Noise & Infrasound

Wind Energy makes NO Sense…No Gain, Only Pain!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Economics of WIND ENERGY
Local Business & Economics Professor Urges Huntington County Plan Commission to Not Allow Wind Farms

James O'Donnell The following are the remarks of Jim O’Donnell, Professor Emeritus of Business and Economics, Huntington University.  This presentation on “The Economics of WIND ENERGY” was given to the Huntington County Planning Commission, on Wednesday, November 12, 2014.  His remarks are published here, in their entirety, with his permission.




“Greetings and thanks.”

“I’m speaking tonight as an adopted son of Huntington Co. But as that adopted son, I have struggled to understand why my chosen homeland would develop WIND ENERGY in the southeast part of the county. I guess it’s for the tax revenue, the few jobs that will come with it, and the lease payments to the severalfarmers who will permit turbines on their land. But as an investor and economist, I feel a little like the auto mechanic who’s being shown a car that a good customer wants to buy. Mechanically and economically, the purchase makes no sense to me, the mechanic, at all, but the buyer insists that he’ll get so many credits for buying the car that even if it never starts, he’ll make a bundle.”

“Warren Buffett is no auto mechanic or USED CAR salesman, but his name is known by many as a great investor. He’s chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and makes enormous bets on companies we all know, companies like Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, GEICO INSURANCE, Fruit of the Loom, Heinz Ketchup, Dairy Queen, and many more. He’s very smart and is, arguably, the most successful investor alive, maybe of all time.”

“He’s made about $15 billion dollars of investments in wind and solar energy in Iowa and Wyoming, according to financial publisher Bloomberg. He’s planning on INVESTING $15 billion more elsewhere in America. Soon.”

“His wind investments, he says, have treated him especially well. But they’ve treated his tax liabilities even better.”

“The June 4th, The Wall St. Journal quoted him before an audience in his hometown of Omaha, Nebraska. He said, “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.””

“Those are not the words of, say, Sally and Joe living in Huntington County. No, Buffett is one of the richest men in the world, one of the shrewdest investors in the world, too, whose team has analyzed wind energies economic and investment possibilities with a fine-toothed comb. And he finds WIND ENERGY, essentially, an economic wasteland, save for the tax credits. Now if Buffett thinks that, why would Huntington be making investments in WIND ENERGY? Because the county will increase its tax revenues, even if only by benefiting from tax breaks to the very rich, paid for my ordinary taxpayers. It simply does not make sense. I don’t even think it’s right. But it makes sense for Buffett and for Huntington County because their bottom line is increased.”

“Let’s try to understand Buffett’s and other very wealthy people’s attitudes towards “the tax credits” from wind energy? If we understand, then we’ll understand why Huntington Co. might be willing to help rich people take more from the government breast at taxpayers’ expense.”

“Back in 1992, Congress created the Wind Production Tax Credit, or the “PTC,” a small tax credit of about 2c per kilowatt hour that today is an even smaller $23 per megawatt of wind electricity generated, to nurture energy production in the then-infant wind energy industry. Earlier, government supported those who build structures, not energy production. Today, at least the incentive is the production of energy. Government incentives, like the PTC, are often used to promote young but crucial industries. That’s not the problem with the PTC.”

“The history of the PTC has been an off and on credit, renewed since 1992 by Congress for a year or two at a time. Then, it expires and fans of wind [no pun intended] get it renewed. It expired again last Dec. 31st. If we were to look at an honest graph of investments made in wind, we would see that it rises with the credit and collapses with its expiration. Moreover the infant industry it is meant to encourage is now more than 30 years old, kept alive by U.S taxpayers who keep paying to make it attractive for rich investors.”

“It’s important, too, to realize that the PTC can only be taken against “passive income” – that is, income from other investments by rich people and big companies. Wall St. bankers put together investors who want tax write-offs, which are provided by the PTC. Recall Buffett’s words: “we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.””

“Approximately $24 billion of Federal subsidies have poured into wind energy since its beginning over 30 years ago. These credits limit funds that might help find really viable sources of alternative energy. In other words, as an investor myself, I’m saying the PTC is a misplaced bet. The PTC actually blocks funding for other green energy technologies that hold more promise. Rather than helping another infant, but worthy technology, the PTC is a handout to rich people and WALL STREET.”

“But government largesse does NOT end with the PTC. Not by a long shot. Not in a government as friendly to green energy and as hostile to fossil fuels as the Obama administration is. In fact, rarely has a multi-decade old infant industry enjoyed such disproportionate favoritism. Even though the wind industry produces currently only about 3.5 to 4% of the country’s electricity, it receives 42% of the federal government’s electrical financial support.”

“Combined with other targeted incentives, the federal government, in fact, gives wind producers $56.29 per megawatt-hour, according to the federal government’s own Energy Information Administration – the “EIA”. By comparison, natural gas, oil, and coal power generation only get 64 cents per megawatt, while nuclear power receives $3.14.”

“Seemingly innocuous, the PTC gives wind companies $23 in subsidies for each megawatt-hour of electricity they produce. This money adds up quickly; it costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year; while wind energy also creates huge problems, too, with sound, noise, landscape blight, bird kill, bat kill and intermittentcy. On average, wind turbines are SPINNING only about 30% of the time and, ironically, can’t spin at all in high winds (Detroit Edison, DTE, to cite only one utility, turns their turbines off when winds exceed 45 mph.)”

“In addition to the support that wind power gets at the federal level, it gets huge support at many state levels, too. Currently, 30 state governments enforce mandatory purchases of wind, solar, or other green energies under so-called Renewable Portfolio Standards that require utilities to buy a certain percentage of their electricity from green sources, whatever the cost. This, of course, jacks up consumer’s electric rates.”

“We’ve all heard the saying, “there is no such thing as a free lunch,” and that APPLIES to government subsidies, too. When lawmakers give special tax breaks to their friends and favorite industries, they shift the tax burden onto everybody else left in the tax base. While subsidies may allow wind turbine makers to pump up their payrolls, such as putting a few people to work in Huntington Co., the rest of the economy suffers. Government subsidies divert labor and capital away from more productive areas of the economy, to those where cronies get richer, which slows overall economic growth – something I would think Hoosiers don’t like.”

“The PTC, when combined with federal and state benefits gives wind producers a great advantage over other energy producers. In fact, it exceeds half of electricity’s wholesale price in many areas of the country. True, more wind energy is being produced each year, and its cost, relative to other forms of electricity is becoming more competitive. But only because of massive subsidies and higher rates for consumers.”

“Federal and state subsidies are so high that they lead many wind farms to sell their electricity at a substantial loss, just to collect the tax credits. Many wind producers are literally paying utilities to buy their product — and yet they’re still turning a profit because the taxpayer foots the bill by providing credits and subsidies.”

“I have no ax to grind against the rich, but I don’t think their gains should come as a loss to great numbers of Americans through higher energy costs.”

“While wind’s tax credits may be great for Warren Buffet and his bottom line, it’s harmful for American taxpayers and very expensive to America’s energy consumers.”

“I really wish wind energy worked better. Many people, including me, think alternative energy, in time, will offer huge environmental benefits for our children and those who come after us. But right now, wind is a museum specimen of a government boondoggle, a monument to crony capitalism’s, a favor to the rich and powerful over the little guy or the average person.”

“Huntington Co. can MAKE MONEY on this, no doubt. We’ll get tax revenue, a few jobs, and a few farmers get lease payments for turbines on their property. Living off the government breast is just not how I want to make money and I think such activities fly in the face of Indiana’s character and Huntington’s, too, as a place that favors freedom and honest work. It’s won a reputation of late for free markets, low taxes, and for encouraging growth in the private sector. Indiana is and Hoosiers are enemies of senseless, wasteful spending. And Warren Buffett sees wind energy as senseless right now, except for the tax benefits it offers its investors. As conscientious, publicly-minded citizens of Huntington Co. who give of your own time and talents to consider what’s best for our county’s land, its people and its future, please don’t allow wind energy’s horrible economics to find a place to make a home.”

James O'Donnell James O’Donnell
Executive-in Residence, emeritus standing

James M. O’Donnell received his UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE from Brown University and his MBA from Columbia University. Professor O’Donnell is a certified public accountant and spent many years as an executive in the FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY with such firms as Fidelity Investments and the Dreyfus Corporation in Boston and New York, respectively.

Statement Re: Health Canada’s Study of Wind Turbine Noise, and Health

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Carmen Krogh, Brett Horner, 

Statement Related to Health Canada Study

November 10, 2014
Dear Prime Minister Harper, Hon. Minister of Health, Hon. Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral and members of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study,

On November 6, 2014 Health Canada posted on their website “Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results”.

We have been contacted by individuals from around the world who have expressed concern over content and the quality of this Health Canada web posting.

Please find attached our comments for your consideration.

“Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results” states:

“WTN annoyance was found to be statistically related to several self-reporting health effects including, but not limited to, blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, scores on the PSQI, and perceived stress” as well as related to “measured hair cortisol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.”

These findings are additional evidence which support the health effects “conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise” identified by Health Canada and disclosed by the Honourable Rona Ambrose in a June 30, 2009 letter.

In the upcoming weeks and months, it is our intention to release a series of commentaries and disclose information on the“Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results” and the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study.

In the meantime we have compiled the following relevant information to help inform those interested in Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study.

Health Canada has reportedly spent over 2 years and 1.8 million dollars to report findings which further support the conclusion that if placed too close to residents wind turbines can harm humans.

It is now time that Health Canada fulfill its stated responsibilities and take definitive action to protect Canadians exposed to wind turbine noise and help them maintain and improve their health.

Please look forward to our future series of commentaries and information on the “Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results” and the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise Study.

Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
Brett Horner, BA CMA
Ontario, Canada

Personal disclosure: We declare no potential conflicts of interest and have received no financial support with respect to the research and authorship of this commentary.
Attachment: Industry Led Government Supported_November 10 2014_Release FINAL

Wind Turbine Noise, is Indeed, Harmful to Human Health!

/ 1957chev / 5 Comments

Wind Turbine Noise a “Hazard to Human Health”: Alan Jones interviews Dr Jay Tibbetts

November 18, 2014 by

warning_health-hazard-405x300

Last month we brought you the story of how the Shirley Wisconsin wind energy project was declared a human health hazard. Now we share this interview with Alan Jones from 2GB with the Vice-President of the Board of Health, Dr. Jay Tibbetts, where they discuss why the Medical Board had no choice but to declare the wind energy facility a human health hazard – not only to the community, but also to visitors and even a hazard to the health of passers-by.

263977-alan-jones

Alan Jones

Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide – AJ as he’s known – is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.

You can listen to the audio or read the transcript below.

Alan Jones AO: Just changing direction here, because to most people listening to the program, I suppose, right now, although not people west of the Great Dividing Range – this tends to be fundamentally meaningless. When you talk about wind power. And of course all this debate about renewable energy targets. And we know that they’e pushing up the price of power. We know that they’re driving businesses offshore. We know that you are finding and you are writing to me that your electricity bill going through the roof. We are losing our international competitive advantage because we used to have the cheapest energy in the world and now we’ve demonised coal fired power and run like lunatics to embrace wind power and solar power.

But of course if wind power was not injurious to health, why wouldn’t we put the turbines where the wind is, in Parramatta Road all Macquarie Street, or on Bondi Beach or in Pennsylvania Avenue? We have a Federal Energy Minister Macfarlane, who cares nothing about the issues which drive from wind power. Indeed he sent a letter to Coalition members, Senators and staff recently which said: “Please find attached and below a standard letter in response to renewable energy target queries”. That is the argument that these targets should be abolished. And this is what he has told them. “The renewable energy sector should have greater clarity. By removing the need for a review of the target every two years, this proposal” – and he outlines some rubbish – “would ensure a doubling of new large scale and new small-scale renewable energy production under the renewable energy target scheme between now and 2020. In short, there will be more new renewable energy installed over the next six years of the renewable energy target than has been installed in the first 14 years of the scheme.” Well that will get him a job when he doesn’t stand at the next election with one of these companies on a big salary. But in other words more wind turbines and your electricity bill goes higher and higher.

What about the health consequences? Dr Michael Crawford is the director of the Waubra Foundation. They’ve been trying to alert government to health risks of wind power. They wrote very recently to Prime Minister Abbott, October 30, part of the letter says,

“The Australian government’s policies and practices in relation to wind farms are devastating many rural families through prolonged sleep deprivation and other health impacts”.

The letter says, “prolonged sleep deprivation is recognised as torture by the United Nations and thus all Australian public officials are prohibited from causing it by section 274.2 of the Australian Criminal Code. The Clean Energy Regulator public officials may face primary liability, under section 274 of the Criminal Code Act, for failing to avert situations which amount to torture by continuing to issue renewable energy certificates, for developments where persisting sleep deprivation has been reported”.

The letter goes on, the UN committee against torture explains why sleep deprivation is torture and they quote – this letter has gone to the Prime Minister –

“Sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory, and cognitive functioning, decreased short-term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression”.

This is a UN committee. The letter to the Prime Minister said, of October 30 this year,

“The harm is being done to Australians with the complicity of the Australian government agencies, and apparently with the knowledge and acquiescence of ministers in your government. The problem is not a matter of wind farms per se, it is about where they are built in relation to people and how they are operated with respect to harmful noise generation. Current siting and operational decisions are based on maximising revenue for developers …”

foreign developers, I might add,

“… while ignoring and denying or downplaying the harm being done to people. In other words, torture is being done for profit”.

I would have thought that’s a pretty serious letter. Serious allegations.

What does our AMA say, the Australian Medical Association? “The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infra …” – it’s run by a left-winger by the way, the AMA now – constantly criticising the Abbott government, but it says, “the available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infra-sound or low-frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they’re currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity.” And it goes on – the AMA.

I have a file here which you couldn’t jump over, of dreadful, dreadful letters from you people listening. I’ll just give you one. This is a woman who wrote to me, she is right next to a wind farm.

“Early this morning at 12

– this is awful –

12:30 AM, I woke suddenly to an excruciating pain in the muscle above my elbow on my left arm. I was lying on my right side. I hadn’t slept. The pain was enormous. I got out of bed. I went back to bed and the left arm pulsating with pain. At 5:45 AM I woke again. The sound of intermittent ring, like a distant bell and my body felt sore. When I got out of bed, my body was stiff and sore. Aching around my kidneys, and hips and back. The last episode has just reduce me to tears and today I’ve just had enough. I don’t want to have to leave my beautiful farm in a pine box. This is my home. This is my life. I am so frightened about what’s happening to me as in long-term damage to my health.”

Now I have letters like these a mile long. “I wonder” … – one woman wrote to a newspaper down in Victoria dismissing the concerns about wind energy and health. And a woman wrote, a mother,

“I wonder if Jo Smith,

that’s the woman who wrote the letter,

would be quite so cocky if she’d spent the last few nights sleeping to the east of the Macarthur wind farm. If she came and talked to us she’d hear of our sleep disrupted nights, because of the noise is incessant and debilitating. When you try to block it out it comes through the pillow. She’d learn that there are nights when the noise is heard above the television. She might feel sympathy for those who suffer headaches and nausea which began after the turbines started turning. There are people at least 5 km away who are feeling the effects and suffering sleep deprivation. Not every night is as bad, but this week’s been awful. This morning we drove our son to Tulamarine. We were all wide awake about 2.30, we couldn’t go back to sleep. I had a fitful two hours of sleep prior to that. In total I had about two hours sound sleep. How safe are we driving on the roads if we’re sleep deprived?”

The letters go on. There is a mile of them.

“I arrived home this afternoon from a couple of days respite from Macarthur wind factory to see all the turbines turned off at 4:30 PM. I thought great, no infra-sound. When I walked into my home it felt quiet and peaceful. The air was clear. At 6:15, I was at my computer and I thought a large truck was coming down my driveway. I had to stop what I was doing and listen for a moment to work out what was going on. The noise was horrendous. The rumbling and rattling and thumping and banging – and for a moment I wasn’t sure what it was. I drove down to the corner and saw the turbines turning. That was what the ruckus was about. They were all being turned on again. Since then and now at 8:55 PM I felt as though I could jump out of my skin or go a round with a punching bag. My muscles are tight and electric. I feel as though I want to release this enormous energy. The air in the house is electric. My body is vibrating. My voice is even vibrating when I speak. Now I know how the prisoners felt in the war when Germany used infra-sound to torture them. This is what it must’ve been like. To send them mad. To scramble their brains. To render them helpless. This is infra-sound.

You know it.

I know it.

And my independent acoustician knows it.

Turn the turbines off at night so we can get a good nights sleep. Do the decent thing if that’s possible.”

Letters everywhere. Letters everywhere.

Well Dr Jay Tibbetts is a practising physician – a member of the Brown County Board of Health. A medical advisor to the Brown County Health Department in Wisconsin, America.

He has been alerted to the position of the Australian Medical Association and has called them ‘misguided’.

He has indicated that over the last few years his Board, the Brown County Board of Health, has studied the deleterious effects of wind turbines on human health and has found that they constitute ‘\”a human health hazard” for “residents, workers, visitors and passers by”. In other words, this is coal seam gas all over again. Shove them up and don’t worry about them. Dr Tibbetts has written to the AMA about its stance. Not only does Dr Tibbetts have the US study to fall back on, he’s well-informed in terms of the Australian perspective. And basically Brown County Board members in the State of Wisconsin in America have declared wind turbines a public health risk*. Dr Jay Tibbetts is on the line from Wisconsin. Dr Tibbetts thank you for your time.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Thank you Alan and good morning Australia and Sydney.

Alan Jones AO: What do you make of all of this, it’s astonishing isn’t it, that political leaders can ignore that kind of on-the-ground, at-the-coalface evidence?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well that is the problem and as you said, it’s political, or at least a lot of it is. And it has to do with jobs and things that we don’t have a lot of control over at this time.

Alan Jones AO:  I mean you have this Shirley wind farm near the town of Glenmore. Duke Energy Renewables. Three families have had to move out of their homes rather than endure physical illness. And your Health Department is the statutory authority for licensing, for inspection and for enforcement. What does that mean for wind farms where you are?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well, this is a whole new territory. As you said, we have authority over facilities, specifically food establishments and so on, but the utility is a different thing. However we have a situation where we are really – we have no option but to declare this a human health hazard under Section 38 of the Public Health Nuisance Ordinance of Brown County. And I just want to read to you the section that we used that’s section B under 38.01,

“A 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”.

Now, you know there’s no question in my mind, nor is there any question in the Brown County Board of Health’s mind, that this fits the description of a human health hazard.

Alan Jones AO:  Yes, I mean, you have got on-the-ground evidence. I mean I read about a fellow called Darren Ashley, Darrell Ashley who lives within a mile of turbines there. He said his wife moved out of the house for several months until her symptoms disappeared. She has since moved back and the symptoms have returned. He said,

“I am getting worse and I can’t afford to move out. I’m just getting weaker. My legs, my back, my feet. My concentration is gone. Head pressure, earaches, headaches, it just goes on and on”.

How can government ignore this?

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well that’s the big question. And again it’s a political issue and it’s how we get to the authorities that we need to and unless there is enough of a cage rattle, things are not going to get done. I think right now we kind of poked a hole in a hornet’s nest and we’re going to hopefully make some progress here.

Alan Jones AO:   I mean the UN Committee Against Torture says – we are talking about sleep deprivation here – I’ve got a file that you couldn’t jump over. About these desperate people writing to me to say that you’re the only person we can talk to who’s prepared to listen. The UN committee against torture says sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory and cognitive functioning, decreased short-term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression. I mean all these things are related to me by the people who write to me, living within the vicinity of wind turbines.

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well that’s very true and yes, we have in our community, we distributed an informational letter to all the physicians in our community, in the County of Brown. And amazingly one large clinic refused to share the information with its providers because they had questions about whether any of these issues are really true.

Alan Jones AO:  Well that’s right, I mean the letter that was written here, to the Prime Minister, was referred to the Minister for Industry and Energy, rather than the Minister for Health!

Jay Tibbetts MD: Yes.

Alan Jones AO:  What!

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well what does that tell you?

Alan Jones AO:  What does that tell you? I mean, our Coalition here, the Abbott Coalition made an election promise – before the election last year, to ensure that research recommended ‘as a priority’ – multidisciplinary research – would be conducted into this issue, but of course the wind power industry have lobbied the government – nothing has happened. And these people write and complain – where on earth do we go to get health justice for these people?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well I want to correct one thing – we declared it a human health hazard (*not a risk).

Alan Jones AO:   Hazard.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  I interpret a risk being something you could take and not take. These people have no option. They live in an area that is a human health hazard.

gpgwindturbines026

Alan Jones AO:   Good on you.

Jay Tibbetts MD: So they don’t have any option.

You asked, where we go from here. I think the best thing is, right now, to use some of the information that Rick James has given us. He states that:

“wind turbines produce infrasound at significant levels where an indicator is a human health response”.

His conclusion is, based on the above,

“it’s reasonable to conclude that the adverse health effects reported by members of the Shirley community are linked to the operation of the Shirley wind project turbines. While there may be debate about the precise mechanism that causes these sounds to induce the symptoms, it is clear from this study and others conducted in different parts of the world by other acousticians, that acoustic energy emitted by the operation of modern, utility scale wind turbines is at the root of adverse health effects”.

Now his solution, if you will,

“following the precautionary principle, it is concluded that the operation of Shirley wind project is exposing the community members to acoustic energy that can be linked to the reported adverse health effects. It’s similar to other historical problems and other infrasound sources. And the only method available to protect the community’s health, is not to operate the wind turbines close to homes.

Alan Jones AO:  That’s it, that’s it.

Jay Tibbetts MD: For that to occur, either the utility must terminate operations, or it should operate a buffer zone – which you and I and everybody else knows does not exist in this point in time – between the wind turbines and the closest residential properties.  Rick …

Alan Jones AO:   That’s it, that’s it. Yes but – sorry just interrupting- earlier this year – so you’re talking about that survey – earlier this year, the Irish Department of Health, the Chief Medical officer warned in Ireland, that

“people who live near wind turbines risked having their health and psychological well-being compromised”.

And the Irish Examiner newspaper reported that following a review of research on the effects of wind turbine noise on human health, the deputy chief medical officer said

“there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines”.

And they called the wind turbine syndrome:

“a condition suffered by people living within earshot of the noise made by wind turbine blades as they spin around”.

Now if it weren’t a risk, why not put them on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well of course – then you have the option of avoiding them.

Alan Jones AO:  Yes. Just Amazing.

Jay Tibbetts MD: These people don’t have that option.

Alan Jones AO:  No option at all.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  They’re living in this stew, if you will.

Alan Jones AO:  Yes, human health hazard – a stew, a stew.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  That’s exactly what the motion was – a human health hazard.

Alan Jones AO: Good on you. Good to talk to you. And thank you for your time and we may need to talk again.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Very well, and we will certainly be available to do it any time.

Alan Jones AO:  There he is Dr Jay Tibbetts, the Vice President of the Brown County Health Board in Wisconsin. They’ve declared wind turbines a human health hazard. We’re asking poor Australians, defenceless Australians, to just cop it. And in Canberra, Macfarlane and Co. They write to the Prime Minister, and the letter gets to the Department of Energy, the Minister of Energy, not the Minister for Health.
2GB

For a detailed discussion on the Brown County Board of Health’s declaration that:

“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.” – see our post here.

The impacts of turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are known and obvious to those unfortunates living in what have become sonic torture traps. But, for the uninitiated, it’s like trying to explain a migraine to someone who’s never had a headache.

It’s the incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound generated by giant industrial wind turbines that features as the most common source of complaint from those now forced to live next to wind farms: 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).

sleeping baby

Human beings place enormous value on silence. A while back we covered a piece from The Economist that argued that it simply makes good business sense to keep the noise down (see our post here).

As The Economist noted, humane societies have separated noisy activities since the time of the ancient Greeks – booting roosters, tinsmiths and potters out of Greek cities – and, in later times, organ grinders out of London.

In Australia today, roosters are banned in cities, suburbs and in most country towns.  They have a body clock set earlier than most people and have a routine habit of waking up the whole neighbourhood.  Faced with an errant rooster, authorities are quick to act against Foghorn Leghorn & Co on PUBLIC HEALTH GROUNDS.

foghorn

Planning laws in most States prevent panel beaters from operating in built up areas before 8am and after 6pm.

And – either by operation of EPA regulations or planning laws – there is a total ban on the operation of chainsaws and lawn mowers in cities, suburbs and most towns.  That strictly enforced prohibition operates, in Victoria, for example, Monday to Friday: before 7 am and after 8 pm; and on weekends and public holidays: before 9 am and after 8 pm.

So why then is it that hard-working rural people – who live in very quiet night-time environments – are bound to put up with this, night after merciless night?

As we’ve pointed out there’s nothing “odd” about the impact of incessant low-frequency noise on human health.  Neil Kelley was all over the relationship between turbine generated low frequency noise and sleep disturbance over 30 years ago (see our posts here and here). And noise-induced sleep disturbance has long been defined by the WHO: “as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being” (see our post here).

So, if night-time noise isn’t a health problem, then why is it that there are strict rules about the permitted times for operating chainsaws and lawn mowers – rules that keep roosters out of towns and cities – and rules that mean the plug gets pulled on rock bands and music venues at midnight in residential areas?

But this is to comment on the noise that wind farm victims get to hear, whereas much of the acoustic energy emitted by giant turbines is not heard, but felt: which, by definition, is referred to as “infrasound”. Infrasound has been the wind industry’s “elephant” in the room – it’s made sure to bury it by drafting noise standards that ignore it; and, when hit with the evidence, lying about its impacts – but that line of “defence” is unlikely to last much longer (see our post 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:

wind farm noise

Lawyer, Julian Falconer, Challenges Constitutionality of Wind Turbine Approval Process

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario’s wind farm approval process faces constitutional challenge

Drew Hasselback | November 17, 2014 

Julian Falconer, no stranger to public interest cases, represents families challenging the development of three wind farms near Lake Huron

Photo: Peter J. Thompson/National PostJulian Falconer, no stranger to public interest cases, represents families challenging the development of three wind farms near Lake Huron.

Governments love windmills, people who live near them hate them. The result is a beautiful recipe for lawyers.

On Monday, lawyer Julian Falconer will rise in a London, Ont. courtroom to ask for a judicial order blocking the development of three wind farms near Lake Huron.

Mr. Falconer is one of the country’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers. He represented the Smith family in a lawsuit into the death of Ashley Smith in custody. He worked on the Ipperwash Inquiry. He represented Maher Arar in a suit against the federal government over his rendition and torture in Syria. The list goes on. Point is, Mr. Falconer takes a special interest in holding government to account.

On Monday he’ll be taking on windmills. He wants Ontario’s Divisional Court to overturn the regulatory approvals of three projects, the St. Columban Wind and K2 Wind Energy project in Huron County, and the SP Armow Wind project near Kincardine, Ont.

His clients, who live near the projects, fear the noise and vibration of the wind turbines will trigger a host of serious health problems. Mr. Falconer will argue in court that Ontario’s process for approving wind farms violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Provincial legislation says anyone challenging a wind farm project before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal must prove “serious harm” to human health. Mr. Falconer says that threshold is unfair because it is too high.

“The effects of wind turbines are felt in the most private and personal areas of residents’ lives, in their homes and beds, where the state has its lowest interest in intrusion,” Mr. Falconer submits in his written argument.

The Charter argument is a fairly new wrinkle in the fight against wind farms. But litigation itself isn’t. When the Divisional Court rules on the appeal, its decision will join the more than 30 Canadian reported court cases that have dealt with wind turbines — a number that shoots to nearly 100 when you include hearings before Canadian regulatory tribunals.

Wind farm opponents haven’t had a great track record in the courts. Until now, the biggest anti-turbine victory involves the Ostrander Point GP Inc. project in Prince Edward County. Opponents claim wind farms cause numerous health problems, but the Ostrander project was blocked after the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists successfully argued that construction of the project would cause “serious and irreversible harm” to a population of Blanding’s turtles. The case is under appeal. A hearing takes place next month at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The mighty Blanding’s turtle may have succeeded where humans have so far failed. Wind farm opponents claim industrial turbines cause a litany of health problems to nearby residents — higher blood pressure, stress, tinnitus, loss of sleep, and migraine headaches. Yet a Health Canada study on wind farms released earlier this month found no direct links between turbines and health problems.

“It’s pretty clear that after doing this fairly exhaustive study they found no causative links between wind turbine noise and all these other health impacts,” says Jack Coop, a lawyer with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP who has represented wind farm proponents.

But wait a sec. The Health Canada study connected wind turbine noise with reports of “annoyance.” People exposed to such annoyances were more likely to report stress-related health effects. Mr. Coop says that doesn’t go far enough to give opponents the evidence of serious harm they would need to block projects.

“While the study hints that there could be a connection, it doesn’t make any finding of a serious impact,” Mr. Coop says. “In fact, it strongly suggests that the impacts are no different than what people experience from road noise.”

Eric Gillespie, who has represented project opponents in most of the wind farm cases in Ontario, disagrees. He says the Health Canada study bolsters the position of his clients.

“The authors have found a statistically significant relationship between industrial wind turbine noise and annoyance leading to reports of high blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus, and stress effects,” Mr. Gillespie says. “This is the first time in Canada that those types of effects have been scientifically linked to wind turbine noise exposures.”

Whether turbines merely “annoy” or are the source of significant harm to human health won’t be an issue if Mr. Falconer succeeds during the three-day hearing that begins Monday.

In his written argument, he says the need for the Health Canada study demonstrates that governments haven’t yet determined whether wind turbines affect human health. This “knowledge gap” offends a “precautionary principle” in which governments should not implement policies unless they’re sure those policies pose no health impacts.

Counsel for St. Columban Energy LP, Darryl Cruz and Eric Pellegrino of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describe the constitutional challenge as a “last resort” to address a problem wind turbine opponents can’t fix: “Namely, that they failed to adduce any evidence capable of establishing that the Project will cause harm to human health at any level of materiality.”

When the constitutional hearing closes Wednesday, the matter will be left in the hands of Ontario’s Divisional Court. Regardless what the court decides, opposition to wind farms will remain. Lawyers will come up with new ways to challenge turbines. Wind farm litigation will continue to go around. And around. And around. And around.

Financial Post
dhasselback@nationalpost.com
twitter.com/legalpost

Residents Being Tortured by the Noise from Wind turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

OCOTILLO RESIDENTS SAY WIND TURBINE NOISE CREATES “LIVING HELL”

“It’s a horror beyond words; something you have to live to understand. Something must be done to stop the noise.” – Ocotillo resident Parke Ewing

November 14, 2014 (Ocotillo) – Residents in Ocotillo say that during windy conditions in early November, noise from wind turbines is making their lives unbearable.

Jim Pelley captured the loud noise on videotape, juxtaposed with footage of Pattern Energy’s Glenn Hodges selling the project to supervisors in Imperial Valley by claiming that noise would not be an issue due to setbacks.  “The project was sold on the understanding to be five miles from the community of Ocotillo,” Pelley wrote on a Youtube post. “We have turbines as close as 1/2 mile, we are now forced to live with the horrible noise of 112 turbines when the wind blows.”

His neighbor, Parke Ewing, says his complaints to Imperial County and Bureau of Land Management officials, as well as Pattern Energy, have fallen on deaf ears, with no meaningful responses.

“The turbines have created a living hell to us as we try to continue on with our lives after the Ocotillo Wind Facility was constructed over our objections,” he wrote in a November 1st letter sent to officials at those entities.”Turbines 176 and 169 and others are so loud when the wind blows that they disrupt everything.  We can’t enjoy our property.  The turbines are even more disruptive to our lives than even we could have imagined. It’s a horror beyond words; something you have to live to understand.

Something must be done to stop the noise.  We are one of several families that have homes obviously too close to the turbines.  The turbines located near my home need to be removed or relocated.  We can’t go on trying to live our lives around the turbine noise.  No body, including people that have objected to Ocotillo Wind, should have to live with the noise when the wind blows.  We just can’t do it any longer…”

Ewing asked the County, BLM and Pattern to mitigate the problem, noting that the sound is much louder than Pattern’s description of a dishwasher in the next room. “Whoever’s idea of using that term as an adequate description of the noise we would experience has obviously never lived near a turbine in their life.. Let alone 112 “dishwashers” all running at the same time in the next room,” Ewing observed, adding that no officials have taken steps to measure the decibels, let alone measurements such as low-frequency infrasound.

“The turbine noise is creating a high degree anxiety in our lives.  We don’t believe it is lawful for this to continue,” the beleaguered Ocotillo resident concluded. “I invite any of you to visit our property when the wind blows and stay awhile. Live the experience as we do- try to talk across your yard over the crashing sound of 336 blades turning and listening to the turbines as they generate their very irritating noise, nobody should be forced to endure this torture.”

Update November 15, 2014:   After our story ran, we received this update from Parke Ewing the next morning, which reads in part:

“Believe it or not, of all days, after I contacted the site manager for Ocotillo Wind today, two representatives visited my home today for the first time.  They listened for awhile, as today was one of those very loud turbine days, their only comment after I asked was, TBD (To Be Determined). Still no return calls or letters from the County of Imperial or BLM.  A general manager for Pattern Energy, a Samuel Tasker, quit returning generic answers to me and Jim’s questions and concerns.  Carrie Simmons at BLM turned us over to him after we questioned one of her comments regarding the oil leaks and a few other issues.  (not noise)

Interestingly, I stood a hundred feet or so in front of a wind turbine yesterday and the noise was very much greater than standing underneath a turbine or even behind the turbine.  I assumed that the noise would blow away from me, not into me against the wind, just the opposite of what we would expect.  So since our home is in front of turbines 176 and 169 when the wind is coming from the west south west, we hear the turbines much more loudly than Jim Pelley, which is down wind.  Then when wind is coming from the east we hear turbine 174 more, because we are in front of that one, weird how that works.”

Open letter….Reaching Out to the Federal Government, for Help!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada

pm@pm.gc.ca

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay

Minister of Justice and Attorney General

mcu@justice.gc.ca

The Honourable Rona Ambrose

Minister of Health

Health Canada

minister_ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca

Copy:

Gregory Taylor, BSc, MD, CCFP, FRCPC

Deputy Chief Public Health Officer

Public Health Agency of Canada

Gregory.Taylor@phac-aspc.gc.ca

Sarah Rudolph

Child Rights and International

Division of Children, Seniors and Healthy

Public Health Agency of Canada

sarah.rudolph@phac-aspc.gc.ca

Ms Cheryl Gallant

MP Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke

cheryl.gallant.a1@parl.gc.ca

Ms Shellie Correira

Mother of a child at risk

shelliecorreia@gmail.com

May 5, 2014

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Ministers of Justice and Health,

Re: Open Letter on the UN Rights of the Child and Industrial Wind Energy

The purpose of this letter is to request a meeting with members from the Ministries of Justice and Health including the Public Health Agency of Canada as soon as possible to discuss protection of children at risk from exposure to industrial wind energy facilities.

I have corresponded with several Ministers including those from Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Justice and Attorney General regarding my concerns associated with wind energy development and children’s risk factors and Canada’s ratification in 1991, of the treaty on the Rights of the Child.

I was advised that Canada’s domestic implementation of its obligations under the Rights of the Child Convention is multi-faceted and includes “constitutional protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a variety of legislation, policies, programs and services at the federal and provincial/territorial levels.”

As well, I was informed the legislative implementation of the Convention falls under the

purview of the Department of Justice Canada. [Correspondence attached]

Attached is a submission provided to the Minister, Health Canada regarding the vulnerability of children to the effects of noise in general, and including risk factors specific to industrial wind turbines. [Health Canada_Risks to children December 27 2012 FINAL]

Another submission was made on behalf of Ms Shellie Correira. Attached is a copy of this submission plus the treating physician specialist’s opinion regarding her son’s risk from exposure to wind turbines. [Health Canada_Risks to children Correia May 15 2013]

Other submissions have been made on behalf of parents and communities which express parental concerns. These are available on request.

A review by Jan et al (2010) states:

“Animal experiments unequivocally show that sleep loss even for three or four days can adversely and permanently affect neurophysiological functions and neurogenesis.

This review summarises the increasing evidence … that chronic disturbances of sleep adversely affect brain development … Pediatric neurologists, the scientific community and the public must be aware of these recent scientific developments. Further studies are urgently required.” [Jan JE, Review article, Long-term sleep disturbances in children: A cause of neuronal loss. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 14 (2010) 380-390]

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that noise is an “underestimated threat that can cause a number of short- and long-term health problems…” [World Health Organization Noise Facts and Figures, Sited December 23, 2012, http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/facts-and-figures ]

Research indicates children’s ear damage, cognitive function and learning are affected by noise and there could be lifelong effects on academic achievement and health. Excerpts from The World Health Organization’s Training Package for the Health Sector on Children and Noise identify vulnerable groups of children at risk including the fetus and babies; preterm; children with dyslexia and hyperactivity. [World Health Organization, Children and Noise, Children’s Health and the Environment, WHO Training Package for the Health Sector, www.who.int/ceh ]

Children with pre-existing medical conditions such as autism, asthma, migraine, bronchitis, and epilepsy can be vulnerable to the effects of noise and/or stress and/or sleep disturbance. [See references below*]

There is a risk of noise-induced harm to children when industrial wind turbine facilities are sited in close proximity to family homes and schools.

I note that Canada played an instrumental role in drafting and promoting the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child. As a proud Canadian, I applaud this achievement.

Ms Correira and I look forward to the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Ministries of Justice and Health including the Public Health Agency of Canada as soon as possible to discuss protection of children at risk from exposure to industrial wind energy facilities.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of Ms Shellie Correira and other concerned parents and family members,

Carmen Krogh, BScPharm

1183 Cormac Road, RR4

Killaloe, ON, K0J 2A0

Cell 613 312 9663

 

Attachments:

Open Letter on the UN Rights of the Child and Industrial Wind Energy

Correspondence attached

Health Canada_Risks to children December 27 2012 FINAL

Health Canada_Risks to children Correia May 15 2013

Letter Physician Specialist

* Citations provided:

1] Cristina Becchio, Morena Mari, Umberto Castiello, (2010). Perception of Shadows in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders PLoS ONE | May 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 5 | e10582. Retrieved from  www.plosone.org

[2] Catherine Purple Cherry and Lauren Underwood. The ideal home for the autistic child: physiological rationale for design strategies. Autism Science Digest: The Journal Of Autismone, Issue 03 Retrieved from  www.purplecherry.com.

[3] Flavia Cortesi, Flavia Giannotti, Anna Ivanenko, Kyle Johnson (2010). Sleep in children with autistic spectrum disorder, Sleep Medicine 11 (2010) 659–664 Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/sleep

[4] Hartmut Ising, Martin Ising (2002), Chronic cortisol increases in the first half of the night caused by road traffic noise. Noise and Health 2002,4:16:p13-21 Retrieved fromhttp://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2002;volume=4;issue=16;spage=13;epage=21;aulast=Ising

[5] Bockelbrink A, Willich SN, Dirzus I, Reich A, Lau S, Wahn U, Keil T. (2008) Environmental noise and asthma in children: sex specific differences  J Asthma. 2008 Nov;45(9):770-3. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18972293

[6] Neut D, Fily A, Cuvellier JC, Vallée L (2011),. The prevalence of triggers in paediatric migraine: a questionnaire study in 102 children and adolescents. J Headache Pain. 2011 Nov 1. [Epub ahead of print] Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22042255

[7] Doreen Wagner, Velitchko Manahilov, Gunter Loffler, Gael E. Gordon, and Gordon N. Dutton, Visual Noise Selectively Degrades Vision in Migraine Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, April 2010, Vol. 51, No. 4 Retrieved from http://www.iovs.org/content/51/4/2294.full.pdf

[8] Ising H, Lange-Asschenfeldt H, Moriske HJ, Born J, Eilts M., Low frequency noise and stress: bronchitis and cortisol in children, Noise Health. 2004 Apr-Jun;6(23):21-8

[9] Gilboa T.Epilepsia. 2011 Dec 9. Emotional stress-induced seizures: Another reflex epilepsy? doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03342.x. [Epub ahead of print] Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150553

[10] Epilepsy Facts – Epilepsy Canada Cited March 2012, Retrieved from   www. epilepsy@epilepsy.ca

[11] Hartmut Ising, Martin Ising (2002), Chronic cortisol increases in the first half of the night caused by road traffic noise. Noise and Health 2002,4:16:p13-21 Retrieved fromhttp://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2002;volume=4;issue=16;spage=13;epage=21;aulast=Ising

[12] Neut D, Fily A, Cuvellier JC, Vallée L. The prevalence of triggers in paediatric migraine: a questionnaire study in 102 children and adolescents. J Headache Pain. 2011 Nov 1. [Epub ahead of print] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22042255

8 Attachments

Preview attachment Health Canada_Risks to children Correia May 15 2013.pdf

Health Canada_Risks to children Correia May 15 2013.pdf

Preview attachment Health Canada_Risks to children December 27 2012 FINAL.pdf

Health Canada_Risks to children December 27 2012 FINAL.pdf

Preview attachment Sprecialist Dr. Calvert’s letter.pdf

Sprecialist Dr. Calvert’s letter.pdf

Preview attachment Letter Rights of the Child May 5 2014.pdf

Letter Rights of the Child May 5 2014.pdf

Preview attachment Response Public Health Agency of Canada April 17 2014.pdf

Response Public Health Agency of Canada April 17 2014.pdf

Preview attachment Correspondance Feb 10 2014.pdf

Correspondance Feb 10 2014.pdf

Preview attachment Response Sept 22 2014 Risk to children IWT.pdf

Response Sept 22 2014 Risk to children IWT.pdf

Preview attachment Krogh_risk factors to children_industrial wind energy_Nov 5 2014.pdf

Krogh_risk factors to children_industrial wind energy_Nov 5 2014.pdf

Audiologists Explain Why Wind Turbine Noise harms the Ears…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Negative Health Effects of Noise from Industrial Wind Turbines: Some Background

This post, the first of a three-part series, provides a broad overview of the topic. The second installment will review the major research findings linking low-frequency noise and infrasound from industrial wind turbines with effects on health and quality of life. Part three will discuss the relationship between various health effects and the processing of infrasound by the ear and brain.[1]

By Jerry Punch, PhD, and Richard James, INCE, BME

wind turbine noise health

Cary Shineldecker was skeptical about the wind project the Mason County, Michigan, planning commission was considering for approval. His home, two miles from Lake Michigan, was located in an area where nighttime noise levels were around 25 dBA, with only occasional traffic and seasonal farmland noises. The rolling hills, woodlots, orchards, fields, and meadows surrounding his property contributed to its peaceful country setting. He voiced his skepticism about the wind turbinesrepeatedly in community meetings held beforeConsumers Energy was finally granted approval to construct 56 476-foot turbines, one that would be 1,139 feet from his property line, six within 3,000 feet, and 26 close enough to be visible from his property.

Cary and his wife, Karen, started to suffer symptoms of ear pressure, severe headaches, anxiety, irritability, sleep disturbance, memory loss, fatigue, and depression immediately after the turbines began operating.

Gradually, as sleep disturbance turned into sleep deprivation, they felt their home was being transformed from a sanctuary to a prison. Deciding to sell their home of 20 years, they put it on the market in March 2011, and it has remained unsold for 3-1/2 years. For the past year and a half, their nightly ritual has been taking sleeping medications and retreating into their basement to try to sleep on a corner mattress.

The Shineldeckers received few offers to buy their home, and recently accepted an offer that would mean a substantial financial loss. They are scheduled to go to trial against Consumers Energy, and if their case goes to settlement without a trial, they will likely be forced into a confidentiality agreement about their case.

MANY SUCH COMPLAINTS

Similar complaints of adverse health effects (AHEs) associated with living near utility-scale wind turbines have become commonplace in the U.S. and other developed countries. Energy companies in the U.S., motivated by lucrative tax subsidies available for developing wind resources as a form of green energy, are pushing aggressively to install more wind turbines, typically locating them near residential properties. Many rural residents now have one or more industrial machines that stand over 40 stories tall on the property alongside their home. Complaints about noise from people living within the footprint of wind energy projects are very similar to those experienced by the Shineldeckers.

Those who have never visited a wind project or who visit one only during the daytime often leave believing that the complaints of noise are unfounded, and commonly assume them to be psychologically motivated or a form of NIMBYism [2]. Those living near wind turbines say that unless one is willing to spend several nights in the area they have not experienced the noise that causes the complaints.

The Changing Rural Landscape

Green energy push in many states are making these images much more common

Prior to the installation of the wind turbines, these rural communities were typically very quiet at night, with background sound levels ranging between 20 and 25 dBA. After the turbines began operation, the noise levels jumped to 40 or even 50 dBA, and sometimes higher. It is common for wind turbines to be barely audible during the day, yet be the dominant noise source at night. Environmental sounds are quieter in the evening, lowering the background sound levels, and wind speeds tend to be higher at blade height during nighttime hours, which increases sound emissions. Further, nighttime weather conditions enhance sound propagation. The result is that at night wind turbines can be a significantly more noticeable noise source than during the daytime.

Commercial wind turbine blades produce aerodynamic noise in both the inaudible and audible range, collectively referred to as infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN). Although some of the audible noise is above 200 Hz, much of it falls into the low-frequency region around 0-100 Hz. Infrasound, generally considered to be inaudible, encompasses sound energy in the range from 0-20 Hz. It is measureable with either an infrasonic microphone or amicrobarometer. The frequency and amplitude of wind turbine noise depend mainly on the blade-rotation speed. Measurements show increased acoustic energy with decreasing frequency, reaching a maximum at frequencies under 1 Hz.

Promoters of wind energy frame it in agricultural terms that portray it asharvesting the wind. This framing leads to the belief that wind farms are a natural fit with agricultural land use.

do wind turbines make about as much sense as a nuclear reactor?

From this viewpoint, farmers should also be allowed to use their land to harvest the energy of the atom by hosting a small nuclear plant. Hosting a utility-scale wind turbine is not farming; it is operation of a commercial utility. The installation of utility-scale, energy-conversion machines requires strict zoning and regulation, as one would expect for a zoned industrial region. These machines are in no way similar to traditional agricultural equipment. Thus we consider the term industrial to be an accurate description of utility-scale wind turbines.

Wind turbines are often sited in regions where agricultural land use is intermixed with residential land use. A single wind energy utility typically consists of 40 to 60 wind turbines. Forty-five 2-MWatt turbines cover about 36 square miles of land. This requires only 10 to 20 farmers to sign leases for hosting one or more of the turbines, but may put several hundred non-participating farms and residential homes within the risk zone for noise disturbance.

While a few farmers or landowners in the host community benefit financially, many others—often at ratios of 20 to 1 or higher—find that the peace and quiet of evenings and nights that attracted them to the rural community is replaced with the unwanted consequences of audible sounds and inaudible infrasound.

In the final two installments of this three-part series, our goal is to explain the bases for a variety of health complaints that are being associated with the current practice of locating industrial-scale wind turbines as close as 1,200 to 1,500 feet from homes. In areas with a relatively long history of industrial wind turbines (IWTs), a distance of at least 1-1/4 miles (2 kilometers)—and more in areas with hilly terrain—is now considered necessary to avoid negative impacts on health.

jerry punch

Jerry Punch is an audiologist and professor emeritus at Michigan State University in the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders. Since his retirement in 2011, he has become actively involved as a private audiological consultant in areas related to his long-standing interest in community noise.

Richard James

Richard James is an acoustical consultant with over 40 years of experience in industrial noise measurement and control. He is an adjunct instructor in Michigan State University’s Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders and an adjunct professor inCentral Michigan University’s Department of Communication Disorders.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)

  1. Interested readers may wish to refer to the article, “Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know,” published in the July-August 2010 issue of Audiology Today, as a backdrop for this series↵
  2. Not In My Back Yard: NIMBY↵

Once Again….I have reached out to the Gov’t, to help My Son, and all Children!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

November 10, 2014

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Prime Minster Harper,

I am writing to you, as supporter and friend of the

Conservative party. I am hoping that you will be able to intervene to help protect

all Canadians from intrusive health damaging  noise from industrial wind projects.

As you know, I have a personal interest in this issue. The large Niagara wind

project near my home has just received approval. It is no coincidence that its

approval was announced immediately after Health Canada Issued its flawed,

fraudulent report which claims it’s research sows that “there are no health

problems” from wind turbines

.

This Health Canada report was funded to the tune of $2.1 million from the

Canadian taxpayers, and therefore as Prime Minster, you are ultimately

responsible for it, and the consequences which flow from it’s use in Canada.

It is inevitable that many MORE Canadians will be harmed from wind turbine

noise as result of this study which has been widely criticized for adopting

methodology designed to hide and deny the health problems, rather than

properly investigate them. It is telling that

x   Health Canada ignored the advice of professionals with expertise in this

are who are independent of the wind industry

x   Health Canada used various parties who have conflicts of interest

including commercial conflicts of interest with the wind industry, and did

not disclose them

x   Health Canada issued the report without the date, making it impossible for

others with extensive experience working directly in this area, to critique it

properly

x   The report gives very appearance of being “made to order” by the wind

industry and delivered by our government, in order to be able to continue

to knowingly harm vulnerable Canadian citizens, by pretending “there is

no problem”

With respect other project just approved near my home, the closest wind turbine

would be 550M from the center of our home. The wind developer has admitted

that it would be producing noise, at the maximum allowable levels. These

decibel levels were arbitrarily established, and only with healthy brains, in mind.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that the current levels of noise pollution

from wind turbines in Ontario are safe, and there are Ministry of Environment

Field Officers who have admitted these levels are not safe. No consideration has

been given to individuals, who suffer from sensory processing issues, such as

my son, Joey.

Joey’s specialist wrote a letter for me to share, which is enclosed, explaining that

the noise from a  wind turbine in close proximity our home would be very

harmful, for my son. The cyclical, and uncontrollable nature of wind turbine noise

is especially unbearable.

I also have realized, during my struggles with the Provincial government, and

their many branches, that there has been nothing put in place to protect anyone,

regardless of what problems may arise, as result of the industrial wind projects

being forced into areas where they are not appropriate. I have met, and spoken

personally, to Premier Wynne, Minister Chiarelli, Agatha Garcia ­Wright, from the

M.O. E., and many more gov’t branches, trying to get some sort of assistance,

in finding a solution to my problems, but to no avail. Getting help Federally, is my

only option, at this point, because the only suggestion they would give me, is

“get a lawyer”. Unfortunately, I live in Ontario, and we are struggling to pay our

ever­ growing electricity bills, on top of sky­rocketing prices for the basics that

families need. Paying fora lawyer is not something many families can afford,

and the Liberal government knows that.

As you can see, I desperately need help to protect my son. The recent Health

Study was woefully incomplete, and did not even mention children, or any type of

special needs individuals. Indeed children were explicitly excluded.

Please help us find a solution to this very serious problem – for Joey, as well as

for ALL Canadians.This Health Canada Report, needs to be withdrawn, and

immediately subjected to rigorous peer review, with all of the data made public

immediately, to professionals and researchers with expertise in this area.

Reviews of all the possible conflicts of interest of all involved with this report, need

to be conducted, and made public.

A failure to take these steps, and to allow the Health Canada study to escape

proper critical scrutiny and peer review could eventually lead to charges of public

officials being complicit with torture occurring, given the widespread occurrence

of serious prolonged sleep deprivation alone, That, along with all the other health

problems residents are experiencing and health practicioners such as Joey’s

paediatrician are warning about. Such possible legal action against public

officials is being seriously considered internationally.

Sincerely,

Shellie Correia, Founder and Director,

Mothers Against wind Turbines

Wind Turbines are Indeed, a Health hazard!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind turbines declared health hazard in Wisconsin

By Thomas Lifson

An historic first! Jack Spencer in Michigan Capitol Confidential writes:

…the Board of Health in Brown County, Wisconsin, where Green Bay is located, has declared a local industrial wind plant to be a human health hazard. The specific facility consists of eight 500-foot high, 2.5 megawatt industrial wind turbines.

The board made its finding with a 4-0 vote (three members were not present) at an Oct. 14 meeting after it had wrestled with health complaints about the wind plant for more than four years. Ultimately, the board’s ruling was based on a year-long survey which documented health complaints and demonstrated that infrasound and low-frequency noise emanating from the turbines was detectable inside homes within a 6.2-mile radius of the industrial wind plant.

Jay Tibbetts, a physician and a member of the Brown County Board of Health, said the board based its position that the turbines constitute a health hazard on the weight of evidence.

“I can tell you that we are absolutely not an anti-wind energy board,” Tibbetts said. “We worked on this for four and a half years before making this decision. Three families have moved out. I knew all of them. We also know that this isn’t only happening here. In Ontario 40 families have abandoned their homes to get away from the effects of wind turbines.”

According to Tibbetts, micro barometers were placed in homes located in the area surrounding the industrial wind plant. The purpose of this was to detect acoustic emissions, including infrasound and low frequency noise emanating from the turbines.

“They found that there were tones of infrasound and low frequency noise as far away as 6.2 miles from the nearest wind turbine,” Tibbetts said. “There were no complaints associated with the home that was 6.2 miles away, but there were complaints associated with one 4.2 miles away.

“We have 80 people on record who have made health complaints, including a nurse who is going deaf,” Tibbetts continued. “We can’t just ignore this.”

In addition to these problems, I am aware that wind turbines sin arid locales, such as the massive wind farm near Palm Springs, California, kick uop a lot of dust, aka particulate matter. Moreover, there is no mention of the toll on migratory birds that tend to follow the same wind patterns that wind farms are situated to exploit. Doug Schmidt points out:

Massive Wind Project Planned for Key Migratory Bird Corridor-Lake Huron

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
MEDIA RELEASE

Short-eared Owl by Ashok Khosla
The Short-eared Owl, a species listed as endangered in Michigan, is one of many birds using the area in Huron County slated for major wind energy expansion.
(Washington, DC, November 6, 2014) American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has raised serious concerns about a plan by Heritage Sustainable Energy, DTE Energy, Exelon Corporation, and NextEra Energy to construct additional commercial wind turbines in Huron County, Michigan, which could eventually result in up to 900 turbines in the area. This plan is advancing despite the fact that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) radar studies show vast numbers of birds migrating through or wintering in this area.
In an October 30 letter to the FWS Regional Director, ABC charged that the proposed expanded wind development—which already includes 328 turbines—threatens a major confluence of neotropical migratory birds and raptors, including federally protected Bald and Golden Eagles.
“Many species that are threatened or endangered in the U.S. and within the state of Michigan, such as the Piping Plover, Kirtland’s Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow, and Short-eared Owl, migrate through or inhabit this area. This triggers serious Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerns,” said ABC’s Dr. Michael Hutchins, National Coordinator, Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign.
“We have reviewed the recent radar studies conducted by FWS in this area and must conclude that Huron County is not an appropriate area for wind energy development, given the potential and substantial risks it poses to federally protected birds. If this is an example of ‘proper’ siting of wind energy development, then we wonder what criteria are being used to make such decisions,” Hutchins said further.
“An annual spring migration of thousands of eagles, hawks, and falcons travel through this area and congregate along the Huron County shoreline,” said Monica Essenmacher, President of Port Crescent Hawk Watch, a raptor conservation group in Michigan. “We have documented this occurrence since 1992, so there is a high likelihood of major raptor mortality from continued construction of these turbines.”

The ABC letter says that in addition to ESA-protected birds, vast numbers of other migrants also move through or breed in these areas. Although there is no current provision for a federal permit to harm or kill these birds (called a “take permit”) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), ABC suggests that the FWS should consider this option as soon as possible, so that it can be used as an additional tool for proper siting and operation of future wind energy facilities.

Under FWS’ current voluntary permitting guidelines, wind energy companies are not required to apply for incidental take permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or the ESA when the project sits on private property. ABC asserts that this is a loophole allowing wind developers to kill federally protected birds with impunity. To remedy this, the organization is calling for independent post-construction monitoring and for the institution of a permit process that imposes fines to developers who kill more protected birds than their permit would allow.
ABC supports the development of clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar power, but also believes that it must be done responsibly and with minimal impact on our public trust resources, including native birds and bats and particularly threatened, endangered, and other protected species. ABC supports Bird Smart Wind Energy, which emphasizes the importance of careful siting and mitigation to prevent unintended impacts to wildlife. As this study suggests, the risk to birds and bats can be substantial, depending on the circumstances. Another studysuggests even higher mortality.
Developers typically argue that they can effectively mitigate the impacts of wind development, but ABC—and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)—caution that most forms of mitigation touted by the wind industry have not yet been scientifically tested for their efficacy. ABC strongly agrees with the DOE’s recent statement that “…technologies to minimize impacts at operational facilities for most species are either in early stages of development or simply do not exist.”
Regarding the Huron County wind energy expansion, ABC has requested that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for the project and says that “… the voluntary (FWS) guidelines (must) be followed to the letter, which means consultation under Section 7 of the ESA, applications for incidental take permits under the ESA and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, a three-mile setback from any shoreline, and an Avian Protection Plan … before the companies are allowed to go ahead with any construction.”
ABC also asks that the wind energy companies share bird mortality data with the public. “At present, these data are being treated as proprietary information, but these are public trust resources being taken,” said Hutchins. “The public has a right to know.”
#
American Bird Conservancy is the Western Hemisphere’s bird conservation specialist—the only organization with a single and steadfast commitment to achieving conservation results for native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas. With a focus on efficiency and working in partnership, we take on the toughest problems facing birds today, innovating and building on sound science to halt extinctions, protect habitats, eliminate threats, and build capacity for bird conservation.