Wind Turbine Host, Tells the Truth About the Harm the Do!

Video – Brown Country Wisconsin Wind Turbine Host Speaks Out

Dick Koltz speaks about regretting signing on with a wind developer, and explains the color “green” when it comes to wind developers.

Video from public forum at VanAbles, Town of Holland, Brown County Wisconsin, February 18, 2010, by courtesy of Better Plan, Wisconsin.

Anesthesiologist Tells the Facts About CO2. It is NOT the Demon they Pretend!

American Thinker
October 10, 2014
50,000 dot com
By Charles Battig

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…
That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…

That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development Declared a “Hazard to Human Health”!

Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development a “Hazard to Human Health” Declares Brown County Board of Health

October 14, 2014.

The Brown County Board of Health voted tonight to declare the Shirley Wind Turbine Development a Human Health Hazard.

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family with assistance from Mr Rick James to document acoustic emissions from the wind turbines including infrasound and low frequency noise, inside homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

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.”

The context is in reference to Brown County Code 38.01 in the Brown County Ordinances, in Chapter 38, relating to Public Health Nuisance (section (b) Human Health Hazard).

“Human Health Hazard” means a substance, activity or condition that is known to have the potential to cause acute or chronic illness or death if exposure to the substance, activity or condition is not abated.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard now puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Development on the defensive to prove to the Board they are not the cause of the health complaints documented in the study, and could result in a shut down order.

Read the Brown County Ordinances – http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_c581ca2d560f/?department=e4cd9418781e&subdepartment=3810f83bcbd2

Additional Background Information

In January 2012, the Brown County Town Board of Health called for emergency state aid for families suffering near wind turbine developments.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/emergency-aid-sought-for-families-suffering-around-wind-turbines/

The Duke Energy Shirley Wind Development was also the site of the December 2012 Cooperative Acoustic Survey by Acoustic consultants Schomer, Walker, Hessler, Hessler and Rand.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/co-operative-measurement-survey-analysis-low-frequency-infrasound-at-shirley-wind-farm/

On 21st January, 2013, the Wisconsin Towns Association Board of Directors adopted a resolution that the Wisconsin State and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission should enact a moratorium to“stop the permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found, and the State’s wind siting rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address ultra-low-frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents”. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wisconsin-towns-association-resolution-enact-moratorium-wind-farms/

As Dr Paul Schomer pointed out in his conference paper in August 2013, Duke Energy chose to refuse to cooperate with the request from the acoustic consultants conducting this groundbreaking cooperative acoustic survey to participate in “on off” testing.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schomer-et-al-wind-turbine-noise-conference-denver-august-2013/

Mr Rick James, Noise Engineer, gives some detail about some of the acoustic testing in Wisconsin which he has conducted in his opening statement of evidence to the Bull Creek appeal in Alberta Canada in November, 2013 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/james-richard-r-opening-statement-nov-18–2013-bluearth-project-bull-creek-alberta/

Dr Jay Tibbetts is a local medical practitioner with first hand experience of treating wind turbine noise affected residents in Brown County, including from the Shirley Wind Development, and he shared his experiences in his letter to the Australian AMA in March 2014.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/tibbetts-dr-jay-j-md-appalled-at-ama-statement/

Information from impacted residents

Wind turbine host Dick Koltz speaks candidly about what his experiences were as a wind turbine host in Brown County, Wisconsin and openly expresses his regrets to signing up with the wind developer. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-brown-country-wisconsin-wind-turbine-host-speaks-out/

There is additional testimony about the experiences of numerous families in Brown county living near the Shirley Industrial Wind Development here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/

Plympton-Wyoming’s Proposed By-Law, To Protect Their Citizens from Noise & Infrasound!

Infrasound in Wind Farm Noise Law

when-is-wind-energy-noise-pollution

The most common source of complaint from those unfortunates forced to live next to wind farms is the incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound generated by giant industrial wind turbines: turning a quiet night in into an occasion of acoustic torture (see our post here); and destroying many a good night’s sleep (see our post here).

But the low-frequency noise and massive air pressure fluctuations generated by giant fans have never been part of any noise standard or regulation for wind farms.

The noise standards – written by the wind industry – rely on the dB(A) weighting and, therefore, deliberately ignore the vast bulk of the sound energy produced by turbines – which pervades homes as infrasound and in frequencies that cause sleep deprivation and other adverse health effects (see our post here).

The idea of “testing” for the impacts from turbine noise and vibration without including infrasound and low-frequency noise is completely bonkers. Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira – who has been studying low-frequency noise impacts with her research group for 30 years, certainly thinks so (see our post here).

The standards not only ignore infrasound, but the South Australian EPA’s noise guidelines even ludicrously assert that infrasound was a feature of earlier turbine designs that is not present at “modern wind farms”. SA’s EPA – despite being incapable of following its own guidelines when it came to noise testing at Waterloo – managed to find infrasound present inside neighbouring homes at a very modern wind farm, that started operation in 2010 (see our posts here and here).

For a great little summary on wind turbine generated infrasound and its adverse affects on health, check out this video of Professor Alec Salt laying it out in clear and simple terms:

****

****

Given the work of Professor Salt (outlined in the video) and Steven Cooper’s findings at Cape Bridgewater (see our post here) the need to mandate the proper measurement of turbine low-frequency noise and infrasound as part of any reasonable noise standard is simply common sense.

The direct link between very low-frequency turbine noise, sleep disturbance and annoyance was well and truly established by Neil Kelley & Co over 25 years ago (see posts here and here and here). And the wind industry knew all about it (see our post here).

But, the wind industry has steadfastly refused to be regulated by science, common sense or, especially, by any form of human decency (see our post here). Danish fan maker, Vestas went so far as to lobby the NSW Planning Department to remove any reference to low-frequency noise from its draft noise guidelines – as well as the entire section on human health – with Vestas stooge, Ken McAlpine admitting that: “the existing and well validated industry standard models for acoustic propagation are NOT designed to deal with frequencies at the low end of the audible spectrum” (see this article and our post here).

The wind industry’s approach to noise regulation can wrapped us as follows:

But – for the first time since the great wind power fraud kicked off – low-frequency noise and infrasound is about to appear on the wind farm noise regulation menu.

In Ontario, the lakeside county of Lambton has been speared with hundreds of giant fans. With turbines lobbed 550m from homes – wind farm neighbours have been slaughtered by turbine noise and vibration (see our post here). Locals there have been hammering their political betters for a better deal – and the Plympton-Wyoming Council has stopped to listen – introducing the kind of noise regulation that the wind industry has fought tooth and nail to avoid all over the globe. Here’s The Independent reporting on a win for common sense and human decency.

New bylaw will hold turbines companies to keep it down
The Independent
8 October 2014

Plympton-Wyoming’s proposed wind turbine noise bylaw is going where no regulation has gone before.

Council has given first and second reading to a bylaw which regulates the amount of noise coming from industrial wind projects. Council asked staff and the municipality’s lawyers to come up with the bylaw since much of the concern about the project has to do with the potential health effects of the noise coming from the turbine.

Clerk Brianna Coughlin says much of the regulation set out in the bylaw meets standards already set by the provincial government. “We can’t go beyond that,” she says.

But Plympton-Wyoming is going to hold the wind energy companies to a new standard. “The only difference (from the provincial standards) is the bylaw has mention of infra-sound which not regulated by the province right now,” says Couglin.

Infrasound is inaudible for most people but can be perceived by other senses and it is measurable according to some experts says Couglin.

Under the bylaw, if a resident complains about infra sound, the municipality would hire an engineer qualified to take the measurements before laying a charge.

Under the proposed bylaw, fines – if a company is found guilty – can range from $500 to $10,000 per offence and could exceed $100,000 if the offense continues. The municipality could also recoup the cost of the specialized testing under the bylaw.

Plympton-Wyoming Mayor Lonny Napper says that while Suncor Energy (which is developing the Cedar Point project in the municipality) has yet to comment on the inclusion of infrasound in the bylaw, he thinks it is necessary.

“We think it is our obligation to look after the health of the people,” he says. “You just can’t make rules and not cover everything.”

And he believes the proposed fines are appropriate. “It’s no worse than polluting,” he says.

Council will get another look at the bylaw Wednesday. Couglin says council could decide to hold a public meeting to get input or it could pass it without public comment that evening.

Meantime, the municipality also introduced a bylaw which would see Suncor provide a letter of credit for the value of the scrap metal for the turbines instead of providing a deposit.

The bylaw would also see Suncor pay building permit fees of nearly $300,000 for the 27 turbines it plans to erect near Camlachie.
The Independent

wind farm noise

Wind Turbines Cause Mental and Physical Anguish….Worldwide!

The symptoms they claim to have suffered may vary – including dizziness; increased blood pressure and depression – but the theme remains the same

Photomontage of a wind turbine; while some people have welcomed the wind farms, others say they have a detrimental effect on their health

Photomontage of a wind turbine; while some people have welcomed the wind farms, others say they have a detrimental effect on their health

It was Uplawmoor’s tranquillity and wild beauty that drew civil servant Aileen Jackson to settle there 28 years ago.

She’d had enough of life in the big city. Now she wanted somewhere quiet and rural to start a family, keep her horses, and enjoy the magnificent views down the valley and out to sea to the western Scottish isles of Arran and Ailsa Craig.

Then, two years ago, she says, it all turned sour.

A neighbour with whom she and her family had been friends decided to take advantage of the massive public subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

He put up a 64ft-high wind turbine which, though on his own land, stood just 300 yards from the Jackson family’s home.

The sleepless nights caused by its humming were only the start of their problems. Far worse was the impact on their health.

Aileen, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing – forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says.

Her younger son, Brian, an outgoing, happy, academically enthusiastic young man, suddenly became a depressive, stopped seeing his friends and dropped out of his studies at college.

A turbine beside a house near Hartlepool

A turbine beside a house near Hartlepool

Aileen’s husband William, who had always had low blood pressure, now found his blood pressure levels going ‘sky high’ – and has been on medication ever since.

So far so coincidental, you might say. And if you did, you would have the full and enthusiastic support of the wind industry.

Here is what the official trade body RenewableUK has to say on its website: ‘In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind farms.’

But in order to believe that, you would have to discount the testimony of the thousands of people just like Aileen around the world who claim their health has been damaged by wind farms.

You would have to ignore the reports of doctors such as Australia’s Sarah Laurie, Canada’s Nina Pierpont and Britain’s Amanda Harry who have collated hundreds of such cases of Wind Turbine Syndrome.

And you’d have to reject the expertise of the acoustic engineers, sleep specialists, epidemiologists and physiologists who all testify that the noise generated by wind farms represents a major threat to public health.

‘If this were the nuclear industry, this is a scandal which would be on the front pages of every newspaper every day for months on end,’ says Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative MP for Daventry who has been leading the parliamentary revolt against wind farms, demanding that their subsidies be cut.

‘But because it’s wind it has been let off the hook. It shouldn’t be.’

Wind Turbine Syndrome. Until you’ve seen for yourself what it can do to a community, you might be tempted to dismiss it as a hypochondriac’s charter or an urban myth.

But the suffering I witnessed earlier this year in Waterloo, a hamlet outside Adelaide in southern Australia, was all too real.

The place felt like a ghost town: shuttered houses and a dust-blown aura of  sinister unease, as in a horror movie where something terrible has happened to a previously thriving settlement but at first you’re not sure what.

Then you look to the horizon and see them, turning in the breeze…

‘The wind farm people said we’d be doing our bit to save the planet,’ said one resident.

‘They said these things were quieter than a fridge. They said it was all going to be fairy floss and candy.

‘So how come I can’t sleep in my own house any more? How come sometimes I’m having to take 15 Valium tablets a day? How come, when I used to be a pretty mellow sort of person, I’m now so angry it’s only a matter of time before I end up in jail?’

Aileen Jackson, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing - forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says

Aileen Jackson, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing – forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says

I’ve since heard dozens of similar stories from nurses, farmers, panel-beaters, civil servants, businessmen and forestry workers across the world, from New South Wales to Sweden and Pembrokeshire.

The symptoms they claim to have suffered may vary – dizziness; balance problems; memory loss; inability to concentrate; insomnia; tachycardia; increased blood pressure; raised cortisol levels; headaches; nausea; mood swings; anxiety; tinnitus; palpitations; depression – but the theme remains the same.

Here are ordinary people who settled in the country for a quiet life only to have their lives and property values trashed at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.

In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.

According to a study by U.S. noise control engineer Rick James, wind farms generate the same symptoms as Sick Building Syndrome – the condition that plagued office workers in the Eighties and Nineties as a result of what was eventually discovered to be the Low Frequency Noise (LFN), caused by misaligned air conditioning systems.

The combination of LFN and ‘amplitude modulation’ (loudness that goes up and down) leads to fatigue, poor concentration and dizziness.

And sleep specialist Dr Chris Hanning believes it stimulates an alert response, leading to arousal episodes throug the night that make restful sleep impossible.

‘I’ve spoken with many sufferers and sadly the only treatment is for them to move away from the wind farm.’

But if the problem is really so widespread, why isn’t it better known?

The short answer is money: the wind industry is a hugely lucrative business with millions to spend on lobbying.

What’s more, until recently, it benefited from the general public mood that ‘something ought to be done about climate change’ and wind power – supposedly ‘free’, ‘renewable’ and ‘carbon-friendly’ – was the obvious solution.

‘For years among the metropolitan elite it has been considered heretical to criticise wind power,’ says Heaton-Harris.

A wind farm in Lanarkshire - some UK wind farms have more than 100 turbines

A wind farm in Lanarkshire – some UK wind farms have more than 100 turbines. In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent

In the last decade, however, a host of evidence has emerged to indicate it is not the panacea it was thought to be.

From economists such as Edinburgh University’s Dr Gordon Hughes we are told that wind energy is unreliable and intermittent, with no real market value because it requires near 100 per cent back-up by conventional fossil-fuel power.

From research institute Verso Economics we are told that that for every ‘green job’ created by taxpayer subsidy, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.

It is said that thanks to the artificial rise in energy prices caused by renewable subsidies, expected to reach £13 billion per annum by 2020, at least 50,000 people a year in Britain are driven into fuel poverty.

And newly released Spanish government research claims that each turbine kills an average 300 birds a year (often rare ones such as eagles and bustards) and at least as many bats.

Yet still, despite collapsing share prices and increasing public scepticism, the industry continues to grow.

As Matt Ridley noted recently in The Spectator, there are ‘too many people with snouts in the trough.’

Aristocratic landowners have done especially well, such as the Earl of Moray (£2 million a year from his Doune estate) and the Duke of Roxburghe (£1.5 million a year from his estate in Lammermuir Hills).

South of the border, the Prime Minister’s father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield makes more than £1,000 a day from the eight turbines on his Lincolnshire estates. Even smaller landholdings can generate a tidy profit: around £40,000 per year, per large (3MW) turbine, for no effort whatsoever.

The biggest winners, though, are the mostly foreign-owned (Mitsubishi, Gamesa, Siemens) firms for whom wind was until recently a virtually risk-free investment.

In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent: no matter how little energy the turbines actually produce, in other words, healthy returns are guaranteed.

The debate over wind farms has aroused huge passions.

‘I’ve had death threats. I’m told I’m a witch. I’ve had my reputation trashed in the newspapers,’ says Australian campaigner Dr Sarah Laurie.

‘And for what? All I’ve ever done is say, “People are getting sick and something should be done to stop it.”’

When Aileen Jackson protested about some of the 23 new turbine projects proposed for Uplawmoor, she too was threatened.

An anti wind farm march, led by botanist David Bellamy

An anti wind farm march, led by botanist David Bellamy

Her car, she says, was vandalised; broken glass was strewn in her horses’ field; on two occasions she found her horses’ anti-midge coats had been cut off and slashed to pieces, the horses left covered in blood from where they rubbed themselves against a fence to stop the itching.

There’s no suggestion anyone locally concerned with wind farms was involved.

But legitimate proponents of wind farms are candid about the benefits.

‘There’s so much money to be made from these things, that’s the problem,’ says Jackson.

‘You’ll talk to the farmers and they’re quite open about it. “I’ve worked hard all my life and this is my pension plan,” they’ll tell you.’

What horrifies the communities threatened by wind farm developments is how powerless they are to stop them.

At Northwich in Cheshire, I attended the annual meeting of National Opposition to Windfarms (NOW), where lawyers including Lord Carlile (NOW’s chairman) advised local protest groups on how to challenge wind developments in their area.

The desperation was palpable. Current planning laws have a presumption ‘in favour of sustainable development’.

Wind farms are deemed vital to Britain’s EU-driven campaign to cut its carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Arguments about wind turbines’ public health impacts seem to cut little ice with planning inspectors.

The whole system has been rigged in the industry’s favour. One of the biggest bones of contention is regulation of acceptable noise levels.

In Britain, wind developers are bound by ETSU-R-97, a code that places modest limits on sound within the normal human hearing range – but which fails to address the damaging aspect of wind turbines: infrasonic (ie, inaudible) Low Frequency Noise.

But according to RenewableUK’s ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’ section, accusations that wind farms emit ‘infrasound and cause associated health problems’ are ‘unscientific’.

It quotes Dr Geoff Leventhall, author of the Defra report on Low Frequency Noise And Its Effects: ‘I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines.’

And Robert Norris, head of communications at RenewableUK, says: ‘There’s no evidence to link the very low levels of noise produced by wind farms with any effects on people living nearby.

Windfarms near you

‘Low frequency noise isn’t a problem. Extensive measurements taken repeatedly by scientists across Europe and the USA show the level of sound is so minimal that it can’t be perceived, even close up.’

However, Robert Rand of Rand Acoustics in Maine, who has done work on wind farms and been a consultant in acoustics since 1980, says: ‘All wind turbines produce low-frequency noise. The reason it doesn’t show up on wind industry tests is that the equipment they use excludes low-frequency noise.’

Dr John Constable Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation adds: ‘Audible noise disturbance from wind turbines, particularly at night, is known to be a very serious and fairly common problem, but low frequency noise is a mystery.

‘No one knows enough about it to say anything definite, one way or the other. This is one of those cases where more research really is needed.’

Dr Alec Salt, a cochlear physiologist at the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, has studied the topic since the Seventies.

‘The idea that there is no problem with infrasound couldn’t be more wrong,’ he says.

‘The responses of the human ear to  LFN are just enormous. Bigger than to anything in the audible range.’

Audible sound stimulates the inner hair cells on the cochlea (the auditory portion of the inner ear), but LFN triggers the outer hair cells, sending neural signals to the brain. Military special ops departments have known about it for some time.

A 1997 report by the U.S. Air Force Institute For National Security Studies notes: ‘Acoustic infrasound: very low frequency sound which can travel long distances and easily penetrate most buildings and vehicles.

‘Transmission of long wavelength sound creates biophysical effects, nausea, loss of bowels, disorientation, vomiting, potential organ damage or death may occur.’

Yet as Dr Phillips notes, instead of protecting the public, governments are actually complicit by encouraging wind farm development via generous subsidies.

‘It’s ridiculous. Here is an industry which is putting the health of tens of thousands of people at risk. If this were a pharmaceutical company sales would have been suspended by now. ’

His views are shared by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Robert McMurtry, once Canada’s most senior public health official: ‘Whatever you think about climate change, you can be sure that wind energy is not the solution.

‘There is an abundance of evidence to the show that infrasound from wind farms represents a serious public health hazard. Until further research is done, there should be an immediate moratorium on building any more of them.’

Newspaper columnist Christopher Booker called wind farms ‘the greatest political blunder of our time’ and ‘a monument to an age when our leaders collectively went off their heads’.

But a recent statement by energy minister Charles Hendry says: ‘Studies have considered the noise phenomenon known as amplitude modulation (AM) but show that to date only one wind farm in the UK has presented a noise nuisance to residents. The issue has since been resolved.

‘We will keep the issue of AM under review and welcome the additional research on AM that RenewableUK have commissioned,’ in answer to a parliamentary question from Chris Heaton-Harris.

Heaton-Harris is not impressed.

‘Wind farms are destroying people’s lives, destroying the environment, destroying the economy – but instead of opposing it, all three main political parties are committed to building more of them.

‘And it’s not accidental. This is a stitch-up between the wind lobby and its friends in Parliament and it’s an outrage.

‘It’s the biggest health scandal of our age and the metropolitan elite just don’t care.’

An earlier version of this article showed an image of some countryside in Bedfordshire that appeared to show two wind turbines close to some houses.  In fact, this picture was an artist’s production image for an illustration in the magazine and should not have been published.  There is only one turbine in that position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2199284/Wind-farms-Are-wind-farms-saving-killing-A-provocative-investigation-claims-thousands-people-falling-sick-live-near-them.html#ixzz3FkoQeYpO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

By-Law Created, to Protect Residents from Harm from Industrial Wind Turbines!

New bylaw will hold turbines companies to keep it down

FRONT PAGE | NEWS.

n-wind-turbines
Plympton-Wyoming’s proposed wind turbine noise bylaw is going where no regulation has gone before.

Council has given first and second reading to a bylaw which regulates the amount of noise coming from industrial wind projects. Council asked staff and the municipality’s lawyers to come up with the bylaw since much of the concern about the project has to do with the potential health effects of the noise coming from the turbine.

Clerk Brianna Coughlin says much of the regulation set out in the bylaw meets standards already set by the provincial government. “We can’t go beyond that,” she says.

But Plympton-Wyoming is going to hold the wind energy companies to a new standard. “The only difference (from the provincial standards) is the bylaw has mention of infra-sound which not regulated by the province right now,” says Couglin.

Infrasound is inaudible for most people but can be perceived by other senses and it is measurable according to some experts says Couglin.

Under the bylaw, if a resident complains about infra sound, the municipality would hire an engineer qualified to take the measurements before laying a charge.

Under the proposed bylaw, fines – if a company is found guilty – can range from $500 to $10,000 per offence and could exceed $100,000 if the offense continues. The municipality could also recoup the cost of the specialized testing under the bylaw.

Plympton-Wyoming Mayor Lonny Napper says that while Suncor Energy (which is developing the Cedar Point project in the municipality) has yet to comment on the inclusion of infrasound in the bylaw, he thinks it is necessary.

“We think it is our obligation to look after the health of the people,” he says. “You just can’t make rules and not cover everything.”

And he believes the proposed fines are appropriate. “It’s no worse than polluting,” he says.

Council will get another look at the bylaw Wednesday. Couglin says council could decide to hold a public meeting to get input or it could pass it without public comment that evening.

Meantime, the municipality also introduced a bylaw which would see Suncor provide a letter of credit for the value of the scrap metal for the turbines instead of providing a deposit.

The bylaw would also see Suncor pay building permit fees of nearly $300,000 for the 27 turbines it plans to erect near Camlachie.

Dr. Robert McMurtry, and Health Researcher, Carmen Krogh…..More Amazing Work Published.

Many Warm Thanks to Carmen Krogh, and Dr. McMurtry, for their ongoing efforts, to bring some resolution to the problems residents are having, because of their proximity to Industrial Wind Turbines.

Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of wind turbines

  1. Robert Y McMurtry1,2
  2. Carmen ME Krogh3

  1. 1Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada

  2. 2Prince Edward County, Family Health Team, Picton, Canada

  3. 3Independent health researcher, Killaloe, Canada
  1. Robert Y McMurtry. Email: rymcmurtry1@gmail.com

Summary

In an effort to address climate change, governments have pursued policies that seek to reduce greenhouse gases. Alternative energy, including wind power, has been proposed by some as the preferred approach. Few would debate the need to reduce air pollution, but the means of achieving this reduction is important not only for efficiency but also for health protection. The topic of adverse health effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines (AHE/IWT) has proven to be controversial and can present physicians with challenges regarding the management of an exposure to IWT. Rural physicians in particular must be aware of the possibility of people presenting to their practices with a variety of sometimes confusing complaints. An earlier version of the diagnostic criteria for AHE/IWT was published in August 2011. A revised case definition and a model for a study to establish a confirmed diagnosis is proposed.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).

No Funding Should be Given to Any Organization, that Supports Agenda 21

WWF ACCUSED OF FUNDING ANTI HUMAN RIGHTS SQUADS THAT ‘BEAT AND KILL’ CAMEROON TRIBES

A leading human rights charity has alleged that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is causing the displacement of traditional tribal people by funding squads who “beat and kill” natives for living in newly established “conservation zones” designated to protect wildlife.

The accusations made by Survival International relate to the displacement of the Baki Pygmie people in Cameroon, whose ancestral lands have now been designated “protected areas” to defend wildlife from poachers. Although the Baki have coexisted with the forest and it’s wildlife for “countless generations”, government poaching squads have treated the tribesmen harshly over the past decade, and the WWF stands accused of complicity in the abuse of their human rights.

The United Nations requires the WWF to prevent or mitigate “adverse human rights impacts directly linked to its operations”, but as Breitbart London was told by a Survival spokesman: “the facts suggest the WWF just haven’t put measures into place to prevent these abuses”.

According to Survival, the squads, which put the rights of animals above the rights of ancient tribes, wouldn’t be able to operate without the extensive funding and administrative assistance provided by the WWF to the Cameroonian government. As we were told: “the WWF has known about this for ten years or more”, and have until recently failed to act.

A Baka man told Survival, “The forest used to be for the Baka but not anymore. We would walk in the forest according to the seasons but now we’re afraid. How can they forbid us from going into the forest? We don’t know how to live otherwise. They beat us, kill us and force us to flee to Congo.”

Survival also told Breitbart London: “Many Baka have now asked us to publicise their plight as widely as possible, and to tell WWF’s supporters so that they can take action”

Both parties are now participating in a Human Rights Commission inquiry, but this has only come after months of the WWF dragging their feet, say Survival. A press release by the WWF claimed they were “disturbed” by the claims and had been offering assistance since March, but the Survival spokesman told us: “the investigation WWF suggested to us was entirely biased… there was no intention to publish the results.”

“The WWF has claimed Survival has to initiate this enquiry, but that isn’t true. They could have done it themselves at any time over the past ten years – it’s shocking”.

For the duration of the inquiry, which is being chaired by WWF funding recipient the Cameroon government, the wildlife charity will continue to pay for the squads which have caused the controversy. Meanwhile therefore, the purportedly illegal eviction of the tribal people from their homelands in the name of “conservation” will continue unabated.

Waubra Foundation Speaks About Health Risks From Wind Turbines!

Wind farms: NEW HEALTH WARNING issued

eol-torture

The Waubra Foundation warns again wind turbine manufacturers, developers, acousticians and governments worldwide

waubra-logo
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/

Important letter date august 10th 2014 from Waubra Fondation to Ms Katarina Dea Zetko,
Civil Initiative for the Protection of Senožeška Brda (Slovenia):
http://www.senozeska-brda.si/

“In my opinion, based on my first hand knowledge of what has happened to wind turbine neighbours in Australia and elsewhere internationally, this is a recklessly irresponsible and dangerous plan and will inevitably result in serious adverse health effects for citizens of Slovenia who are neighbours of such turbines, out to significant distances. This is happening around the world, and I know of no reason why Slovenian citizens will not have the same adverse health impacts being reported internationally.
Breaches of UN Convention Against Torture
Decisions made by public officials to approve such an unsafe development, or to allow a development to continue to operate in spite of directly causing adverse health consequences such as sleep deprivation and “sensory bombardment from noise”, could be held to be breaches of the UN Convention Against Torture. Both “sleep deprivation” and “sensory bombardment from noise” have been acknowledged as methods of torture by the Physicians for Human Rights. The UN Committee Against Torture has also specifically acknowledged that sleep deprivation is used as a method of torture”.
Download letter here

Windweasels Always Try to Deny the Health Experts that Don’t Back up Their Lies!

An inconvenient study draws fire from the wind/climate coalition

Measuring the effects of low-frequency sound (LFS) on the inner ear, WINDFARMS
An inconvenient study draws fire from the wind/climate coalition

Author
By Guest Column –Mark Duchamp October 6, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
On October 1st and 2nd, two leading UK newspapers wrote about a new study from the University of Munich which found a way of measuring the effects of low-frequency sound (LFS) on the inner ear (1). This is an important discovery in that it could lead to progress in the understanding of hearing loss, an impairment that affects millions of people and causes much grief.

One of the most controversial sources of LFS lies in the nacelles of wind turbines and around their huge moving blades. Yet, governments stubbornly refuse to investigate their effects on health, thus protecting the wind industry and unprotecting the citizens. So, with reason, the authors of the press articles titled: “Could living near a wind farm make you DEAF?” and “Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage”. This is a legitimate way of blowing the whistle, in a world where the wind/climate coalition has successfully blocked official research on LFS emitted by wind turbines since the Kelley studies in 1985-1987.

When health authorities refuse to measure accurately infrasound and low-frequency noise emitted by wind turbines, they are obviously protecting the wind industry. But they are also in breach of the criminal codes of most countries, which contain provisions for doing no harm to people, particularly of a physical nature. There is such a wealth of first hand reports of harm to health, chronic sleep deprivation and home abandonment from rural residents (2); there is such a number of relevant studies (3) that politicians can’t just sit there and deny, deny, and deny that serious harm to human health is occurring. They MUST repeat the experiments of the U. of Munich study (1), but in the field this time, next to wind turbines, using actual LFS pulses emitted by these machines, including infrasound. Length of exposure is key, as windfarm neighbours are submitted to this bombardment 24/7 when the wind is blowing and turbines are operating, and this over many years. Thus, the research should span over one year, minimum, and be conducted at various installations: some brand new, some with 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 years of operation, with victims who have lived there since their inception.

World-renowned ear specialists Alec Salt and Jeffery Lichtenhan wrote last year to the health authorities of the State of Victoria, Australia: “There are a number of false statements in your report. One severe example is “…the available evidence does not support claims that inaudible sounds can have direct physiological effects”.

“Below we have provided citations to six publications from our group where we showed how the ear responds to low-frequency sounds up to 50 dB below the levels that would be heard. The experimental methods that were used are well established in the field of auditory physiology. Three of the below citations were peer-reviewed and published in some of the most well-respected journals in the field of acoustics and hearing science. Our publications, which were clearly neglected or conveniently overlooked, show that inaudible low-frequency sounds do indeed stimulate the ear and produce marked physiological effects”. (4)

So YES, the above newspapers did the right thing in blowing the whistle on the risk for windfarm neighbours of damage to their inner ears, which can lead to deafness. The risk exists. As a matter of fact, we have a written testimony of such damage reported by a chronically exposed resident from Germany.

The wind/climate coalition reacted strongly, trying to rubbish the articles which could hurt their business. They used superficial arguments, such as the fact that the U. of Munich study does not mention wind farms. Indeed it doesn’t, because it is about research into the physiological impacts of LFS in general: it does not have to list the possible sources of LFS.

The lesson to be learned is that the U. of Munich study has made an important discovery, and that its experiments need now to be repeated in the field, with wind turbines as the source of LFS stimulation.
References:

1)—University of Munich study: Low-frequency sound affects active micromechanics in the human inner ear

2)—The NASA/Kelley research: As early as 1982, authors find that low-frequency noise is the major cause of adverse health effects for residents living near wind and gas turbines

– Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen et al.: The results show that there is a low-frequency noise problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm

– Testimony of a turbine host: “Whenever we are staying at the new farmhouse and the turbines are operating [2.5 km away] I have trouble getting to sleep at night. Frequently, I wake up in the morning feeling desperately tired, as though I have not slept at all. Often I simply fall asleep from exhaustion but still wake up tired. On numerous occasions I experience a deep, drumming, rumbling sensation in the skull behind my ears which is like pressure and often a pulsating, squeezing sensation at the base of my skull. I also experience irregular heartbeat while I am trying to sleep and while I am relaxing (sitting or reclining) in our house. I did not have any trouble sleeping before the turbines started operating.

Away from that home, I have not ever experienced problems with my heartbeat or with the pressure pulse sensation in my head; and I sleep incredibly well by comparison. My tinnitus comes and goes when I am away from home, but whenever I am living at the new farmhouse it is a constant source of irritation when the turbines are running. Alida does not complain of dizzy spells or head pressure when we are away from home.”

– Testimony of Mrs Linke: The first turbines to be turned on at Macarthur were about 6‚Äì7 km from the Linke house. After a period overseas prior to the turbines being commissioned Mrs Linke returned home and immediately began feeling pressure in her ears, and began to experience sleep deprivation.

As weeks passed Mrs Linke began to experience quickened heart beat and an inner vibration. Symptoms such as buzzing ears, pressure, tight chest, rapid heart beat and vibration developed and sleep was disturbed. As time passed Mr Linke also began to experience symptoms. The noise from the turbines is described as rumbling, thundering, humming, thudding and roaring and was often heard over the TV.

– etc.

– Waubra Foundation: sleep deprivation and torture: Sleep deprivation (suffered by thousands who live near wind turbines) is used by certain regimes as a form of torture .

3)—European Heart Journal: evidence from epidemiologic studies demonstrates that environmental noise is associated with an increased incidence of arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

– Cherry Tree Wind Farm—Waubra Foundation Statement: Waubra Foundation CEO Sarah Laurie’s statement to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal hearing is the most comprehensive and up to date report on current research into the adverse health effects experienced by those living and working near industrial wind turbines, January 2013.

4)—Dr. Alec Salt, and Dr. Jeffery Lichtenhan: physiological effects of inaudible sound.