Noise & Infrasound

Waubra Foundation Speaks About Health Risks From Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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.”

РTestimony of Mrs Linke: The first turbines to be turned on at Macarthur were about 6–7 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.

When Windweasels Disobey the Rules, the Projects should be Cancelled!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Crookwell Crooks: Goldwind Slammed for its “Rules are for Fools” Approach

October 6, 2014 by 1 Comment

brando

The Gullen Range wind farm has been a disaster from the get go (see our post here) – with hundreds of homes lined up as sonic torture traps (seeour post here). There are 32 non-involved residences within 1.5 km of the turbines; about 60 within 2 km; and 118 within 3 km. Within 5 km there are about 240 non-involved residences.

The planning “process” has been high farce from go to whoa. The locations of 69 of the 73 turbines were changed from those authorised in the Project Approval, without the proponent, Goldwind bothering to seek approval for the changes; until after the event. Why bother when you’ve got the Department in your back pocket, hey?

The so-called “independent” Environmental Representative – Erwin Budde – whose job was to ensure compliance with the planning permit, is anything but independent. Budde – is the Director of a consultancy that has been flat-out working for the proponent since 2007. Budde was, apparently, quite happy to sign off on all the developer’s location changes, which the Department of Planning now accepts were unauthorised (see our post here).

In a “too late she cried” decision, the Planning Assessment Commission has slammed the developer for its flagrant breaches of its planning permit as “inconsistent with the intent and spirit of the Draft NSW Planning Guidelines.”

Here’s the Crookwell Gazette detailing the scale of Goldwind’s arrogant “rules are for fools” approach to wind farm development.

Commission comes down against wind turbine changes
Crookwell Gazette
3 October 2014

The Planning Assessment Commission which has investigated the non-compliance by Goldwind developers of the Gullen Range wind farm has come down heavily against the developers.

In its findings released today, Friday October 3, 2014, the Commission declared the application for modification of the original approval was “inconsistent with the intent and spirit of the Draft NSW Planning Guidelines.”

Further, the Commission found that “the application, if approved, would have significant visual impact on the non-associated residences and the proposed vegetation screening would not be able to mitigate the impact on all affected residences to an acceptable level.”

The Commission’s findings were signed by chairman Mr. Garry Payne AM and Mr. Richard Thorp.

In its finding, the Commission stated “it does not consider the benefit of the proposed modification outweighs the potential adverse impacts on the community, the rural and natural environment or on non-associated properties.”

The Gullen Range Wind Farm was originally approved by the Department of Planning in June, 2009.

This decision was upheld in an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

However, the developers placed 69 of the 73 turbines away from the originally approved plan, 68% by less than 50 metres, others of significant distance, up to 187 metres.

An Environmental Assessment of the changes made to the positions of many of the 70-some turbines recommended that approval for modification for most be given, with one to be the subject of negotiations with a neighbouring landholder, and another to be moved back to its approved position – 187 metres away.

Most of the turbines have already been commissioned, and the remainder are currently being wired for operation.

In the finding, Mr. Payne said the commission had to consider every modification application on its merits “even if a breach has occurred – which means the Commission must consider the application in the same way it would have done if the turbines had not yet been erected.”

During its investigations, the Commission met with the developers, who claimed that project approval only provided an indicative turbine layout, and that the final layout is consistent with the approval.

The Commission had meetings with the Department of Planning, with individual owners of land affected by the wind farm, with Upper Lachlan Council, as well as calling a public meeting at Crookwell, where they heard from 39 speakers.

One argument put to the Commission at the Crookwell meeting urged refusal of the application arguing that a proponent who breached the planning legislation “should not be rewarded for committing that breach by validation of the wrongdoing.

It was argued that the turbines had been erected in breach of the original approval, and this breach should be remedied before any consideration given to any application.

The Commission met with non-host landowners Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hyde, who raised concern about the impact of turbines on their property value and noise.

“The background noise level of 48 dBA was regarded as unreasonable on a rural property,” the Commission noted.

The Hydes had been unable to sell their property, even at a 33% deduction in price.

Mr. Humphrey Price-Jones had told the Commission that the independent environmental representative had actually worked on the project and therefore was not independent.

Upper Lachlan Council advised the erected turbines were impacting radio frequencies, and public roads damaged in the construction phase should be repaired in their entirety as patch fixing caused ongoing issues.

In making their decision against the wind farm developers, the Commission noted the original wind farm approval had up to 49 non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of a turbine.

“However, the current modification seeks to locate many of these turbines even closer to non-associated residents.”

It found the developer’s proposal was inconsistent with “the intent and spirit of the draft guidelines, which proposes a 2 km distance between turbine and non-associated residence unless agreed to be the landowner or a site compatibility certificate issued.”

The Commission agreed that the increased proximity of the turbines to non-associated residences would result in visual impact on these properties.

“The proposed vegetation screening may in some instances by ultimately sufficient to reduce/block the view, but the vegetation screen itself will change the outlook and vista of the residence.

“In other cases the screen will not be adequate to mitigate the imposing view of a close-by turbine.”

On depreciated land values, the Commission noted that this was not a planning issue, but this aspect require further research and consideration..

The noise factor was a matter for the Environmental Protection Authority, not the Planning Department – “the EPA, with technical specialists in the field, is equipped the ensure the wind farm complies with noise conditions.”

In making its determination, the Commission declared it had “carefully considered the proposal, its associated impacts, the Assessment Report, stakeholders’ submissions and views expressed at various meetings, including the public meeting (at Crookwell).”
Crookwell Gazette

The PAC’s determination is available here: Signed Gullen Range Determination Report 2.10.14

And the document setting out the PAC’s refusal of the developer’s modification application is available here: Signed Refusal Instrument Gullen Range Mod 1 2.10.14

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

Rebecca Thompson is Wise to the Windweasels!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

A Lesson in Journalism: Rebecca Thompson Exposes the Great Wind Power Fraud

October 1, 2014 by

Rebeca Thompson Sun
Rebecca Thompson is the brilliant young journo behind the recent Sun News documentary, Down Wind – that tipped a bucket on the great wind power fraud in Canada (see our post here).

Down Wind, which runs for 96 minutes, can be purchased as a file and downloaded or as a DVD for those in the US and Canada (here’s the link). For those outside the US and Canada the file can be purchased and downloaded (using this link). If you’re in there fighting the great wind power fraud, Down Wind is essential viewing. For a detailed synopsis of Down Wind – see our post here.

Rebecca is a stand-out not simply because she exhibits the proper temerity to challenge the lunacy of wind power and those behind the fraud (it’s what journalists are supposed to do), but because she has taken the time and trouble to understand every aspect of the most destructive government sanctioned rort of all time: be it the infantile pointlessness of throwing $billions at an intermittent and unreliable power source; spiralling power prices; the utterly flawed economics; the slaughter of thousands of birds and bats; and the harm caused to thousands of hard-working rural people through incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound – Rebecca has a complete grip on the facts.

It’s almost incredible what happens when journalists open their eyes, ears and minds – instead of knocking out endless streams of drivel from the wind industry and its highly paid spin-masters – readers and viewers are gifted with a real insight into the insane costs and non-existent benefits of wind power. It’s a pity there aren’t more journos like Rebecca.

Here she is being interviewed by Alex Pierson on Sun News (22 September 2014) (transcript follows):

Straight Talk – Alex Pierson with Rebecca Thompson

Alex Pierson: Well call it the latest David verses Goliath kind of fight – as an Ontario farming family begs the court to help them stop an enormous wind farm that’s going to go up in their farming town, just in a little tiny farming community called Goderich, which is about an hour outside of Toronto.

And it’s bringing Rebecca Thompson to talk about the realities facing this particular family. What are we talking as far as this latest wind farm v turbine …

Rebecca Thompson: So interestingly, Downwind, which is a documentary that Sun News network aired a couple months ago, that featured this family that is asking the Divisional Court in Ontario, the Ontario Divisional Court to review their appeal to not have this 140 wind turbine project put up. And essentially the Divisional Court has never – this would be precedent-setting – if in fact this family among other families who are part of this appeal would be able to win this on the grounds that this would cause problems for their health.

So right now Health Canada, which is at the Federal level, is reviewing whether or not wind turbines cause health concerns. Given the fact that in Ontario the setbacks of wind turbines are only 500 feet. This is a concern because it’s too close to people’s homes.

Alex Pierson: You did a lot of work of on this in your documentary, and I urge any of you who haven’t yet seen Downwind – watch it. I don’t care if you are living in the city of Toronto. I don’t care if you’re living in a big urban centre – watch it because until you’ve seen what Rebecca exposes you don’t really truly get an understanding. And you made some really a valid points in the documentary that – what absolutely confounds me is that there are so many questions about health issues that are being looked into, and nobody seems to know what the long-term implications are. But yet the province is forging full steam ahead building these things.

Rebecca Thompson: The province is forging full steam ahead and they have indicated that there are no health concerns even though they haven’t done sufficient research into whether the or not there are health concerns. Look at places like Alberta. There are wind turbines set up, but they’re 2 miles away from anyone’s home. And in Ontario there was a theory that the reason why the wind turbines were admitted to be put up 500 foot away was because farms in Ontario are only an acre. So basically if the Ontario government can get away with putting wind turbines along a transmission line which is you know, a few turbines every other farm, then they could get away with a 500 foot setback.

The challenge with this that Health Canada is currently researching. I interviewed them – they said absolutely we’re seeing evidence that families have health issues, specifically …

Alex Pierson: sleeping issues, depression issues …

Rebecca Thompson: Sleeping, tinnitus, headaches, feeling faint, having stomach issues. There’s all sorts of issues.

Alex Pierson: So why wouldn’t the Courts then be listening to this and saying well hold on we don’t have enough conclusive evidence to say that there are no health problems, we have to rule in favour, there is doubt?

Rebecca Thompson: Well so far, the Provincial government has written its laws and its rules to be heavily in favour of the companies. And so essentially when any family, and there have been more than 20 appeals that have gone to Environmental review tribunals in Ontario, when any – and by the way these families they dip into their RSPs, they have to take it from their own small farming business, or whatever kind of businesses they have. They have to take it from the profits to pay for these appeals. Hire lawyers all the rest and they essentially lose the appeals because the Ontario government has written the regulations in a way where the wind turbine companies, often foreign companies, win time and time and again.

Alex Pierson: But when it comes to the bigger picture because all I’m hearing right now is massive lawsuits. Maybe not tomorrow, but in the next 5 or 6 years, when Health Canada finally comes out and says yes there are long-term health implications. So does the Ontario government not want to look at the bigger picture?

Rebecca Thompson: I don’t think they do. You know, I asked Kathleen Wynne, the Premier of Ontario point-blank will you put a moratorium on wind turbine projects that have not yet been built, given the fact that they’re causing endless amounts of communities serious concerns? Not only with health, but also property values. And also the fact that we pay through the nose for electricity now as a result of wind turbines, wind farms and wind power. And she said no we’re not going to put a stop to this.

Essentially they’ve offered the opportunity for wind turbine companies, often foreign based, to come in and have a 20 year contract to provide a source of wind power which is often intermittent. So the issue with these farmers – and you know I went out for the documentary and had an opportunity to meet with a ton of families. Thinking, you know what are the health issues?

Alex Pierson: What are they complaining about?

Rebecca Thompson: And I spoke with doctors, I spoke with researchers and experts and what they indicated is that yes, when it comes to the average person, it does effects to them – not everybody is affected – but children are seriously affected. Senior citizens are affected. You know it’s a concern that has driven these families to actually get a lawyer to fight at Divisional Court for them.

Alex Pierson: And I should point out one of the best lawyers in the country so I’m hoping that at least, under his guidance, they can get this seen – because I think it’s going to be one of these issues that ends up going to the Supreme Court and finally you’ll have someone ruling in on behalf of them.

You know it was interesting over the weekend I was reading an article by a Mexican ecologist who has opened the door, he’s blown the whistle on the corruption, the lies and what he calls the incompetence of the wind industry. And he talked about a whole bunch of countries – whether it be the United States, Australia and Canada – talking about the massive environmental damage these windmills are creating. And he talks about – it doesn’t seem that the environmentalists care about the clear cutting, they don’t care about the birds, they don’t care about the bees, they don’t care about the environmental ecosystems that are destroyed by these stupid windmills. But they’re aren’t doing anything. They’re just all about optics and there are people behind-the-scenes making billions of dollars. So it’s such a hypocritical hype.

Rebecca Thompson: Absolutely. You know what’s interesting is that these individuals – there’s a mass movement, not only in Ontario but across Canada to try to stop, to try to curtail wind power, or at least stop to research it before it goes up. And they reached out to a number of environmental groups. Specifically when it came to the mutilation of migratory birds by these wind turbine blades.

And the bird organisations in Ontario, sorry in Canada, said you know, we’re not interested. It’s partially because, you know Sierra is …

Alex Pierson: Are they getting funding from someone?

Rebecca Thompson: Well, they certainly rely on government funding. And essentially you have the Ontario government or the Canadian government or whoever offering these groups funding for in return they’re going to stay silent on these major issues.

Alex Pierson: It’s such an incestuous industry. You know we make a big stink about birds flying into buildings within city centres. And we do all sorts of things to protect birds by asking people ‘turn off your lights’ or do whatever, don’t seem to care about the birds. Don’t seem to care about the bees.

Rebecca Thompson: No, you know it’s interesting.

Alex Pierson: Certainly don’t care about bats.

Rebecca Thompson: They certainly don’t – and it’s the bats in fact, which are an endangered species in Ontario. You know, there’s evidence that in Northern Ontario, the bats that are an endangered species, could be obliterated as a result of wind turbines and you know maybe the Ministry of Natural Resources has stood by idly and said ‘Oh well’.

Alex Pierson: So where is David Suzuki? Because I would think that this is something he should care about. Because he should know. I’m no scientist. I’m no bat expert. But I do know that when you take out one species from the ecosystem, you unbalance the whole infrastructure of it. So if you take out the bats, that means other birds and bugs and all the rest of it, it unbalances the systems, and you get big problems.

Rebecca Thompson: Yes, and David Suzuki was out over few months ago saying what’s the big deal? Everybody should endorse wind power. You know this is the big question. It’s not only the environmental lies. It’s not only the major health concerns that right now are being researched and we don’t know the extent of the health problems. But it’s also the fact that our wallets and pocket books are being heavily hit because of the fact that electricity prices have gone through the roof. And I’m not just saying that. The Auditor General researched this. There have been countless studies researching and identifying the fact that wind power all around is just bad economics.

Alex Pierson: I think the Green Energy Act, maybe not this year but in the next few years is going to be exposed as the biggest, biggest failure, fraud and sham that we’ve ever seen. So we’ll continue watching it. Rebecca Thompson joining us here this morning. Thank you Ma’am.
Sun News

Definition of fraud

Low Frequency noise from Wind Turbines is Harmful!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage

New research published by the Royal Society warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise like that emitted by wind turbines

New research warns of the possible dangers posed by low frequency noise Photo: ALAMY

7:00AM BST 01 Oct 2014

Living close to wind farms may lead to severe hearing damage or even deafness, according to new research which warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise.

The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found.

The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby.

Published today by the Royal Society in their new journal Open Science, the research was carried out by a team of scientists from the University of Munich.

It relies on a study of 21 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 28 years. After being exposed to low frequency sound, scientists detected changes in the type of sound being emitted from the inner ear of 17 out of the 21 participants.

The changes were detected in a part of the ear called the cochlear, a spiral shaped cavity which essential for hearing and balance.

“We explored a very curious phenomenon of the human ear: the faint sounds which a healthy human ear constantly emits,” said Dr Marcus Drexl, one of the authors of the report.

“These are like a very faint constant whistling that comes out of your ear as a by-product of the hearing process. We used these as an indication of how processes in the inner ear change.”

Dr Drexl and his team measured these naturally emitted sounds before and after exposure to 90 seconds of low frequency sound.

“Usually the sound emitted from the ear stays at the same frequency,” he said. “But the interesting thing was that after exposure, these sounds changed very drastically.

“They started to oscillate slowly over a couple of minutes. This can be interpreted as a change of the mechanisms in the inner ear, produced by the low frequency sounds.

“This could be a first indication that damage might be done to the inner ear.

“We don’t know what happens if you are exposed for longer periods of time, [for example] if you live next to a wind turbine and listen to these sounds for months of years.”

Wind turbines emit a spectrum of frequencies of noise, which include the low frequency that was used in the research, Dr Drexl explained.

He said the study “might help to explain some of the symptoms that people who live near wind turbines report, such as sleep disturbance, hearing problems and high blood pressure”.

Dr Drexl explained how the low frequency noise is not perceived as being “intense or disturbing” simply because most of the time humans cannot hear it.

“The lower the frequency the you less you can hear it, and if it is very low you can’t hear it at all.

“People think if you can’t hear it then it is not a problem. But it is entering your inner ear even though it is not entering your consciousness.”

Waiting on Word About a Moratorium on the K2 Wind Project!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

ACW Resident Waits For Word On K2 Moratorium Request

By on September 28, 2014

Wind Turbine

An Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh resident says he is hoping to hear within the next couple of weeks whether his legal request to stop Phase 2 of the wind energy project in the Kingsbridge area has been successful.

Shawn Drennan had a hearing in London earlier this week but says realistically he doubts this will be the last one.  Drennan wants the K-2 project, which will place an additional 140 turbines in the Kingsbridge area north of Goderich and around his house, stopped until several studies into health impact have been completed

He argues the province is asking for extensive research on the impact on marine life before proceeding with off-shore turbines, so the same concerns should be addressed regarding the impact of turbines on residents of A-C-W.

Drennan says at the hearing this week the request for a stay was based on concern for people but the wind company’s main argument was they should be allowed to proceed because they have already spent a lot of money.

Drennan points out this is a precedent-setting constitutional challenge so he expects both sides will appeal to the highest court before it is ultimately settled.

Windweasels Lie about Noise they are Creating With Their Useless Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Moyne Shire Council Rubberstamps AGL’s Macarthur Wind Farm Noisewash

September 28, 2014 by

Rubber_stamp_stand

The nightmare that is AGL’s Macarthur wind farm began operating in October 2012 – the first 30 fired up then.  All 140 giant 3MW Vestas V112s kicked into gear in about February 2013.

Ever since, the locals have been driven absolutely insane with incessant low-frequency noise and infra-sound.

AGL (aka “Australia’s Greatest Liars”) have been running interference in relation to noise problems from the very start.

The incompetent bunch of goons that they hired to do the acoustic work lost and fudged data and, when challenged about data that went missing, blamed flat batteries more than once.

Macarthur residents hired their own careful, independent acoustic engineers to do proper methodical studies into noise impacts, which included full spectrum testing – something that AGL and its pet acoustic consultants have not done and will never do.  The low-frequency testing done by AGL used the same method discredited by Steve Cooper a while back.

STT has seen the work done by the locals’ acoustic experts and – without a shadow of a doubt – it demonstrates that the noise levels generated do not and will never satisfy the noise conditions of AGL’s planning consent.

Now AGL have managed to get the Moyne Shire Council to rubber-stamp its acoustic white-wash in order to allow it to claim compliance with the noise conditions of its planning consent. But the lawyers for the Council – as well as the outfit charged with reviewing AGL’s noise report – had trouble working out what the “vague” and “unduly complicated … wording of the planning permit” actually meant, so advised that the best way to determine compliance was with a vote on it, according to the Council’s Agenda:

As Maddocks have advised, (Confidential Attachment 6) the noise compliance issue for the Macarthur Wind Farm has been unduly complicated by the wording of the planning permit. For example, the permit wording is so vague it is unclear whether Council is required to make a resolution regarding noise compliance. However in order to be transparent and to act in the most appropriate manner as the responsible authority, Maddocks recommends to Council that a resolution is the best means of addressing the noise compliance issue.

There. Isn’t it so much simpler when sticky situations that might see a wind farm operator called to account are settled on a show of hands. Settled that is, by people who aren’t acoustic experts and don’t, apparently, even know what the terms of the noise conditions they’re meant to be applying mean (their lawyers didn’t). And, instead of being “transparent”, the Council kept the correspondence from its lawyers pointing out that the conditions were “unduly complicated” and “vague” confidential (Attachment 6). So much for open and transparent government.

When it came to the Council meeting AGL didn’t have it all its own way. Former Mayor, Councillor Jim Doukas ripped into AGL and gave his fellow members a right-royal-rocket for their complicity in allowing AGL to operate with impunity.

Moyne councillor slams Macarthur wind farm noise review
The Standard
Anthony Brady
25 September 2014

A MOYNE Shire Councillor has hit out at the operators of the huge Macarthur wind farm, saying they should be “tied to a tree and flogged with a whip”.

In a fiery address to the council’s meeting on Tuesday night, Cr Jim Doukas refused to accept a peer review commissioned by the shire which found company AGL was operating the 140-turbine wind farm within noise guidelines.

“It is the biggest load of garbage I’ve ever read in my life and AGL should be tied to a tree and flogged with a whip,” Cr Doukas said.

He said the noise readings taken by AGL’s consultants were “insignificant” and “outside the guidelines” and questioned how a peer reviewer could find them compliant.

“For anyone who reads this and says this is a fair and honest report is just not right and should be ashamed.  “We as a council should not make the determination on the report here tonight. We haven’t gone out to the public.

“No one in Australia who is involved in the wind energy industry, whether they support it or not, has had the chance to look at this and make comment and I think there are wiser heads out there than ours.

“As for those who are objectors, they are entitled to make comment and address council on the issue.

“If we support this tonight we deny them their right and I don’t think that’s right. We are shoving it down their throats and forgetting about the community and, for me, that’s just not on.”

But Cr Mick Wolfe disagreed with the outburst, saying people had already had a chance to comment.

“It’s time for this to go through. We’ve got our report and it’s been reviewed, the facts are in there,” Cr Wolfe said.

“We’ve heard from others alleging corruption, fraud, failure — you name it.

“Everything that AGL or the testers try to do that’s not in favour of the opponents they slam them with some pretty serious allegations.

“They (the opponents) have had a chance to come to any council meeting and show us their data.

“They are hiding it, they are holding it and not releasing it and I don’t know why. Come forward with it.”

The council agreed with the report’s findings that the wind farm is complying with noise levels, but has called for further monitoring within 12 months.

This follows advice from the peer reviewer that noise emissions can change over time as faults develop within the turbines and parts need replacing.

A spokeswoman for AGL yesterday welcomed the council’s confirmation of the report.

She said AGL had already carried out more than 40,000 hours of noise monitoring at Macarthur which was “well beyond” the level required under the shire’s planning permit.
The Standard

jim doukas

Compliant or not, the suffering caused by AGL’s turbines is real; and was documented by STT Champion, Anne Schafer in a community survey.  Here’s a link to the survey. And see our post here.

One of AGL’s numerous victims, STT Champion Annie Gardner wrote this cracking letter to the Editor of The Standard – praising Jim Doukas for doing his job; and slamming the goats that pass for local government representatives for failing to do theirs.

To the Editor,
The affected residents of this district are extremely grateful for the unconditional support given by Councillor Jim Doukas (“Moyne Councillor slams Macarthur wind farm noise review 25.9).

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the remainder of Moyne Shire Council who have been elected with a duty of care to protect the health of ALL residents.

Moyne Shire Council are in receipt of hundreds of health complaints as a result of the acoustic emissions from the turbines at the Macarthur wind farm, but have done NOTHING to protect us from this serious harm to our bodies.

As Councillor Doukas rightly claims, we have been denied our right to comment on the noise peer review. I have requested on several occasions to have a copy of this peer review forwarded to me, but these requests have been constantly denied by a council withholding information.

Councillor Wolfe shows his ignorance when he claims residents have had plenty of time to address council and hand over our noise data. It is not that simple, as any lay person isn’t able to comprehend acoustic data, and I doubt any councillors would be trained in acoustics.

Just prior to the council meeting on Tuesday, when Moyne Shire finally released the peer review report, I requested Council forward to our independent acoustic expert, all documentation relating to the peer review, in order that he may compile a report to immediately present to Council. This report, with additional damning evidence, will prove that the Macarthur Wind Farm is NOT COMPLIANT with government noise guidelines.

I also requested Council defer confirming compliance of the wind farm, until our acoustic expert is able to present his report to the Council. This request was obviously ignored.

In the name of openness and transparency, surely Moyne Council could have waited to read the resident’s acoustic expert report which will surely blow any claim of compliance of the Macarthur wind farm, out of the water.

We ask Moyne Shire, WHERE HAS DEMOCRACY GONE?

ANN and ANDREW GARDNER
PENSHURST,   Victoria

annie-gardner

Wind Turbines Monitored by Unbiased Sound Experts Prove Noise Levels are Intolerable!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Hansen, Zajamsek, Hansen, Noise Monitoring, Waterloo Wind Farm

Noise Monitoring in the Vicinity of the Waterloo Wind Farm

Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamsek and Colin Hansen, School of Mechanical Engineering
University of Adelaide May 26, 2014

This report by the above authors describes the results of their concurrent full spectrum acoustic monitoring conducted at a number of homes located between 2 km out to nearly 10km from the Waterloo Wind Development. This monitoring was independent of the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) and was requested by Mrs Mary Morris and other concerned residents in the Waterloo district. The monitoring occurred during the period of the South Australian EPA Acoustic Survey, conducted in mid 2013.

The results in this independent survey as well as the conclusions are in marked contrast to the results and conclusions of the SA EPA Acoustic Survey report, and reinforce the Waubra Foundation’s opinion expressed at the time the initial SA EPA report was released that there were serious problems with the methodology used by the SA EPA in its acoustic survey at Waterloo. This report provides further evidence that the current SA EPA Wind Farm Noise Guidelines do not protect the health and sleep of the neighbours to these wind developments, out to nearly 10km from the closest wind turbine, because they do not regulate the acoustic emissions to protect health, and most importantly, the sleep of the neighbours.

Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen has advised that he sent the report to the EPA, requesting their comment. To date, three months later (19th August, 2014) no comment or feedback has been received by the Adelaide University researchers from the SA EPA responsible public officials.

Extract from the Conclusions:

“Therefore, the results show that there is a low frequency noise problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm. Therefore, it is extremely important that further investigation is carried out at this wind farm in order to determine the source of the low frequency noise and to develop mitigation technologies. In addition, further research is necessary to establish the long‐term effects of low frequency noise and infrasound on the residents at Waterloo. This research should include health monitoring and sleep studies with simultaneous noise and vibration measurements.”

Key Extracts from the report are reproduced below, and the report is downloadable from the link beneath.

1 Introduction

This report details independent noise measurements and their analysis taken in the vicinity of the Waterloo Wind Farm during the period 9/4 – 22/6, which is the same period as the study undertaken by the EPA and reported in EPA (2013). Measurements were taken outside of as well as inside a number of residences. Due to the potential for data contamination by background noise during the day, only data measured between midnight and 5am are reported here, as during those hours, the dominant noise source was generally the wind farm. The following sections of this report detail the measurement equipment, measurement procedures, data analysis and data interpretation, followed by a conclusion summarising the results detailed in the rest of the report.

The data analysis and interpretation comprises four sections:

  • overall levels averaged over 10‐minutes for all night‐time data collected at each residence;
  • unweighted third‐octave spectra and overall levels for the shutdown periods;
  • unweighted third‐octave spectra and narrowband spectra for measurement times corresponding to noise diary entries; and
  • unweighted and A‐weighted third‐octave spectra for measurements which exceeded 40 dB(A).

2 Measurement Details

Three B&K 4955 microphones were used for the indoor measurements. These microphones have a low noise floor of 6.5 dB(A) and a flat frequency response down to 6 Hz. While these microphones do not have a flat frequency response below 6 Hz, they are still capable of measuring the blade‐pass frequency and harmonics (Hansen, 2013). The microphones were connected toLAN‐XI hardware and continuous 10‐minute recordings were made using Pulse software. The average sound pressure level of the three microphones was calculated in accordance with the Danish guidelines for indoor low‐ frequency noise measurements (Jakobsen, 2001). This average includes one microphone positioned in the room corner. In this position, the maximum sound pressure level would be measured since this is an anti‐node for all room response modes. A singleGRAS 40AZ / SV 17 microphone was connected to a SVAN 979 sound level meter. This microphone was used as a back‐up and check for the indoor measurements made with the Pulse system.

The outdoor measurements were made using GRAS 40AZ / SV 12L microphones connected to aSVAN 958 sound level meter, which measured continuously over 10‐minute intervals. The microphones have a noise floor of 17 dB(A) and a flat frequency response down to 0.8 Hz. Hemispherical secondary windshields were used to minimise wind‐induced noise experienced by the outdoor microphones, and they were designed to be consistent with the IEC 61400‐11 standard, which specifies the use of these secondary windshields for measurements close to a wind turbine. A spherical secondary windshield and box windshield with specifications described in Hansen (2013) were also used for comparison but these results are only presented in the narrowband analysis in Section 6.2. Wind speed and direction were measured at heights of 1.5 m and 10 m using Davis Vantage Vue and Vantage Pro weather stations, respectively. The weather measurements were collected in 5‐minute intervals and then the 10‐minute average was calculated during post‐ processing.

3 Guidelines

It is well known that wind farm noise is dominated by low‐frequency energy (Moller & Pedersen, 2011), particularly at large distances from the wind farm, where the high‐frequency noise has been more attenuated than the low‐frequency noise. As such, a number of different weighting functions have been applied to the data in Section 4 to highlight different characteristics of the noise. A detailed description of these weightings and their applications is given in the report by the EPA(2013). This section provides a brief analysis of the limitations of some of these weighting functions in the context of wind turbine noise. Additionally, some drawbacks of the current SA EPA guidelines (EPA, 2009) are discussed and recommendations for improvements are suggested.

In South Australia, compliance of a wind farm is determined based on the applicable outdoor limit specified in the SA EPA guidelines (2009). Most of the measurement locations detailed in this report correspond to “rural industrial” zones where the allowable limit is 40 dB(A). One of the township locations is situated in an area which has been zoned “township” according to the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council regulations. For lack of additional information, it is assumed that this translates to “rural living” in the context of the SA EPA guidelines (2009), which has a corresponding outdoor limit of 35 dB(A). According to the EPA guidelines (2009), a compliance analysis requires collection of over 2,000 data points, with 500 data points recorded for the worst‐case wind direction. For the measurements outlined in this report, such a large amount of data were not collected at any one location, however it was still considered valuable to plot a regression curve to illustrate the degree of compliance over short periods as well. In any case, the use of night‐time data is expected to reduce the degree to which data are contaminated by extraneous sources, thus giving a reasonable estimate of the degree to which the wind farm is compliant.

The SA EPA guidelines also specify use of the LA90 metric, which is the A‐weighted noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time. It should be noted that wind farm noise can be significantly underestimated using LA90 levels due to the unsteady nature of the noise. Hence, the LAeq, which is the energy average of the noise, is considered to be a more realistic representation of the actual noise level attributed to the wind farm, particularly between midnight and 5am when there are very few other noise sources of a similar level to the wind farm noise.

Despite the fact that low‐frequency noise has been identified as a potential issue associated with wind turbine operation, the SA EPA guidelines (2009) do not provide guidance for acceptable levels of low‐frequency noise and infrasound, even though there are several recommendations available in the literature. For example, the C‐weighting can be used to provide an indicator of the presence of low‐frequency noise. According to Broner (2010), a night‐time limit of 60 dB© is recommended, and this limit was included in the NSW draft guidelines (2011). Low‐frequency noise can also be identified by finding the difference between the overall C‐weighted and A‐weighted levels. When LCeq – LAeq > 20, a potential low‐frequency noise problem is indicated, and Broner and Leventhall (1983) and DIN 45680 (1997) would recommend further investigation into the time‐dependent low‐ frequency noise characteristics including noise fluctuations, spectral balance and amplitude modulation.

The G‐weighting is used to indicate the level of infrasound. According to ISO 7196 (1995) and DIN45680 (1997), the audible threshold for the overall G‐weighted noise level is 85 dB(G). On the other hand, this does not preclude the possibility that lower levels of infrasound will have an effect on people (Salt & Lichtenhan, 2014).

The SA EPA guidelines (2009) suggest that the indoor A‐weighted noise level should not exceed 30 dB(A). According to the World Health Organisation night‐time guidelines (WHO, 2009), the no observed effect limit for outdoor noise is 30 dB(A). To quantify the low‐frequency contribution to the indoor noise, it is useful to refer to the Danish guidelines for indoor low‐frequency noise (DanishEPA, 1997) and the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs criteria (DEFRA, 2005). The Danish limit considers A‐weighted levels in the frequencies from 10 Hz to 160 Hz and the limit is the calculated average of the sound pressure level measured at three different locations in a room. According to the Danish guidelines, the indoor noise level, LpA,lf in the frequency range from 10 Hz to 160 Hz should not exceed 20 dB(A). The DEFRA criteria are frequency dependent and also span the frequency range from 10 Hz – 160 Hz. The allowable limits for each third‐octave frequency bin in this range are specified in the relevant report (DEFRA, 2005). The specified limits can be relaxed for steady noise and for daytime measurements but the measurements in this report did not fall into either of these categories. It is well‐known that wind farm noise is an unsteady noise source due to sudden changes in wind speed/direction, inflow turbulence, wind shear (van den Berg, 2005) and directivity (Oerlemans & Shepers, 2009). It has also been found that wind farm noise is modulated at the blade‐pass frequency (Hansen et al., 2013), which causes a periodic variation in the loudness of the sound.

It is worth noting that wind farm compliance according to the SA EPA guidelines is based on a regression line fitted to 2000 or more data points plotted on a graph of noise level (dBA) (y‐axis) vs hub height wind speed (x‐axis). Each data point is a 10‐minute average, which means that the influence on people of a noise source that is highly variable in nature will be underestimated. In addition, many 10‐minute average data points are above the acceptable 35 or 40 dB(A) requirement and as compliance is based on the regression line only, these times of relatively high noise level are ignored. In other words, compliance with the EPA guidelines does not mean that noise levels will never exceed the recommended limits – in fact, they can exceed the recommended limits many times as can be seen by the graphs shown in this report. Furthermore, the 10‐minute average values are lower than the peak values, which means that the wind farm could generate high levels of intermittent noise and still be compliant.

It is also important to recognise that thresholds of audibility are not dependent on the 10‐minute average of the root mean square (rms) value of the noise signal alone. This type of analysis ignores any difference in character between the measured noise and the noise used in the laboratory to determine threshold levels. The main differences in character that are important include the presence of multiple harmonics of the blade passage frequency and the crest factor of the noise. The crest factor is the ratio of the peak noise level to the average (or rms) noise level. The measured average noise levels for wind farm noise have been shown to contain peaks that are up to 20 dB above the reported average level. Even for “compliant” wind farms, such peaks are well above the levels required to disturb sleep (according the 2009 WHO document, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”). It is also worth noting that traffic noise, on which the WHO document on night noise levels is based, is not characterised by such high crest factors and thus has less potential for disturbing sleep. Nevertheless, this is an area of future work for our research group and the purpose of this report is to provide an analysis similar to that carried out in the EPA study so that comparison can be made between the two sets of results.

4 Overall Noise Levels

The following section presents data that were measured at the same residences as the EPA study (EPA, 2013), as well as three additional residences. The North East residence is not included in the analysis as we were unable to measure inside at this location. A number of weighting functions have been applied to the data and where applicable, a linear regression curve has been included. The DEFRA criteria and the Danish guidelines for indoor low‐frequency noise have only been applied to the indoor data, as they are not considered relevant for outdoor noise.

The figures presented in this section show data plotted against the wind speed at a height of 10 m in the left hand column and data plotted against the wind speed at hub height in the right hand column. Data points shown in red correspond to times when the residence was downwind from the proposed wind farm, according to the definition that downwind is ±45from the direction of the residence relative to the wind farm. Data points shown in green indicate times where the wind speed at a height of 1.5 m was greater than 5 m/s. For such wind speeds, noise measurements can be contaminated by wind‐induced noise. The sources of wind‐induced noise are pseudo‐noise and acoustic noise. Pseudo‐noise is caused by turbulent pressure fluctuations and vortex shedding incident on the microphone which lead to false indications of the sound pressure level whereas wind‐induced acoustic noise arises when objects such as tree branches and leaves are put in motion by the wind. Pseudo‐noise is only relevant for outdoor measurements but wind‐induced acoustic noise is relevant to both indoor and outdoor measurements. Both indoor and outdoor measurements taken during periods of rain have been discarded from the analysis.

In this section, all plotted data corresponds to night‐time measurements made between 12 am and 5 am. During the night, people are trying to sleep and this time also represents the greatest contrast between ambient noise and wind turbine noise, due to the absence of other sources such as traffic and farming machinery. These times were also selected to minimise contamination from noise sources other than the wind farm.

8 Conclusions

Based on the findings in this report, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  • For the 50 Hz third‐octave band, the sound pressure level difference between shutdown and operational conditions can be higher than 25 dB for both outdoor and indoor measurements.
  • The noise level in the 50 Hz third‐octave band is often above the audibility threshold (ISO389‐7, 2005) when the wind farm is operating.
  • The peak in the 50 Hz third‐octave band would be classified as a tone according to some standards (NZS 6808:2010, 2010; ANSI S12.9 ‐ Part 4, 2005).
  • The allowable limits should be reduced by 5 dB(A) to account for such tonal noise.
  • The outdoor and indoor noise levels measured during the shutdown cases were consistently lower than those measured when the wind farm was operating.
  • The most significant differences between shutdown and operational conditions can be observed when the residence is downwind from the nearest wind turbine and the hub height wind speed is greater than 8 m/s.
  • The shutdown periods should have occurred during 12 am – 5 am when the contribution from extraneous sources would be minimised and the contribution from the wind farm more able to be quantified.
  • For all shutdowns reported here, the closest wind turbine to the residence did not reach its rated speed of 15 m/s. In most cases, the wind speed at hub height was significantly lower than rated speed for the shutdown and adjacent times.
  • The peak in the 50 Hz third‐octave band is a consistent feature of the noise diary results and is often above the audibility threshold (ISO 389‐7, 2005).
  • A narrow‐band analysis with frequency resolution of 0.1 Hz reveals distinct peaks at the blade‐pass frequency and harmonics for many of the results corresponding to noise diary entries.
  • The narrow‐band analysis also shows the existence of tones, which occur at 23 Hz, 28 Hz, 46 Hz, 56 Hz and 69 Hz.
  • These tones have several sidebands which are spaced at the blade‐pass frequency and allude to the occurrence of amplitude modulation.
  • There is a good correlation between low frequency noise events and complaints registered in noise diaries.
  • At many of the residences, there were many occasions during the hours of 12 am and 5 am where the outdoor noise level exceeded the SA EPA (EPA, 2009) criteria of 40 dB(A).
  • The indoor limit for wind turbine hosts of 30 dB(A) recommended by the SA EPA (EPA, 2009) was exceeded on many occasions between 12 am and 5 am. This is also the no observed health effect limit for outdoor noise according to the WHO (2009).
  • The range in the overall A‐weighted levels was noticeably large indoors and could be as low as 5 dB(A) and as high as 38 dB(A). The lower value highlights that the night‐time noise levels in this rural environment are sometimes so low that even low levels of wind turbine noise would be noticeable. It is plausible that the upper value is related to the presence of wind turbine noise.
  • It has been shown that there can be a large variation in the results obtained by considering the LAeq as opposed to the LA90, between the hours of 12 am and 5 am.
  • Since the number of extraneous noise sources is expected to be low during these night‐time hours and wind turbine noise can be highly variable with time, it does not seem justified to only consider noise levels which were exceeded 90 % of the time.
  • The C‐weighted level was often higher for downwind conditions and hub height wind speeds greater than 8 m/s. However, consideration of the overall level with respect to recommended limits did not prove useful in identifying any low frequency noise issues.
  • The LCeq ‐ LAeq criteria was often exceeded and there was a large scatter in the data.
  • The overall G‐weighted level of 85 dB(G) was never exceeded however this does not preclude the possibility that infrasound was not detectable.
  • The Danish low frequency noise guidelines were exceeded on a number of occasions. In general, the exceedences occurred for downwind conditions and hub height wind speeds greater than 8 m/s.
  • The DEFRA criteria were exceeded on multiple occasions, usually corresponding to downwind conditions and hub height wind speeds greater than 8 m/s.

Therefore, the results show that there is a low frequency noise problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm. Therefore, it is extremely important that further investigation is carried out at this wind farm in order to determine the source of the low frequency noise and to develop mitigation technologies. In addition, further research is necessary to establish the long‐term effects of low frequency noise and infrasound on the residents at Waterloo. This research should include health monitoring and sleep studies with simultaneous noise and vibration measurements.

Download the complete report of the acoustic survey by Hansen, Zajamsek and Hansen →

For access to the SA EPA Waterloo Acoustic Survey 2013, and documents expressing concerns which have been raised about that acoustic survey, please seehttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waterloo-wind-farm-environmental-noise-study-sa-epa/

Careful reading of the UN Convention Against Torture makes it very plain that public officials who know of the damage to human beings and allow it to continue could be facing criminal charges (sleep deprivation is acknowledged as torture by a number of bodies including the Committee Against Torture http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/un-convention-against-torture/ and also the Physicians for Human Rights — see pp 22 — 26 of their report called “Leave no Marks” http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/leave-no-marks-report-2007.html

The Waubra Foundation advised the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) Board members over a year ago about the damage to human health from proximity to wind turbines — and their response was that they preferred the explanation that it was a Nocebo effect:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/letter-notice-clean-energy-regulator-5-april-2013/

Consequently in 2013 the Waubra Foundation advised both South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill and the Chair of the CER, Ms Chloe Munro of the Foundation’s concerns about the Waterloo Acoustic Survey — neither of whom responded to the letter:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/open-letter-premier-south-australia-clean-energy-regulator-concerning-sa-epa-acoustic-survey-2/

Ontario Residents Forced to Go To Court, To Challenge Wind Turbine Approval…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

WIND TURBINES

Aberarder family challenges Suncor wind turbine approval

By Paul Morden, Sarnia Observer

Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:56:12 EDT AM

Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal may just be the first stop for opponents of a 46-turbine wind project Suncor Energy plans to build in Lambton County.

The provincial government’s approval of Suncor’s Cedar Point renewable energy project is being appealed to the tribunal by Lambton County, and Aberarder Line residents Kimberley and Richard Bryce.

The Town of Plympton-Wyoming is also seeking to participate in the hearings.

The tribunal’s hearings are scheduled to begin in early November at the Camlachie Community Hall, with a preliminary hearing set for October.

The Bryce family is being represented by the Toronto-based law firm headed by Julian Falconer.

“They have four young kids and they’re just concerned about the possible health effects associated with having their young children living in close proximity to these wind turbines,” said Asha James, an associate of Falconers LLP.

She added the family’s concern is heightened by the fact Health Canada is currently studying the health impacts of wind turbines, “because there are data gaps, and there just isn’t enough research to show how these will affect families, or residents living in close proximity to these turbines.”

A notice of appeal filed on behalf of the family says it will be surrounded by eight turbines within 2.5 kilometres of the Bryce home, and adds that they have young children with “pre-existing health concerns that will be adversely affected by the project.”

The notice also says the appeal will argue the province’s approval of the Suncor wind project violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Falconer spoke in Camlachie back in May at a meeting held by the group We’re Against Industrial Turbines, Plympton-Wyoming.

Since then, the group has been collecting donations to fund court challenges of Suncor’s wind project.

James said Falconer has described appeals to the provincial tribunal as “a long shot.” The tribunal has rejected nearly all of the wind project approval appeals it has heard.

“But, at this point, we don’t see another option that’s available to them,” James said.

She added the only way to preserve the right to raise issues with the courts is to first go through the tribunal process.

James said the law firm has been involved in three previous appeals to the tribunal, and has appealed its decisions to the divisional court in London. Those appeals are to be heard Nov. 17, 18 and 19.

Lambton County is expected to raise concerns at the tribunal hearings about the wind project’s electricity collection and transmission lines along road allowances creating traffic safety hazards for the travelling public.

Suncor has said the turbines it’s planning to build in Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township could be up and operating by late 2015.

paul.morden@sunmedia.ca​

Residents Back In Court, to Protect Their Families & Homes Against Industrial Wind Projects!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Court asked to stop construction of huge Ontario wind farm pending appeal

Published on September 21, 2014
TORONTO – The first court phase of a legal fight aimed at scuttling what would be one of Ontario’s largest wind-energy developments kicks off Monday with a farm family trying to force an immediate stop to its construction.

Documents filed in support of their request show Shawn and Tricia Drennan are concerned about the potential harm the 140-turbine K2 Wind project near Goderich, Ont., could cause them.

The Drennans are asking Divisional Court for an injunction against the ongoing construction of the facility pending resolution of an appeal against the project. They note Health Canada is currently doing a study to understand the impact industrial wind projects have on nearby residents.

“In effect, our government has relegated the appellants to guinea pigs in the name of green energy,” their factum states.

“The fear and anxiety with being a guinea pig is only further heightened by the knowledge that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has placed a moratorium on off-shore wind turbines because the environmental impact on the fish is not known.”

Joining them in the construction stay application filed in London, Ont., are the Dixon and Ryan families, who are fighting the 15-turbine St. Columban wind project near Seaforth, Ont. The Dixons argue construction noise will hurt their eight-year-old daughter, who suffers from hearing hypersensitivity.

Both K2 Wind Ontario and St. Columban Energy argue their projects are safe, have the required permits, and that stopping construction now would have serious financial consequences. The say the projects underwent an extensive approval process that included two years of planning and various environmental studies.

In its factum, K2 Wind says the appeal will be heard long before the turbines are operational, so there is no immediate health threat warranting a stay.

“In contrast to the lack of harm the appellants will suffer if this motion is not granted,” the company argues, “K2 Wind could suffer serious financial consequences from even a minor delay in construction — consequences that could put the entire K2 project at risk.”

Ontario has seen several fights over wind farms. Some citizens are implacably opposed to them on the grounds they make area residents and animals ill, are an eyesore, lower property values, and are pushing up the price of electricity. Premier Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal caucus were heckled this past week at the International Plowing Match in the hamlet of Ivy, Ont, in part because of opposition to Liberal pro-wind policies.

Proponents argue wind turbines provide renewable energy, are environmentally friendly, create economic benefits, and are safe provided minimum distances to homes are maintained.

The provincial Environment Ministry approved the $850-million K2 — which would be able to power 100,000 homes — and the smaller St. Columban project, prompting the families to appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal, which upheld the approvals.

In its decisions, the tribunal found no conclusive proof that wind turbines — a few of which are roughly 500 metres from homes — pose a health hazard to those living near them.

The three families, along with a fourth family opposed to the 92-turbine Armow wind farm near Kincardine, Ont., joined forces to appeal the tribunal decisions. The families argue the approvals process violates their constitutional rights given the potential impact on their physical and emotional health and want the project permits yanked.

The appeal itself is expected before Divisional Court in mid-November.

An unrelated battle involving a nine-turbine wind farm development south of Picton, Ont., is set to go before the province’s top court in December.