s causing them. If they stopped them, we knew because, I mean, we were both going through the same thing, sometimes at different times it would come on.
Ms. Ashbee’s evidence is consistent with the evidence of other post-turbine witnesses that when they left the vicinity of the wind project, they no longer experienced the adverse health effects. Another witness that provided similar evidence before the Tribunal was Ms. Sandy MacLeod. Ms. MacLeod is a high school teacher and lived in Ripley, Ontario, the home of the Ripley Wind Project.
Health Dept. working on a Way to Force Wind Industry to Address Health Concerns…
Paul Srubas, Press-Gazette MediaBrown County health officials have declared wind turbines a public health risk, but they haven’t determined how to put their declaration into action.
The county’s Health Board this month declared the Shirley Wind Farm operated by Duke Energy Renewables poses a health risk to its neighbors in the town of Glenmore. Three families have moved out of their homes rather than endure physical illness they blame on the low-frequency noise the wind turbines generate, according to Audrey Murphy, president of the board that oversees the Brown County Health Department.
“We struggled with this but just felt we needed to take some action to help these citizens,” Murphy said.
Murphy called the declaration a first step, but “the second step is up to the director of our Health Department, Judy Friederichs, and corporation counsel.”
The Health Department has statutory authority for licensing, inspection and enforcement for businesses where health and environmental problems are at issue, but just what that means for the wind farm has not yet been determined, Friederichs said.
State health officials have expressed interest in participating in Brown County’s discussion of the issue, Friederichs said. She, board members and the county’s lawyer need to put their heads together to determine the next step, she said. No timeline has been established.
“We’re all saying the same thing here: Now what?” Friederichs said. “There aren’t a lot of alternatives to mitigation. It really depends now on where this goes, what type of referrals we get, etc. There’s ongoing concerns. We’re going to have to really look at it, and it’s more of a legal question.”
Whatever happens, residents “are grateful to the Board of Health for reviewing the research and listening to the people of Brown County,” said Susan Ashley, who also lives in the Shirley area and who has helped rally opposition to the wind farm through the years.
Twenty families in the town have documented health issues since the wind farm started operated in 2009, Ashley said.
Duke Energy Renewables was not invited to the health board’s discussion and would have cited tests that determined sound levels from the wind generators were low and could not be linked to adverse health impacts, company spokeswoman Tammie McGee said. The company has not received any formal word about the board’s declaration, McGee said.
Dr. Jay Tibbetts, vice president of the Brown County health board and its medical adviser, said he knows of no science that proves there isn’t a link between health problems and the low-frequency noise the giant fans produce.
“There’s been nothing that’s debunked anything,” he said. “As far as what’s happening to these people, it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re in Shirley or Denmark, or Ontario, Canada. Forty people have moved out of their homes, and it’s not just for jollies. In Shirley, three people have moved out of their homes. I know all three. They’re not nuts. They’re severely suffering.”
People might not be able to hear the sounds the Shirley turbines produce, but Tibbetts said he knows of a teenager living in the area who can tell when the turbines are off or on without being able to see them. Area residents or former residents report headaches, nausea and other symptoms they say are brought on by the turbines, and those symptoms clear up when the residents move elsewhere for a time, Tibbetts said.
The board’s declaration may be cutting edge and controversial, but it wasn’t made lightly or without the weight of science behind it, Murphy said
“This is a serious step,” she said. “We didn’t make it lightly. There is science from around the world — the World Health Organization, Denmark, Poland, Germany. We believe there’s enough science.”
Darrell Ashley, who is Susan Ashley’s father-in-law and lives within a mile of the Shirley turbines, said his wife moved out of the house for several months until her symptoms disappeared. She has since moved back, and her symptoms are coming back, he said.
“I’m getting worse and I can’t afford to move out,” he said. “I’m just getting weaker — my legs, back, feet. My concentration is gone, head pressure, ear aches, headaches, it just goes on and on.”
Prior to 2009, when the turbines weren’t operating, he and his wife had no such problems, he said. He praised the health board and said he appreciated that someone finally listened to residents’ complaints.
Murphy said Brown County is probably the first governmental body in Wisconsin and perhaps the first in the country to make the formal declaration.
The board has been wrestling with the issue for about the last four years, Murphy said. While some scientific studies have failed to find a link between health risks and the low-frequency noise that wind turbines generate, two studies done recently on the Shirley Wind Farm specifically say otherwise, Murphy said.
“While there may still be debate about the precise mechanism that causes these sounds to induce the symptoms, it is clear from (these studies) … that acoustic energy emitted by operation of modern wind turbines is at the root of adverse health effects,” Murphy said.
Windweasels Attack Another Community….Residents in Fighting Mode….
Jupiter Wind Farm Proponents from Another Planet
October 25, 2014 by
Yet another wind farm disaster proposed for the Southern Tablelands, yet another community backlash. This time it’s the threatened Jupiter wind farm at Tarago that has sent locals into orbit: the community is nothing short of ropeable (see our posts here and here).
Here’s one of their number smashing the Spanish developer, the disgraceful NSW Planning Department and the hypocritical ACT government.
LETTER: They are on another planet
Greg Faulkner
Goulburn Post
15 October 2014
I AM writing regarding Jupiter wind farm, proposed for the area surrounding Tarago. The proposed development would consist of up to 110 wind turbines each 170 meters or 50 stories tall.
The developer is EPYC a company which I understand is over 80 per cent Spanish owned.
My partner and I are long term residents from within the project area.
Like most locals we live here for the peace and quiet. We now face the sickening possibility of our home being sandwiched between banks of these colossal turbines, situated on our neighbours land, and possibly as close as 600 meters from our house door.
After having contacted NSW Dept of Planning about the situation, and having received no helpful response, we find ourselves with no alternative but to speak out publicly against the frightening unfairness surrounding the current approach to wind farm development in The Southern Highlands.
The turbines proposed are mind boggling huge, this cannot be overstated.
They are taller than the Sydney Harbour Bridge and very nearly as tall as Canberra’s Black Mountain Tower.
They are bigger than the ones around Bungendore and, for close residents, will never be obscured by tree plantings or anything else. Giant turbines may be a novelty to marvel at for a few moments, as we drive past, but I don’t think many Australians would want to live in their midst 24/7. I have observed the use of the term NIMBY in the media, in relation to rural residents who express any doubt about wind farm development near their homes.
The most enthusiastic users of this brutal and provocative term seem to be “green” city residents, who may be comfortable in the knowledge that their communities will never be the target of wind farm development. It seems common sense that any person who learns that their beloved home may soon be surrounded by giant turbines will be understandably devastated, and should not be subjected to cheap name calling.
A little understanding would be more productive.
Like most working, middle aged Australians, our home represents virtually all of our capital and its sale was to be central to any type of retirement or health care in our old age (not so far away).
If Jupiter wind farm proceeds our house will be sandwiched between arrays of monstrous, spinning, noise emitting turbines.
I do not think I am being pessimistic when I predict that any sale will difficult, unless the price is very, very low indeed.
In this sense alone the development is an absolute disaster for us, and most of our neighbours are in the same boat.
Australia may want renewable power options but we cannot continue forward like this.
In its haste to establish the renewable power sector it seems the NSW Government is prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of many rural residents in the Southern Highlands, so as to provide a financially appealing environment to tempt foreign investors. It has offered up the unregulated development of the Southern Highlands to foreign developers without bothering to provide any protection for existing residents.
Claims by developers that large turbine arrays don’t affect the value or amenity of a location are ludicrous and dishonest. It seems the ACT Government is also prepared to overlook the frightening unfairness of the various wind farm developments just outside its borders, in order to buy the power produced and achieve its renewable power ambitions.
The residents of Canberra may not be aware that these arrangements will come at a very high price for many families in neighbouring rural communities.
The ACT’s position is staggeringly hypocritical, given its long standing commitment to stringent height limits in its own planning law, which protect its own skyline from unsightly high rise development.
It is clear that the ACT government understands the importance of controlling development to ensure a healthy and unoffensive environment for its own residents.
It is also clear that this concern does not extend to nearby NSW neighbours who are being targeted for wind farm development that Canberra would never tolerate itself.
GREG FAULKNER, Boro Rd via Braidwood.
Goulburn Post
At a mere 600m from the nearest turbine, the Faulkner’s currently peaceful home will be turned into a sonic torture trap and will be totally uninhabitable.
That’s around the same distance that Pac Hydro lobbed its giant fans from long-suffering Sonia Trist’s Cape Bridgewater home. After years of suffering from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, Sonia has decided enough is enough and is abandoning her beautiful and – once tranquil – home (see our post here).
But not to worry, the Spanish outfit aiming to destroy the Faulkner’s property and ability to enjoy it will employ a little of the $millions it’ll receive in REC subsidy to buy the house, stitch up the owners with a bullet-proof gag clause (see our posts here and here) and then quietly bulldoze it (see our post here).
Family Horrified to See Wind Turbine Blade Flying out of Control, Barely Missing Their Home!
Wind turbine blade smashes into Rowley Regis garden
Emma Brewin with the the propeller blade.
First published 03:00 Thursday 23 October 2014 in News
A FAMILY were left traumatised after a 4ft blade broke from a wind turbine in the grounds of a Rowley Regis school and spun out of control narrowly missing their house.
Mother-of-two Emma Brewin estimated the three propeller blades had been spinning at speeds of more than 160mph on top of the huge turbine during Tuesday’s strong winds before they broke off.
The Ross Heights’ resident said: “They were going like the clappers and the pole was shaking.”
Suddenly, there was a loud bang and she saw something “flying through the air” out of the corner of her eye.
She and partner Steve McGilligan, aged 49, were horrified to discover one of the heavy fibreglass blades had hurtled about 200 yards into their garden, sliced through a hedge and smashed into their next door neighbour’s bench before coming to rest in the garden.
Miss Brewin, whose daughter Jayde, aged 18, was out at the time, said her special needs daughter, Freya, aged 11, was particularly traumatised by the incident.
“If the propeller had broken off a second later it would have travelled in a straight line and smashed into our living room. We could have been killed,” said 40-year-old Miss Brewin.
PROMOTED STORIES
13+ Things You Shouldn’t Eat at a Restaurant (Reader’s Digest)
The Way This Guy Transformed His Backyard is Hard to Believe (Photos) (Viral Nova)
Girl bullied after donating her hair to charity (but wait…) (TheLoop.ca)
Photos: A Grandpa Left a Trunk Behind For His Family – What’s Inside is Incredible (Viral Nova)
Workers from Nepal and India dying in record numbers on Qatari construction sites (walkfree.org)
This Swedish Model’s Pics Have Gone Viral (Bossip)
Recommended by
The wind turbine has caused annoyance to residents, whose homes back onto St Michael’s CE High School, since it was installed to make electricity for the new Rowley Learning Campus two years ago.
Miss Brewin condemned it as a “noisy eyesore” which sent a reflected strobe effect into her living room when caught by sunlight.
She described Tuesday’s incident as “unbelievable” and vowed to fight through the courts, if necessary, to prevent the wind turbine being put back.
St Michael’s CE High School headteacher Mike Wilkes said: “I am really disappointed that the failure of the turbine has caused distress to our near neighbours.
“As Interserve provide the facilities management we are working with them closely to ensure this never happens again as the health and safety of our students, staff and the local community is of paramount importance to us.”
A spokesman for Sandwell Futures, which owns the wind turbine, said an immediate investigation had been launched to establish why the blades failed during the strong winds as the area was hit by the tail end of Hurricane Gonzalo.
He added: “Fortunately no one was injured, but it was clearly distressing for those affected, and it’s important that we get to the bottom of how this happened.
“Luckily, this sort of incident is extremely rare, but we have launched an immediate investigation to establish why the blades failed.”
NAPAW Discusses Low Frequency Noise Testing, & it’s Implications for Wind Industry!
NAPAW: WILL ILFN BE THE “SILENT” INDUSTRY DESTROYER? PLYMPTON WYOMING BYLAW UPDATE
Dear friends,
Please find attached a media release that we would appreciate having wide circulation.
pdf file : media release v 4 plympton wyoming
Word Document file: media release v 4 plympton wyoming
MEDIA RELEASE
October 16, 2014
BOOKEND HEALTH ISSUES TURBINES: Existing project in Glenmore WI (Brown County) formally declares its Duke’s “Shirley Wind” project a “health hazard”, and Mayor Lonny Napper and council in Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, anticipating several projects, create a revolutionary bylaw that includes ILFN (Infra and Low Frequency Noise) penalties
By Sherri Lange
Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, Mayor Lonny Napper is astonished. “With all the available evidence from around the world about the effects of Low Frequency and Infrasound from industrial wind turbines, it amazes me that the alarms are not sounding earlier and stronger.”
With about 1,000 acres of prime land under lease for turbine development, signed up between willing hosts and developers, this council is fighting to protect its citizens’ health. A new bylaw signed and completed third reading, October 8th, 2014, sets a new and interesting precedent by mentioning and effecting fines for health impairing ILFN. ILFN is well known to be an industrial plague, now exacerbated by industrial wind turbines that plague every corner of the globe, without, as is now acknowledged widely, producing viable, reliable or “green,” energy.
In Glenmore WI, the Health Department in Brown County, almost simultaneously with the efforts of the Mayor of Plympton Wyoming and CAO, Kyle Pratt, and council, declares that the Shirley Wind Project, containing some of the largest turbines in the US, is already the site of an industrial human health hazard.
“On Monday night, the Brown County Board of Health in Wisconsin voted to declare the Shirley Wind Project to be a human health hazard. The approved motion states:
“To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI. A Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.””
While the State of Wisconsin controls siting of industrial wind, it cannot override or subjugate the “public health hazard” declaration and initiatives. A health hazard, in most jurisdictions, is a condition of high alert, where acute or chronic illness, or death, may occur due to prolonged exposure. The hazard must be reported, and in some areas,mandated abatement must take place.
Mayor Lonny Napper seems to be of the same mind, noting that the Green Energy and Green Economy Act has taken away much democratic decision-making: his council’s bylaw aims to ensure people in his jurisdiction will be protected from turbine related ILFN and the effects that are recorded, sadly, worldwide.
Common effects are from chronic unrelenting noise, sleep disorders, hormone level disruption, increased risk of disease, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart arrhythmias, and possibly even cancer. (Carmen Krogh and Dr Robert McMurtry recently published a case definition that accepts inner ear disruption, sleep disorders, hypertension, mood disorders, nausea, tinnitus, as part of the presenting complaints combined with proximity to wind turbines.)
“When I took an oath to protect my community, I took it very seriously,” continues Mayor Napper. “The information about what other communities are suffering, disruption, noise, degradation of precious landscapes, seriously divided communities, and to see that this possible devastation is in my full view, for my residents, something has to give.”
Mayor Napper does not understand the delay for protective measures. “People are suffering in other projects. My community is slated for multiple developers and several proposed wind projects. The time for action, and protective measures, has been with us for some time now….we can’t continue to bounce around the same arguments and with no noticeable gain in community health rights. The protection of health is first.”
Lange, of the North American Platform Against Wind Power (NA-PAW) agrees. “We have for some time now sounded the alarm for what amounts to a turbine factory health pandemic: similar effects are reported in communities worldwide. These “factories” operate without the sanction of communities. They operate without fire controls, without any regard for environmental practices, and they certainly override what is now common knowledge about noise: audible, shadow flicker, vibration and Low Frequency and Infrasound, and related air pressure fluctuations, which in combination or separately, are known to extract “torture” on unwilling people/communities.”
Both Mayor Napper and Mr. Pratt, CAO, agree that individual communities need to understand that they can use bylaw powers to protect health as required. “If Ontario communities are having so little jurisdiction to control development of massive electrical producing facilities within their boundaries, the least the council can do is to mediate the devastating health effects already reported and well known to exist, that many feel are sure to happen here.” Mr. Pratt says that he hopes the bylaw will be an example to other councils. Pratt adds, “The Town of Plympton-Wyoming Council has worked hard to protect our residents, and make sure that developers are required to deal with issues and appropriately respond to complaints and requirements from council.”
Adds Lange, “The known effects of infrasound and low frequency noise may well turn out to be the death sentence for a non-performing, entirely subsidy driven, outrage.”
Even the MOE (Ministry of Environment Ontario) admits in 2009 the complex nature of sounds and pressures:
“I went out last night for about 5 hours (got home midnight) and got some real firsthand experience with different types of noise that the turbines can create. The same turbine or groups of turbines could create 3-4 different types of noise and at different magnitudes at different times in the evening all depending on meteorological conditions, time of day, their orientation, and how they readjusted themselves (auto or by manual control – we don’t know) to wind speed and direction. Also I was able to experience firsthand wind shear conditions (no wind at ground but turbines still generating creating noise) and how that plays an important role in noise impacts.” —Oct. 29, 2009, Bill Bardswick, Director West Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Environment
“Ok, message received and understood. Cam [Cameron Hall] and I will stand down until directed otherwise.” —Mar. 8, 2010, Gary Tomlinson, Provincial Officer, Senior Environmental Officer, Guelph District Office, West Central Region, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
For more information please contact:
Mayor Lonny Napper
Town of Plympton-Wyoming
546 Niagara Street, P.O. Box 250
Wyoming, Ontario N0N 1T0
Phone: 1 226 307 0523
Kyle Pratt MPA, CMM III, CHRP, CMO
Chief Administrative Officer
Town of Plympton-Wyoming
546 Niagara Street, P.O. Box 250
Wyoming, Ontario N0N 1T0
Phone: 519-845-3939
Toll Free (Ontario): 1-877-313-3939
Sherri Lange
CEO NA-PAW (North American Platform Against Wind Power)
416 567 5115
REFERENCES
http://www.obwf.ca/industrial-wind-turbines-declared-a-human-health-hazard/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/brown-county-ordinance-chapter-38-public-health-nuisance/
http://www.na-paw.org/pr-121207.php
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/10/wind-energy-power-farms/
file:///C:/Users/Home/Downloads/JRSM_Open-2014-McMurtry-.pdf
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 