We Know That Windweasels Are Corrupt….. Here’s More Proof!

September 21, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER: WIND INDUSTRY RIDDLED WITH ‘ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION’

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 20 Sep 2014, 5:04 AM PDT 322POST A COMMENT

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.

Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.

The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna.

When a project is installed, the first step is to “dismantle” the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities – organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms – and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc. Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms…

….After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.

Then there is the damage caused by wind turbine noise:

There is abundant information about the harm caused by the sound waves produced by wind turbines. These sound waves are not perceptible to the human ear, which makes them all the more dangerous. They are also low frequency sound waves and act upon the pineal and nervous systems, causing anxiety, depression (there is a study from the United States that found an elevated suicide rate in regions with wind farms), migraines, dizziness and vomiting, among other symptoms.

But the wind turbine operators are able to get away with it because the system is so corrupt.

What happens is absolute corruption. I have to admit that generally there are “agreements” behind closed doors between the consultants or research centers and the government offices before the studies are conducted. They fill out forms with copied information (and sometimes badly copied), lies or half truths in order to divert attention from the real project while at the same time complying with requirements on paper. Unfortunately, consultants sometimes take advantage of high unemployment and hire inexperienced people or unemployed career professionals without proper titles. Sometimes the consultants even coerce them into modifying the data.

Research centers, pressured by a lack of funding, accept these studies. It is well known that scientists recognized by CONACYT (National Counsel on Science and Technology) accept gifts from these companies, given that they need money to buy equipment for their laboratories and to fill their pocketbooks to maintain their lifestyles. This is the extent of the corruption. Upon reviewing these studies, it is clear that the findings are trash, sometimes even directly copied from other sources online. These studies tend to focus on the “benefits of the project” and do not include rigorous analysis.

The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) does follow-up to the studies, but everything can be negotiated. The bureaucrats have the last word.

Though Professor Mora is talking specifically about Mexico, what she says applies equally well to supposedly more transparent democracies such as Britain, Australia, the US, Canada and Denmark. The wind industry is necessarily one of the most corrupt enterprises on earth because it depends for its entire existence on government favours, backhanders, dishonest environmental impact assessments and on regulators turning a blind eye to the known health problems caused by wind turbine noise. Without crony capitalism, the wind industry simply would not exist.

Here are some links to a few of Breitbart’s hits on the subject. As I can personally testify from a decade spent covering this scandal, there are few forms of life on the planet lower than those parasites who make their fortune out of bird-chomping, bat-slicing eco-crucifixes.

Official Report, (Hansard) Committee for the Environment, Wind Energy Inquiry….Ireland

September 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Official Report (Hansard)

Session: 2014/2015

Date: Thursday, 11 September 2014

Committee for the Environment

Wind Energy Inquiry: Mrs Ursula Walsh, University of Ulster

The Chairperson: I welcome Mrs Ursula Walsh from the University of Ulster, who has been appointed as our special adviser on acoustics, and invite her to make a five- or 10-minute presentation to the Committee, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions. Thank you very much for your hard work; you have done a very big piece of work.

Mrs Ursula Walsh (University of Ulster): Good afternoon. I want to give you a brief overview of my paper and, perhaps, explain a couple of terms, after which we can have a discussion.

Noise is quite complex. Sound becomes noise when it becomes unwanted. People’s perceptions of noise are related not just to the volume of the noise but to its pitch or frequency and character. Two noises might be at the same volume, but one might be much more annoying than the other because of its character and fluctuations, which I will talk about. It also depends on the time of day. Obviously, if people’s sleep is disturbed, it is much more annoying than it perhaps would be during the day.

There is a human reaction to the annoyance caused by wind turbine noise. Sometimes, people are more annoyed because they feel a lack of control or they have feelings of injustice that they are not being heard or believed. Therefore, there is a subjective element to it. However, some people’s being more sensitive to noise than others has not been found so much with wind turbine noise.

Some of the general terms that you come across in all the noise guidance are not everyday terms, so the inquiry asked me to explain some of them. Leq is, more or less, the average sound. If you get all the sounds together, it is an average. L90, which is referred to extensively in the wind turbine guidance ETSU, is more or less the background noise remaining when you remove the noisiest elements. It would not be your average noise; it would be the remaining noise. It would be low-level noise, about two decibels lower than Leq.

When you see those terms and there is a small subscript “A”, as in LAeq, that “A” means that it has been adjusted, weighted. The “A” gives more weighting to high-frequency noise and removes decibels in low-frequency noise. In other words, it will give you a reading that makes higher-frequency noise more important. It diminishes low-frequency noise. That “A” weighting means that some pitches are enhanced and lower ones are diminished, if that is clear.

Noise comprises pressure waves and they spread out in the environment. They are affected by weather, so on still nights noise will travel better than on windy days. It also depends on the landscape. With distance, high frequencies and high pitches are absorbed in the atmosphere much more than low frequencies and low pitches.

If an airplane is going past you, for example, you will hear the low-frequency element; you will hear the drone. You will hear not high-pitched noises but low-pitches noises even though the noise, if you were beside the airplane, would have high and low frequencies. At a distance, you tend to hear the lower frequencies.

Wind turbine noise is mainly dominated by aerodynamic noise — the swish of the blades going round in the air — and most of the noise from wind turbines is that swishing. To some extent, it is unavoidable. It is the nature of the machine. You can get mechanical noise if there are faults, but we are mainly talking about aerodynamic noise, the swish. The recent designs of turbines have a better blade angle going into the air. It is like any newer, more modern machine; it would tend to be quieter than older machines. They have a better design. However, larger turbines are louder and have more low-frequency noise. So, the more modern ones are quieter, but the larger ones, of course, are going to be louder.

It is not a steady noise, like your fridge at home, and you may not notice it until it suddenly kicks off. A fridge makes is a steady noise and is not that noticeable. Wind turbine noise has a fluctuation. It goes up and down a little bit. The ETSU guidance, published in 1997, acknowledged there was some fluctuation, but bigger wind turbines have been found to have more fluctuations and more in the lower-frequency range.

The ETSU guidance relies very much on the British Standards Institution’s BS 4142, which says that more emphasis should be put on the fluctuations. If a noise is not steady, you have to account for that. It is likely to be more annoying if it fluctuates. I am talking about amplitude modulation, which is up and down — non-steady because it is not steady. The standard says to take account of that and add in another five decibels for the annoyance as it is not a steady noise. When the ETSU guidance was published in 1997, it did not recognise the degree of fluctuations that we now know the larger machines are capable of. ETSU is the assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines. Our planning and policy statement refers to ETSU.

The evidence base has expanded a lot since the ETSU guidelines were published in 1997. A lot more is known about wind turbine noise and annoyance. Also since 1997, the World Health Organization has reduced its recommended indoor night-time noise from 35 decibels to 30 decibels. They reckon that for people not to have their sleep disturbed, it should be 30 decibels.

The ETSU guidance talks a lot about the L90 measure. As I mentioned, that is not the average sound level, it is the lower sound level. ETSU uses L90, the lower level, for both turbine noise and background noise. That is very unusual. All the other guidance that I have read and all the other standards use LAeq. They all use the average; so this is quite unusual for ETSU. When the ETSU guidance was written, it was recommended that it should be reviewed within two years; however, it has not been reviewed. Some of the people who actually wrote the ETSU guidance have subsequently published a paper saying that it might underestimate the noise. So, the people who wrote the ETSU guidance have reservations and reckon that it needs to be updated in the light of current knowledge.

Basically, the reason I think that the ETSU guidance should be revised — apart from the fact that its authors think so — is that the quieter the environment, the more disturbing the noise is. So, it is not necessarily about the actual noise level; it is about the difference between the background noise — what you are used to — and the source noise. It is the difference between the background noise level and the source, not necessarily the absolute, noise level. So, something in the centre of Belfast may not be very annoying, but if it were in the countryside the exact same noise would be annoying. That is what the British standard says as well: it is the difference between the background noise and the source noise. ETSU refers to that; however, it then says that in low-noise environments you may not use that approach. So, I think that ETSU needs to be clarified: why it is usually the difference between the background noise and the actual wind noise, and why sometimes the background noise is not considered. That needs further explanation. ETSU needs to be updated with regard to the World Health Organization’s changes, and more consideration needs to be given to those fluctuations.

Let me turn to some particular issues which you asked me about. Anecdotally, I have heard from several sources, although I do not have evidence, that Northern Ireland is in receipt of older wind turbines, refurbished from other countries. Three academic and professional sources have told me that Northern Ireland is getting refurbished wind turbines. Obviously, those turbines do not benefit from the more recent designs and they may show signs of wear and tear. For example, the blade may have indentations, holes or wear which make it noisier. Apparently, some websites that market reconditioned turbines highlight Northern Ireland as a potential market. I query why such turbines, which are perhaps no longer acceptable in other countries, are acceptable here. Other industries have to show use of best available technology with regard to noise. With refurbished turbines in use, I would query whether we are getting the best technology as defined in the report. Also, with regard to noise, it is a defence to prove use of best practicable means. Again, I think it would be worth looking into the refurbished, reconditioned turbines.

You were asking me in my brief whether the developer should carry out ongoing noise monitoring. My report states that that would identify any increases in noise and any increases beyond what was anticipated. Such noise could be identified and remedied, so I recommend ongoing monitoring by the developer.

You also ask me about setting planning conditions. It is very common for environmental health to advise the Planning Service on planning conditions with regard to noise. There are model planning conditions for noise in guidance provided by the Institute of Acoustics. Use of that would be common.

You also asked me about the environmental health profession’s knowledge of acoustics and noise. My report says that there is a great deal of expertise in acoustics in Northern Ireland’s environmental health profession. Many of them have the postgraduate diploma in acoustics, are members of the Institute of Acoustics and sit on the institute’s advisory committees. However, even though there will be fewer and larger councils shortly in Northern Ireland, there is a considerable and time-consuming administrative and human resources burden due to commenting on planning applications on wind turbines. So, there is a burden on councils.

My report suggests that there should be a more strategic approach to wind turbine planning permission, rather than planning permission being granted on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. There should be an overview and strategic approach to where we want turbines to be rather than those that pop up intermittently.

I think that we should refer to the Danish policy. In Denmark, there is the subsidy scheme for replacement of wind turbines as they become less efficient and, as I mentioned, noisier. Newer ones are less noisy. They replace wind turbines and have a replacement scheme. They are really going towards offshore, rather than onshore, wind turbines. They do acknowledge that there have been complaints in Denmark. Maybe we might not think that other countries complain about noise. They have a loss-of-value scheme for dwellings, so that, if your dwelling is badly affected by wind-turbine noise, there is a compensation scheme. There is an option to purchase at least 20%. So, if a wind turbine is being erected near your house, you have the option to purchase a portion of that turbine so that you will then have an economic interest in it. One of the reasons why people feel particularly aggrieved is when they feel that they have no control and that there is an injustice. We might benefit from the experiences of the Danish.

I was also asked to compare wind turbine noise to road traffic noise and other industrial noise. Wind turbine noise has been found to be more annoying than industrial and road traffic noise. At significant roads and industrial areas, the noise has to be mapped and action plans put in place. With road traffic noise, if a road is being significantly upgraded and your house is nearby, you can get money towards insulation and there is a compensation scheme in place. However, I would say that comparing wind turbine noise with industrial or road traffic noise is like apples and oranges because they are different characters. Road traffic noise tends to go down at night. Roads would not be as noisy at night. So, it is different.

In summary, the ETSU guidance actually permits louder noise at night than it does during the day. Again, anecdotally, I have been told that some operators actually increase their production of electricity at night when they are allowed to emit louder noise levels than during the day. That seems like another reason why the guidance could do with being reviewed and revised.

The Chairperson: Thank you, Ursula. There is certainly a lot of food for thought. That was very informative. You mentioned issues like ETSU-R-97’s being quite out of date, needing to be reviewed and all of that, but this is the first time that I have heard about us using reconditioned turbines. Maybe that is something that we need to write to the Department about. What you are saying is anecdotal. To what extent do we know that we buy reconditioned turbines from others?

Mrs Walsh: I do not know.

The Chairperson: So, when developers make planning applications, do they have to tell the planners that they are for reconditioned turbines?

Mrs Walsh: As far as I know, they identify the make and model of the turbines.

The Chairperson: OK. So, the Department should know and be able to tell us how many what you would call “new turbines” are being installed here that are actually old turbines?

Mrs Walsh: Yes.

The Chairperson: That is something quite significant.

Mr Milne: You mentioned Denmark. Is it possible for us to get a more detailed report on how Denmark operates the system of renewable energies through wind?

Mrs Walsh: How Denmark operates what?

Mr Milne: You said that Denmark has moved away from turbines and more to offshore. Can we get a more detailed report on what you said regarding Denmark?

Mrs Walsh: I have a document here about wind turbines in Denmark. It is produced by the Danish Government and is on my references list. That document is available. It is quite a straightforward document. It is quite easy reading. It does not give the minute detail about how, for example, compensation schemes operate in practice. It does not go into great detail about Denmark’s move towards offshore. I was in Denmark in the summer, and several people told me, “We’re going offshore”. However, when I looked it up, it did not exactly say that they were definitely and conclusively going offshore, but they were saying that this committee is committed more to a policy of offshore turbines.

Mr Milne: Here, we talk about community benefits, and I like the idea you mentioned that, in Denmark, if a wind turbine is put up beside you, you get maybe up to 20% of buy-in to that building. Here, communities are given a few pounds or pennies to buy them off. That is why I would like to see a more detailed document on what is happening in Denmark.

Mrs Walsh: As I said, there is that document. It is called ‘Wind Turbines in Denmark’, and it gives the main information about that but does not give the detail on exactly how those schemes work.

The Chairperson: We can ask Suzie in research to look into it. Suzie has produced a couple of research papers for us.

Mr Boylan: Ursula, thank you for your presentation. I was only signalling that I wanted to ask a question. Sorry about that.

The Chairperson: It was my fault. Ian puts his hand up higher.

Mr Boylan: There is a main point here that you have exposed. You brought up some good points on open space and how sound travels. Clearly, most of these are in the open countryside. Your main point is about the ETSU-R-97, which sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. The point is that, when people have been making presentations to this Committee, they have been saying to us that there have been issues. Clearly, you have exposed those people who have been through that process and said that there are problems with it. That leads me on to say that I know that we have good acoustic professionals here, but, if they are judging all of this, or refusing that, on that policy, which, clearly, does not seem to be fit for purpose, there is a challenge for us to ask more questions. Is it your view now that most of the information is leading us to be judging something on a policy or recommendations that are not fit for purpose and that Planning Service and whoever else is using ETSU-R-97 to gauge all of these decisions?

Mrs Walsh: I think ETSU needs to be reviewed and revised in view of the fact that the knowledge has changed a lot. There has been a lot more knowledge on wind turbine noise since then, and the World Health Organization has asked for particular consideration to be given to low-frequency noise. I think that there is more low-frequency noise in the larger turbines than in 1997, when turbines were not generally as large as they are now. They are getting bigger. I think that the guidance needs to be revised. As I said, ETSU refers to the British Standards Institution’s BS4142, and it is being revised currently. Currently, it is being said that maybe more weight needs to be given to these fluctuations and tones, so ETSU would benefit from the upcoming revision of the British Standard.

Mr Boylan: Where is that element of it — the review? Is it soon? The reason I ask you that is because there are going to be a number of decisions over the next twelve months or the next two approvals. There could be a retrospective challenge to whatever system people want to use. I would safely say now that, at this moment in time, given the evidence that you have brought to us in relation to ETSU-R-97, there could be challenges to those approvals that have already taken place because the guidance was not actually fit for purpose. Is that a fair assumption? Where are we in terms of the new review? There are going to be new decisions made or new approvals given over the next 12 months, or maybe more than that, before the new figures are actually in place.

Mrs Walsh: It does not give enough weighting to the fluctuations and the amplitude modulation. It does not give enough significance to the annoyance level of that.

Mr Boylan: So, basically, we as a Committee need to ask questions about approvals. It is not really fit for purpose, given what we have heard today.

The Chairperson: Do you know why? As you said, it was meant to be reviewed after two years. Why is it still not being reviewed 17 years on? What is the reason for not reviewing it?

Mrs Walsh: I do not know. The Institute of Acoustics did bring out a guide to ETSU but it was outside the remit of the institute to look at noise levels and noise limits. Further guidance on it has been produced, but certain core issues were not addressed because it was outside the remit of the review committee.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much. That was a lot of information. Your issue about taking a strategic approach has been given to us over and over by planning personnel. There are just too many ad hoc applications, with single turbines everywhere. Thank you very much indeed.

Fighting the Corruption Behind the Windscam!

September 17, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

How to Fight the Great Wind Power Fraud

September 17, 2014 by stopthesethings

In this post we documented over 2,000 Anti-Wind Power Fraud groups operating world-wide, fighting to protect their homes, farms, families and communities from being overrun and destroyed by giant industrial wind turbines.

The battles being waged have a common enemy, but the tactics and strategies employed are diverse – and, unfortunately, in some cases play into the hands of wind power outfits, their advocates and apologists.

In Australia, when the battle to save communities began some years back, the usual response from those opposed to wind farms was along the lines of: “we’re all in favour of renewable energy, so long as wind farms are built in the right place”.

Thankfully, it’s a line rarely heard these days as people switch on to the scale and scope of the great wind power fraud – and open their eyes, for the first time, to the phenomenal cost of the subsidies directed at wind power through the mandatory RET (see our post here) – and the impact on retail power prices (see our post here).

Fair minded country people are usually ready to give others the benefit of the doubt; and, not used to being lied to, accepted arguments pitched by wind power outfits about the “merits” of wind power: guff like “this wind farm will power 100,000 homes and save 10 million tonnes of CO2 emissions” (see our post here).

Not anymore.

Apart from the very few farmers that stand to profit by hosting turbines, rural communities have woken up to the fact that wind power – which can only ever be delivered at crazy, random intervals – is meaningless as a power source because it cannot and will never replace on-demand sources, such as hydro, gas and coal. And, as a consequence, that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. The wind industry has never produced a shred of actual evidence to show it has; and the evidence that has been gathered shows intermittent wind power causing CO2 emissions to increase, not decrease (see our post here and this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

The realisation that the wind industry is built on series of unsustainable fictions has local communities angrier than ever and helps explain the phenomenal numbers opposed to wind farms within those communities: 90% or more in plenty of cases (see our post here).

However, if your group (wherever it is) is still running the line that: “there’s nothing wrong with wind farms just as long as they’re in the right place”, you might as well run up the white flag now. Likewise, if your pitch is based on a proposed wind farm’s negative impact on your visual amenity.

When arguments like these are reduced to their common denominator they’re all based on the “my patch of paradise is special, so go and find somewhere else” proposition.

Wind farm developers have faced that pitch thousands of times in hundreds of places. Their obvious response is that ALL of these places can’t be “special”; governments set up policies to save the planet; therefore, wind farms have to go somewhere, so it may as well be at [insert place name], right next to your place ….

Having stuck with a “wind farms are alright somewhere else” case, pro-community and pro-farming groups find themselves being steamrolled by the combined forces of lying, cheating wind farm developers and corrupt planning systems.

STT thinks your group will have far more success if you don’t concede that there is any right place for a wind farm, anywhere, ever.

STT has hammered the fact that wind power is both an economic and environmental fraud, making it plain that there is never a “right” place for any wind farm: we’d like to think that we’ve got that message across; to the benefit of many, we hope.

While the wind industry in Australia is on its knees, there are plenty of threatened communities here still taking it up to slimy developers and bent planning panels, to make damn sure that the country surrounding their towns, farms and homes remains turbine free.

In any battle, it is always sound practice to settle on a strategy from the beginning and to stick with it, no matter what the enemy throws back.

Fighting planning battles at the local level requires a different strategy than that required to get the Federal government to chop the mandatory RET, where the case to kill the wind industry is largely about subsidies and power prices. However, there are some arguments that will win traction in both forums; such as the absurdity of trying to rely on a power source that has to have 100% of its capacity backed up 100% of the time by conventional generation sources, among others.

If you’re engaged in a local battle, STT thinks that this wrap up from American Physicist and Environmental Activist, John Droz Jr is as good a template as you’ll find.

An Analysis of Anti-Wind Farm Strategies
John Droz Jr
16 May 2009

As a “concerned citizen” I often (probably too frequently) find myself in the situation of trying to fix some type of community problem — like propagating wind power.

Through years of valiant efforts — often successful but sometimes not — one thing I have learned is that being right isn’t enough. As a scientist, this concept is not intuitive to my way of thinking. It generally seems to me that the facts should determine the outcome.

But no, people being people, that often is not what happens.

This had lead me to a greater appreciation of the value of Public Relations. Most people do not understand Public Relations very well, as they confuse it with “advertising”, or categorized as a “pseudo-science” that amounts to a lot of subjective opinions. It’s neither.

I now understand Public Relations as really meaning “effective communication.” Clearly any issue stands a better chance of being resolved when there is better communication.

Public Relations is most applicable at public meetings, Letters to the Editor, websites, etc.

So how does this apply to local groups or environmental organizations who are against industrial wind power?

Since you will be up against well-financed businesses, money-focused politicians, and maybe even well-intentioned (but misinformed) environmental organizations, it is critical that your group employ a well thought out strategy if you have any hope of success — and there HAVE been grassroots groups that were successful in fighting off wind developers.

In my opinion, by far the most important decision that needs to be made is exactly where you want to have the battle, and then carefully controlling things to keep it there.

The problem I see with most groups trying to resist the wind power conglomerate, is that they are fighting the war on the wrong front.

These groups say something like “we will accept wind power if it is sited properly.” Then they work to get “proper siting” to deal with one or more (legitimate) concerns: noise levels, bird flyways, habitat destruction, property devaluation, view setbacks, etc.

In my opinion, this is a MAJOR and usually lethal mistake. Here’s why:

1 – This position amounts to a counter-proposal to the developers: that if the turbines are moved X feet in some direction, then the project will be acceptable. Implicit in that is an admission that wind power really works.This admission is erroneous and is usually fatal.

2 – Once the developers have your acknowledgment that wind power will work (with just a different positioning of turbines), they will then focus on undermining your proposed adjustments. They do this by bringing in their experts who dispute your noise, etc. findings.

The result usually is that it ends up being “He says, She says”. There is almost never a clear cut victory for you on such points — even though you may well be 100% right!

3 – Let’s say that the developer agrees with your objection and moves the wind towers X feet in some direction. Are you saying that this is now a good thing, that these wind towers are now an asset to your community?Hopefully not, but that is also implied with this strategy.

4 – Framing your group’s position as a siting issue gives the appearance (right or wrong) that this is a NIMBY matter. Be assured that the proponents will put it that way.

5 – You are unlikely to get widespread public support using such tactics, because if another community member isn’t personally affected by your issue (e.g. noise levels) then they could probably care less. You need broad public support!

6 – Another problem in garnering public support is presenting multiple, technical issues for average citizens to absorb. What does Joe Public know about acceptable decibel levels?

7 – Going down this path will also likely fracture your group. Some will want certain issues front and center, others will want different ones. This is not a recipe for success.

8 – Even under the best circumstances — that you prove your point (e.g. that in some cases the noise will be too loud), you will then have to deal with their trump card:

“Yes that may be so, but we all have to make real sacrifices to save the planet.”

Now what are you going to say? Effectively you’ve lost.

All this happened because of one thing: you fought the wrong battle.

————————————————————————————————————

Let’s start over. Your one position is that you support sound scientific solutions — and wind power is not acceptable as: it fails to deliver the goods.

By this you mean that wind energy:

1) is not a technically legitimate solution for our grid, or to meaningfully reduce CO2, and

2 is not a commercially viable source of energy on its own; and

3) is not environmentally responsible.

Those basic criteria haven’t been selected to make wind power look bad, but are what should be used to evaluate the legitimacy of any proposed new alternative source of energy. You are not against global warming or renewable energy or economic incentives: you are only against proposals that don’t make good scientific sense.

Here are some benefits of this approach:

1 – You are on MUCH stronger technical ground than you would be on any of the secondary issues, as the wind power industry does NOT have proof — anyplace in the world — that CO2 has been materially reduced, or that any coal power plant has been shut down due to wind power added to the grid.

Since there are some 100,000 wind turbines now in operation world wide, such evidence should be plentiful and easy to produce. Maybe it has been too long since I got out of graduate school, but my recollection of how science is supposed to work is this:

When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution of a problem, it is up to the solution proponents to PROVE its efficacy — not the other way around.

Here we have businessmen, investors and politicians proposing wind power as part of an energy “solution” to global warming. So the ball is in their court as to providing independent, objective proof that wind poweris a viable solution from all pertinent perspectives. THIS HAS NOT YET HAPPENED, and your group should stay focused on that significant vulnerability of theirs.

2 – Once you fully absorb the understanding that wind power does not work, then you can see the foolishness of saying that it is OK if it is “sited properly.” {Exactly what is proper siting for something that does not work?} Since siting is no longer a major issue, there is an increased likelihood that (if you win) that there will be NO wind project in your community. Isn’t that a MUCH better result than getting one with setbacks?

3 – Once you get your members educated, they can ALL be on the same page. Who would be in favor of something that doesn’t work?

4 – Your group will no longer come across to the public as a fractured collection of malcontents trying to protect some niche area of personal interest.

5 – It will be easier to educate the public on this one issue.

6 – You can still bring in some secondary issues (but only as need be) under the auspices of “wind power is not environmentally responsible because…”.

7 – Taking this approach will less likely result in criticism of your group being NIMBYs.

Saying that you are against something because it doesn’t work, is quitedifferent from saying that you are against it because it’s in your backyard.

8 – You are also less likely to be labeled as anti-green, because you are infavor of green solutions to our energy situation — but wind power isn’t green and isn’t a meaningful solution. There are alternative energy sources that better meet the science/economics/environmental tests much better than wind: like geothermal.

9 – The only good reason to support setbacks is to make them so restrictive that the cost of the project becomes prohibitive and the developer leaves. It is important to do this ONLY after making clear that your position is that wind power does not work. [An excellent example of scientifically based setbacks is from an ordinance in Trempealeau County, Wisconsin. Find this and others at my site <<http://www.wiseenergy.org>>.]

10 – Most importantly of all, the “it doesn’t work” strategy removes the developer’s trump card. There is no “sacrifice for the planet” anymore, as you have proved that his development doesn’t help the planet one whit.

————————————————————————————————————

Hopefully this should show you which path is in your best interest. Let’s say you take my suggestion and fight on the “It doesn’t work” front. Are you still home free?

Almost, but they will likely throw out a new trump card: “OK it may not work, but look at all the money our community will get!”

That’s good as you will have successfully ferreted out the real driving force here: MONEY.

Here’s how to deal with that:

1 – Anticipate this ending, at the beginning. Get your town board (or whoever is advocating this) to make a commitment before you show your hand. Get on the pubic record their answer to your question: “Are you supporting this project because of the global warming benefits, or the money?” It is almost 100% assured that they will say the former.

2 – Now at the end, you bring out their documented position and say that you have addressed their good objective of helping with global warming, and shown that this project does NOT help. Therefore you expect them to be good to their word and not support it.

3 – You can point out the fact that the money that the developer is so generously tossing around is not through his own largess — it is taxpayer money in the first place. Are we really so gullible that we can be bribed with our own money?

4 – Let’s say that they now admit that it’s only all about the money. This is where you put that position in context. “OK, what I hear you say is that you want to bring money into our community — despite the fact that wind power has no other meaningful benefit to anyone, and despite the fact that wind power has proven environmental liabilities. Well then I ask you, since this seems to be your thinking, what’s next?”

“Should we expect that you will be signing us up for a regional landfill? How about a toxic chemical plant? How about a slaughterhouse? Maybe a prison for terrorists? Should we clear-cut all our trees to cash in on their value? Maybe a strip mining operation? How about selling our water to Nestle to bottle? These businesses would also employ people and pay taxes — just like wind power.”

“We live here. We work here. We have brought up our children here. Our life is here. What is at stake here is our quality of life. As our representative, we want to make this very clear: our quality of life is not for sale at any price.”

If done right, this approach will have widespread community support, and that is your best chance for victory.

————————————————————————————————————

Let’s wrap it up here and just say that despite ALL your good efforts that your representatives refuse to listen to reason, and still choose not to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, it happens!

In brief you have two options: a) replace them, or b) sue them.

The obvious way to replace a person who is a poor representative is to vote them out. But how do you do this if they are entrenched in the system, or elections are a long way off?

One strategy that does work is to get them to resign, through public pressure. (Again you only embark on this option after you have exhausted the polite attempts at conversion.)

Another effective tactic is to form a Political Action Committee (PAC). Since this is a legal matter, it is discussed in our Some Legal Optionsreport (see wiseenergy.org).

The good news is that if you have gone about this in the proper way, then you have set the stage for a lawsuit (a latter level recourse) that is likely to be successful.

Because there is a lot to the legal aspect topic, please refer to the aforementioned Some Legal Options report for more information.

Whatever your strategy, to be successful your group must get a sound understanding of the wind power matter before taking on the developers or local politicians.

There is a wealth of applicable information at my web page: <<http://www.wiseenergy.org>>. Please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are listed at that page, especially “Essential Reading” which also has more links to detailed information.

John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Activist
Brantingham Lake, NY

Self-Destructing Wind Turbines…..a Brilliant Idea!

September 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

New Wave of Turbine Terror: Brits Brace as Giant Fans Keep Collapsing

September 16, 2014 by stopthesethings 1 Comment

A while back we covered what the wind industry and its parasites call “component liberation” in our post – Life in the “throw zone” which included video of a Vestas’ turbine “liberating” its components.

That led to a retort from an employee from AGL’s Macarthur wind farm disaster – calling himself “Prowind” – about the exploding turbine – “that turbine in the video is not accident, they purposely let it self destruct. That is NEVER going to happen at MacArthur.”

We dealt with “Prowind” in our post – Logic: not found on other planets?– which included a serious scientific study into the distances blades are likely to travel during “component liberation”. The study dealt with over 37 “component liberation” events, recording blade throw distances of up to 1,600 m.

And we covered a turbine liberating its components in a schoolyard at Caithness, Scotland in this post: Remember the days of the old school yard?

We also covered – yet another component liberation – in our spoof post –IWTs or WMDs?

The obvious irony and sarcasm in that post was lost on greentards – a humourless bunch at the best of times – which prompted us to explain the difference between the literal and the figurative – in this post – It’s all about the costs, stupid.

Not only are giant fans determined to “liberate” their blades all over the countryside, schools and homes, these friendly little puppies are just as keen to collapse, laying waste to anything in their path.

Here’s a wrap up from the UK on the terror and havoc being caused by collapsing turbines.

The scandal of UK’s death-trap wind turbines:
The Mail on Sunday
Simon Trump
14 September 2014

A turbine built for 115mph winds felled in 50mph gusts. Dozens more affected by cost-cutting. Why residents living in their shadow demand to know – are they safe?

Health and Safety Executive release reports on collapsed wind turbines
Causes were manufacturing faults and basic installation mistakes
Campaigners believe the risk of turbines collapsing will continue to grow

It was just before midnight on a winter’s night last year. Outside in the gusting January wind it was freezing, but Bill Jarvis was sitting by the fire with his wife Annie and a few relatives in their cottage on the North Devon moors.

And that’s when they heard it: a tremendous ‘crack’, louder than a thunderclap.

‘We rushed outside wondering what on earth had happened,’ recalls Bill. ‘We thought perhaps a plane had crashed it was such a loud noise. ‘We couldn’t see flames or anything burning, even though we peered out in the direction it had come from. There was nothing else though, no more noise or aftershocks.’

Deafeningly loud it might have been, but what the Jarvis family had heard – as they were to discover the following morning – had taken place at Bradworthy, a mile away. It was the noise of a 115ft-high wind turbine crashing to the ground.

‘It’s pretty terrifying stuff,’ says Mr Jarvis. ‘I’m no fan of the things and this has just added to my worries. Just think what could have happened. It sends a shiver down your spine.’

He is not the only one feeling nervous about the march of the giant metal windmills across the British landscape.

This week, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) produced two reports – one into the catastrophic failure of the Bradworthy turbine and another into the collapse of a turbine in the next county, Cornwall, just three nights later.

And its conclusions are not merely unsettling, but have frightening implications for wind turbines and their safety right across the country.

The turbines in Devon and Cornwall came down when the wind was blowing at barely 50mph, despite the fact that they are supposed to withstand blasts of just over 115mph.

And, as the HSE concluded, the causes were manufacturing faults and basic mistakes in the way they were installed. The errors have already been replicated elsewhere in the country, as the two reports make clear, and could affect dozens – if not hundreds – more of the giant towers.

It is hardly encouraging to learn that the HSE reports were not published in a normal sense, but were available only on request and in redacted form.

They have come to light now only through Freedom of Information (FoI) requests lodged by a number of concerned residents.

Dr Philip Bratby, from CPRE Devon, believes the risk of collapse will continue to grow as long as the wind industry is allowed to operate behind a wall of secrecy.

A retired physicist, who formerly worked in nuclear energy, he says: ‘Safety standards in my line of work were paramount. We constantly monitored, tested and maintained equipment but this does not seem the case with turbines.

‘These two failures were catastrophic. The towers came crashing down with great force from a great height.

‘It was only down to luck it happened in the night and no people or animals were injured or killed.

‘The wind industry is very secretive about everything it does. It won’t publicise any definitive information about accidents so it is impossible to make an independent assessment of the risks.’

Dr Bratby lives at Rackenford, high on the edge of Exmoor, where there has also been a proliferation of turbines.

‘I am not convinced that we are learning from the bad experiences and feeding those lessons back into the education of designers and constructors because the industry is growing so rapidly,’ he says.

‘The size of these turbines seems to keep on increasing and I believe the dangers will increase accordingly. The bigger the turbine that fails, the bigger the potential for disaster and death.’

Turbine towers are supposedly secured by lowering them on to a series of foundation rods that emerge vertically from a concrete foundation.

These are levelled by the adjustment of bottom nuts below a flange at the base and then fixed with another set of nuts above the base.

All the exposed metal, including the rods and the nuts, is then encased in grout which protects it and spreads the stresses from any movement in the turbine.

Yet as these groundbreaking HSE reports show, not only were some of the parts faulty, two different sets of sub-contractors made the same basic – possibly cost-cutting – errors. And the result was that the metal monsters were not secure at all.

In the incident at East Ash Farm, Bradworthy, on January 27, 2013 – the one heard by Mr Jarvis – an E3120 model, made by Canadian-based Endurance, was found to have been installed with the wrong configuration of nuts at its base.

This upset the ‘loadings’, or balance, of the tower. The implication is that it wasn’t level. To compound the problem, the contractors who installed it had failed to use structural-grade grout to seal the rods and bolts from the worst of the weather and had used a ‘cosmetic’ compound instead.

The HSE reports reveal that the same faulty configuration of nuts had been to blame at Wattlesborough, near Shrewsbury in Shropshire, the previous year when another E3120 collapsed.

To date, Endurance has erected 300 of the E3120s throughout the United Kingdom.

The UK arm of the company says it has inspected all of them and carried out urgent repairs on 29 of the towers.

A different type of turbine fell at Winsdon Farm, North Petherwin, Cornwall, on January 30. This was a G133, manufactured by Gaia-Wind, originally a Danish firm.

This time there was a fault with the components, resulting in a failure in the foundation rods concreted into its base. But again, it had been badly installed with a lack of grout. As the HSE inspector concluded, there was ‘a lack of resilience to the fatigue loading within the securing arrangement… and poor fatigue strength in the securing components’.

The collapse of another G133 turbine at Otley, near Leeds, in April 2013 occurred in identical circumstances. Again, the securing rods were substandard. Once again, they had not been properly grouted in place.

As Dr Bratby points out, the footings and securings, which are difficult to inspect when encased in concrete and grout, are critical because they are subject to such huge and varying forces.

‘Over time they clearly degrade to the point of failure,’ he says. ‘We should be asking ourselves whether we are at a tipping point as the first-generation technology is exposed and compromised.’

Dr Bratby is frustrated at the lack of risk assessments undertaken when looking at sites.

He says: ‘I accept that the dangers from wind turbines located on farms without public access and remote from public rights of way are probably acceptable.

‘That is not always the case. They have been located close to roads and railways, at workplaces, in schools, hospitals and parks without any formal assessment of the dangers. I think that is unacceptable.’

His views are shared by fellow campaigner Alan Dransfield, from Exeter, who helped to mastermind the FoI application.

‘These reports took the best part of a year and several thousand pounds to compile, and the HSE decided to investigate because of the extensive media coverage and widespread public concern,’ Mr Dransfield says.

‘I’m delighted they did because look what they’ve found. Without doubt there is an urgent need for a more proactive stance with regard to the wind-turbine industry. It clearly can’t police itself.’

Taken together, there are 380 E3120 and GI33 towers. Of these, four are known to have collapsed, while repairs were necessary in 39 others to prevent potential further collapses.

Meanwhile, an as yet undisclosed number have further problems with the way they are bolted down, according to the HSE, and need repairing as soon as possible.

Revealing as they are, however, the two new reports deal with only a small minority of British turbines: there are 6,500 of differing design and manufacture across the country, and when it comes to problems with collapse or faulty installation, the public is wholly in the dark.

Figures from Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, a wind-turbine monitoring website, show that structural failure is the third most common major fault, behind blade failure and fire.

It has recorded an average of 149 accidents worldwide every year between 2009 and 2013 but believes this to be the ‘tip of the iceberg’ as it relies on scanning the internet for reports of such incidents.

‘The trend is as expected – as more turbines are built, more accidents occur,’ says a spokesman. ‘The numbers will continue upwards until the HSE helps force significant change.

‘In particular, the public should be protected by declaring a minimum safe distance between new turbine developments and occupied houses and buildings.’

However, Chris Streatfeild, director of health and safety with Renewable UK, the industry trade association, believes that any fears of wind power are unfounded and the risks minimal and acceptable.

‘Manufacturers, installers and owners work hard to ensure that they meet extremely stringent health and safety standards,’ he says.

‘There’s a rigorous process, verified by independent bodies, to ensure strict installation standards and safe siting. That’s why problems are so rare.’

He adds: ‘When incidents do occur, it’s important to learn from them and implement any lessons fully and promptly. Any serious incident has to be reported to the HSE and we work closely with them to ensure high standards are maintained.

‘To put this into its proper context, no member of the public has ever been injured by a wind turbine. It’s unfortunate a handful of anti-wind campaigners are choosing to indulge in scaremongering.

‘Climate change is a real and pressing issue. When it comes to generating clean electricity, onshore wind is the most cost-effective way so we should be making the most of it.’

Meanwhile, at North Petherwin, the fallen wind turbine has now been resurrected. Indeed, landowner and Liberal Democrat councillor Adam Paynter has installed a second one alongside it. Mr Paynter declined to comment when contacted by The Mail on Sunday.
At Bradworthy, farmers Des and Vera Ludwell were also staying quiet about their windmill. A new turbine stands in the position of its collapsed predecessor, about 50 yards from the road. A second one is even closer, leaving little safety margin.

Councillor David Tomlin revealed there are 50 turbines within a six-mile radius of Bradworthy, a quiet market town, and a further 20 have been approved.

‘We are not anti-wind power as such,’ he says. ‘But there is a visual intrusion and residents who live close to turbines report a constant whooshing noise from blades. Most importantly, can we still be certain they are safe?

‘What happened here and in Cornwall and analysed in detail in these two reports should be a wake- up call. Perhaps we should halt the erection of further turbines pending an investigation of the industry as a whole.’
The Mail on Sunday

Wind power: ludicrously expensive; totally unreliable; utterly pointless and insanely dangerous – what’s not to like …

Dictatorial Governments Bound to Get Backlash! Listen When We Say NO!!

September 15, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

NIMBYs are not the problem

Ontario’s failure to develop broader support for building wind and other renewable energy projects stems from a lack of local democracy.

Stewart FastPolicy Options, September 2014

The sweeping changes to Ontario’s renewable energy policy regime in the past few years have spawned a highly charged public debate. Much of the controversy focuses on the public payments offered to wind and solar developers, and there has been an accompanying backlash from dissenting neighbours and other critics against the proliferation of turbines and solar panels in rural areas. But that noisy clash obscures a deeper and more dangerous tendency in the province’s approach to new energy projects: an approval framework that sees the public as inherently selfish, prone to irrational opposition and incapable of considering the greater public interest. This policy approach reflects the bureaucracy’s mistrust of the ability of the Ontario public to make wise energy choices.

The belief that individual selfishness prevails over a sense of the common good inhibits good energy policy and is unhealthy for the province’s democracy. It springs from a conviction of the power of NIMBYism. NIMBY, of course, is the catchy acronym coined in the 1980s for the “not in my backyard” phenomenon that expresses individuals’ desire to protect their own turf from new building or development, despite broad societal agreement that the development is necessary. The concept holds that while most citizens might agree on the need for a new road, landfill, prison or wind generator, few want to live next to one.

Framed this way, the NIMBY question is a variation of the free-rider problem in economic theory: how to avoid everyone freely benefiting from a service without paying their share. Traditionally, this has been dealt with by having a planning authority compel or compensate citizens to host these facilities for the greater good. But recently there has been a growing acknowledgement of the public’s readiness to appreciate trade-offs and participate more fully in planning decisions. Public policy practitioners and researchers alike recognize that decisions about where to build new developments are messy and highly political, and frequently involve trade-offs and multiple changes to original plans. If conflict is to be minimized and decisions given greater legitimacy, the public must be involved in the process.

Unfortunately, Ontario’s approach to building wind generators and other renewable energy projects has ignored this tenet. Instead of more public participation, there has been less. In 2009, a dozen pieces of legislation were amended to create uniform provincial standards, streamlining the patchwork of local rules that had grown up around the province’s first wind projects on matters such as setbacks (the distance a facility must be from dwellings, roads, rivers and other places that need protection), noise bylaws and community benefit arrangements. Any requirement for lower-tier government approval was erased and a stringent legal test was put in place in case of appeals against wind project approvals. The approach was designed in the conviction that Ontario’s citizens were not to be trusted, and that anyone opposing wind energy was simply in the grip of NIMBYism.

This is a flawed premise. As early as 2000, Dutch researcher Maarten Wolsink showed that only a small minority of people living next to proposed and existing wind farms fit the classic profile of a NIMBY. Research published in 2013 by Jamie Baxter and colleagues from the University of Western Ontario showed a similar phenomenon. In a study that surveyed Ontario communities with and without turbines, they showed that only 9 percent of residents fit the NIMBY profile. Instead, their research revealed that Ontarians are much more likely to either oppose the installation of wind turbines altogether (not in anybody’s backyard, or NIABY) or, if they favour renewables, agree to have them built in their communities (yes in my backyard, or YIMBY).

My research into public attitudes to renewable energy projects backs this up. I have looked at the process for approving wind projects both before and after the rule changes to the 2009 Ontario Green Energy Act, and I found that the YIMBY constituency is effectively sidelined by the lack of a process for discussing and debating projects at the local level, including the failure to require municipal authority approval for projects.

The lack of a process to involve citizens in decisions means supporters of renewable energy development projects have less incentive – and little opportunity – to influence project approval.

The lack of a process to involve citizens in decisions at the local level means those who support new renewable energy development projects have less incentive — and little opportunity — to meaningfully influence project approval. The feeling among YIMBYs is that the province is the only authority that matters under the current rules, so why engage in potentially unpleasant arguments and debates with neighbours? Furthermore, as Trent University’s Stephen Hill and James Knott point out in their 2010 article in the journal Renewable Energy Law and Policy, local planners are sidelined from the process of approving new renewable energy projects, removing a vital cog in lending legitimacy to projects. Local planners are the skilled and trusted actors normally designated to shepherd controversial developments to completion.

Yes, requiring local approval and getting local politicians and planners onside takes time. And the need for deeper support at the local level may mean that some projects with excellent technical and economic foundations may not get built. But in the long run, trust and social licence are assets that need to be nurtured during this transition to a greater reliance on green energy. Wind, solar and other renewables are a type of resource that is different from more centralized energy systems like nuclear and coal power plants. Wind and solar resources are disparate and spread out across communities and landscapes. The change to a low-carbon energy system thus involves new actors and new winners and losers. Ontario needs to implement more, not fewer, meaningful opportunities for local residents to impact project decisions.

A high rate of project appeals in Ontario is associated with another policy problem: poor communication of the health risks involved in wind power generation. The potential for producing serious harm to human health is one of only two bases for appeals under the Ontario legislation (the other is serious and irreversible harm to plant and animal life). Fear of ill-health effects has become a mantra of the wind opposition movement in the province. Testimonials of negative health impacts are thus raised in the adversarial setting of a legal process, instead of in a more open environment where the health issues could be discussed openly by citizens and experts alike. The health discourse has become polarized, with wind developers on one side labelling the alleged ill-health impacts as “quack science” while critics raise the spectre of alarming risks to public health if wind turbines are built. This turns legitimate discussion of health risks into fevered tribal warfare.

It is not even clear that Ontario’s streamlined approval regime has provided the stable environment for investment in wind energy that was a primary goal of the legislation. In reaction to an absence of democratic process, local protests against what is seen as provincial heavy-handedness have grown into a well-organized and effective anti-wind movement. Industry watchers note that every single wind project approved under the new Ontario rules has been appealed. The legal delays forced the province earlier this year to extend the contractual deadlines for approved power projects to account for these delays. By comparison, Quebec has had far fewer appeals for roughly the same production level of installed wind projects.

One reason for Quebec’s lower level of community conflict over wind power generation may lie with the province’s ability to successfully establish a sense of community ownership of some wind projects. There is wide agreement among experts that wind energy success in jurisdictions like Germany and Denmark is partially due to high levels of community ownership of projects. Hydro-Québec has signed agreements for a dozen wind projects in which community interests have a 50 percent ownership stake. These ownership groups include regional municipal governments and First Nations. The arrangements vary, but typically wind revenue is returned to general coffers or earmarked to a special fund.

Ontario’s framework for supporting community ownership of wind projects, on the other hand, has been an utter failure. Instead of setting aside a guaranteed portion of the province’s wind power purchases to come from projects with community ownership as was done in Quebec, Ontario offered to pay a premium price for a particular type of community ownership arrangement. Local renewable energy co-ops first had to be established, and then these entities had to partner with developers with at least a 15 percent ownership stake in order to capture the premium price. Five years after the law was passed, no wind projects with co-op ownership have emerged in the province.

Policy-makers should have recognized the lack of uptake in Ontario earlier and experimented with different options, such as lower percentage thresholds for the premium. A more equitable sharing of the financial benefits from wind projects is part of the answer to host-community conflicts. Typically, only the wind company and a select number of landowners with turbines on their properties receive compensation for the energy produced. Other models such as the community ownership arrangements in Quebec or compensation for all landowners in close proximity to turbines could help. The more actors that are receiving even modest financial benefits to offset the costs of having a wind project in their backyard, the better.

Thankfully, there are signs that the province is getting the message that it cannot override local democracy if its orchestrated transition to greater renewable energy use is to succeed. Earlier this year, provincial civil servants were directed to revamp community engagement requirements for large wind procurement contracts. Early proposals are that wind development companies would have to show community involvement through equity interest or an agreement to comply with local site control processes.

However, the that reality is that there is a legacy of dozens of wind projects approved under the old rules that have yet to be built and will continue to create unnecessary community conflict for years to come. One area in which to monitor the Wynne government’s commitment to more -citizen involvement is a planned move to more decentralized energy planning. This would see regional-level input into selecting a mix of energy sources appropriate to the energy needs of regions.

The litmus test is who gets invited to participate and agrees to join in these deliberations. Will it be only energy utilities and government departments, or will community groups and landowners also be involved? To truly succeed, policy-makers must realize that not all citizens are selfish NIMBYs. If the transition to renewables is to work by consent, people must be consulted at a local level. The diktat approach is destined to fail.

Stewart Fast is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Geography and the Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, Queen’s University.

Windweasels Deny Health Problems Caused By Wind Turbines….They’re Not Telling the Truth!

September 14, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

How Do Wind Turbines Affect Human Health?

BY STEFFANIE PETRONI

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

~ World Health Organization

During the1930’s the public began expressing concerns about smoking referencing a persistent smoker’s cough or smoker’s hack. When the tobacco companies caught wind of the grumblings they concocted a pre-emptive marketing campaign. Who was more trusted than doctors on the matter of health? Tobacco companies like Lucky Strike and Camels enlisted the reassuring image of doctors, though most were actors, to endorse the ‘throat soothing’ qualities and preferred smooth taste of a particular brand.

In the 1940’s and 1950’s tobacco companies applied a different spin to their advertising. While some pitched that their cigarettes weren’t harmful, other brands claimed to be less harmful. Around this time physicians were aware of the addictive quality of cigarettes but weren’t convinced that there was a direct causal factor between smoking and disease.

It was in 1964 when the United States Surgeon General issued the first report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. Their findings concluded- over thirty years after the public first began ringing alarm bells, that there was certainly a direct link between smoking and lung cancer and bronchitis.

As noted by Alec N. Salt and Jeffery T. Lichtenhan in their paper, How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People? (April 2014), “Whether it is a chemical industry blamed for contaminating groundwater with cancer-causing dioxin, the tobacco industry accused of contributing to lung cancer, or athletes of the National Football League putatively being susceptible to brain damage, it can be extremely difficult to establish the truth when some have an agenda to protect the status quo. It is only when sufficient scientific evidence is compiled by those not working for the industry that the issue is considered seriously.”

As the spread of industrial wind turbine farms have increased across the Canadian landscape so have concerns related to the impact on human health prompted by the installations of these 21^st century machines in rural and small populated areas of the nation.

In his peer reviewed paper, Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines, Dr. R. Jeffery states that, “People who live or work in close proximity to industrial wind turbines have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief, or a sense of injustice.” Jeffery surmises that causes of such symptoms include a combination of industrial wind turbine noise and infrasound in addition to other relatable grounds.

Responding to public health concerns in 2010, the Chief Medical Officer of Health released a report The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines and concluded that ‘the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between industrial wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

The report clarifies that the “normal human ear perceives sounds at frequencies ranging from 20 Hz to 20, 000 Hz” where Hz represents the frequency or pitch of sound. “Frequencies below 200 Hz are commonly referred to as ‘low frequency sound’ and those below 20 Hz as ‘infrasound’. A decibel (dB) is “characterized by its sound pressure level” or loudness. Adverse health effects can occur at 50 to 70 dB.

As noted in the national report, sound from industrial wind turbines is produced ‘through mechanical and aerodynamic routes’ and the ‘dominant sound source from modern wind turbines is aerodynamic. The aerodynamic noise is present at all frequencies, from infrasound to low frequency to the normal audible range.’

In their paper Salt and Lichtenhan emphasize, “The million-dollar question is whether the effects of wind turbine infrasound stimulation stay confined to the ear and have no other influence on the person or animal. At present, the stance of wind industry and its acoustician advisors is that there are no consequences to long-term low-frequency and infrasonic stimulation. This is not based on studies showing that long-term stimulation to low-level infrasound has no influence on humans or animals. No such studies have ever been performed. Their narrow perspective shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the sophistication of biological systems and is almost certainly incorrect.”

Ménière’s disease is a disorder of the inner ear that causes spontaneous episodes of vertigo -a sensation of a spinning motion along with fluctuating hearing loss, tinnitus, and sometimes a feeling of fullness or pressure in your ear. Salt and Lichtenhan draw comparison to Ménière’s disease and the symptoms that are described by many people who live near wind turbines.

“A condition called “endolymphatic hydrops,” which is found in humans with Ménière’s disease, can displace the sensory organ as the space containing the fluid called endolymph swells.” Their extensive research suggests that infrasound and low-frequency “could affect the ear and give rise to the symptoms that some people living near wind turbines report.”

Jeffrey acknowledges that noise is the most frequent complaint from people living near industrial wind turbines. He states, “The noise is described as piercing, preoccupying, and continually surprising, as it is irregular in intensity. The noise includes grating and incongruous sounds that distract the attention or disturb rest.”

It is interesting to note that in the Chief Medical Officer’s 2010 report it is stated that, “Little information is available on actual measurements of sound levels generated from wind turbines and other environmental sources. Since there is no widely accepted protocol for the measurement of noise from wind turbines, current regulatory requirements are based on modelling.”

Pursuant to requirements in Ontario, industrial wind turbine setbacks of 550 meters from a dwelling are said to limit the degree of perceived noise created by wind turbines to 40 dB which is a ‘sound level comparable to indoor background sound’ or a mosquito buzzing next to your ear.

In Jeffrey’s report he states, “Reports of industrial wind turbines –induced adverse health effects have been dismissed by some commentators including government authorities and other organizations. Physicians have been exposed to efforts to convince the public of the benefits of industrial wind turbine’s while minimizing the health risks.”

Dr. David Kolby, Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Chatam-Kent region was interviewed on behalf of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. In his interview he states, “The benefits of renewable is that they’re clean. Once you get through the impacts associated with equipment manufacturing the operating factor is zero pollution. As more and more of these come online and displace more damaging forms of energy it’s going to be a significant improvement over what we have now. Coal is a dirty inefficient way to generate energy. The health problems associated with emissions is well documented and costing society a lot of money.”

He goes on to conclude, “There is a large body of literature on sound and health and they do not emit enough acoustical energy to have a pathological effect on human tissues. I’ve been accepted by the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal as a legally designated expert in wind turbines sound and health and would put my expertise up against any medical doctor in that capacity. The noise studies indicate that there should be no problem with current wind design at anything more than 300 meters. So I think the 550 meter as a minimum setback is safe and acceptable. People for the common good have to adapt to a certain amount of annoying stimuli- that’s called society.”

Commenting on many reports that claim that industrial wind turbines bear no impact on human health Jeffrey states, “These industrial wind turbine health effects are often discounted because ‘direct pathological effects’ or a ‘direct causal link’ have not been established.”

However Jeffrey counters the position stating, “Owing to the lack of adequately protective siting guidelines, people exposed to industrial wind turbines can be expected to present to their family physicians in increasing numbers. The documented symptoms are usually stress disorder-type diseases acting via indirect pathways and can represent serious harm to human health.”

Salt and Lichtenhan caution that research to date is limited and that the professional community possess only a ‘primitive’ understanding regarding the consequences of long-term exposure to infrasound.

“If, in time, the symptoms of those living near the turbines are demonstrated to have a physiological basis, it will become apparent that the years of assertions from the wind industry’s acousticians that “what you can’t hear can’t affect you” or that symptoms are psychosomatic or a nocebo effect was a great injustice. The current highly-polarized situation has arisen because our understanding of the consequences of long-term infrasound stimulation remains at a very primitive level. Based on well-established principles of the physiology of the ear and how it responds to very low-frequency sounds, there is ample justification to take this problem more seriously than it has been to date.”

Danish Court Agrees….Wind Turbines Detract from House Values, and Scenic Views!

September 12, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

DANISH WIND FARM COMPANY SUED FOR SPOILING VIEW

by DAVID ATHERTON 12 Sep 2014,

Europe’s troubled wind turbine industry has a new predicament, with a householder in Denmark successfully suing Vestas, a Danish wind turbine manufacturer. Vestas was sued by the householder with the help of International Law Office and awarded 500,000 Danish kroner (£53,000) in compensation for the loss of property values due to visual interference, inconvenience caused by the noise of the blades and light reflection. Eight turbines are visible from the owner’s house.

The Danes passed the Promoting Renewable Energy Act in 2011, which established a compensation scheme for homes affected by wind farms. It seems the Danes suffer from the a similar condition to Brits, not in my back yard (nimbyism), where there is a consensus in favour of wind farms but not near their homes.

Calls to Vestas’ office for comment were not returned.

Danish wind farms have already come in for serious criticism. Breitbart London reportedin June how a mink farm saw how a recently built turbine seemed to lead to still births, birth deformities and had begun attacking in each other, costing the farmer millions.

The Danish situation is mirrored in the UK. In November 2013, the London School of Economics amd the Spatial Economics Research Centre published a report with lead author Professor Stephen Gibbons finding that “A wind farm with 20+ turbines within 2km reduces prices by some 11 percent on average.” In all scenarios even of less density, “Wind farms reduce house prices where the turbines are visible.”

Professor Gibbons has further evidence from when in June 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Julian Davis in Lincoln applied to the Valuation Tribunal for a reduction in their Council Tax, due to a wind turbine. Citing “Change in physical state. Noise pollution externally and internal low frequency. Noise pollution from new wind farm 930m (away),” they won and their house was downgraded to Band A status.

Meanwhile, a report into two wind turbines collapsing in Devon and Cornwall has just been released. The Western Mail reports the towers had basic defects and flaw in the construction process. These incidents were over a year ago and the report’s publication was aided by a Freedom of Information request. Also worryingly is that “ten units with existing defects” out of the company’s 70 or 80 turbines and the “makers of the E3120 turbine which fell in Devon, identified a further 29 turbines that might have been affected by a problem with the foundations.”

It seems that European governments’ race to be green has had some expensive unexpected consequences. Not only is it substantially more expensive to industry and the public, the extra costs of erecting wind farms are growing too. One can only imagine the furore if a turbine comes down on a house, seriously injuring someone or even killing them. These are troubles timed for the government and the wind industry.

Proof that the Wind Industry and Gov’t Know That Wind Turbines Decrease Home Values!

September 12, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Secret wind farm report into house price blight

The official report at the centre of the Coalition row over renewable energy will disclose for the first time the impact of wind farms on rural house prices, The Telegraph has learned.

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson Photo: REX FEATURES

Peter Dominiczak and Emily Gosden

9:50PM BST 22 Aug 2013

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, has commissioned a consultancy to investigate whether renewable technologies – including wind turbines – lower house prices in the countryside.

Coalition sources said the report is being blocked by officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), run by Ed Davey, a Liberal Democrat, amid fears it will conclude that turbines harm property prices.

Mr Paterson has made clear that he intends to make the document public as soon as it is completed.

On Tuesday, this newspaper disclosed that a report into renewable energy had been commissioned by Mr Paterson’s Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The decision to order the report is said to have caused anger within Mr Davey’s department, which viewed it as encroachment upon its remit.

Mr Davey has strongly denied that anyone in his department is trying to suppress the investigation.

It has emerged that a significant focus of the report will be the financial impact of wind farms upon the value of neighbouring properties.

Opponents of wind farms claim it is “highly likely” that the report will reveal that turbines in rural areas will detract from the value of nearby homes.

The consultancy company, Frontier Economics, has been asked by Defra to calculate how house prices will be affected by a series of energy projects across Britain. It has been asked to look at onshore and offshore wind, overhead power lines, shale gas, anaerobic digestion plants and nuclear power plants.

The remit of the report states that it “aims to determine whether [energy projects] have a significant impact on the prices of houses nearby and, if so, compare how that impact differs between different types”.

It will feed into Mr Paterson’s final report on how renewables affect the countryside and the rural economy.

MPs tonight said that Mr Paterson must be allowed to publish his department’s findings.

Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative MP for Daventry, said: “Wind farms definitely affect house prices and it is highly likely that this report will come to that conclusion.

“I would expect there to be billions of pounds of planning blight because of wind turbines close to properties.”

He added: “It’s almost like elements of DECC are acting like a mafia … now you’ve got DECC trying to stick its dirty great footprints all over another department’s work.

“While this is unsurprising, it will all unravel in the end and I’m sure the evidence will come out soon that proves a number of these points correct.”

He said that one of his constituents had seen the value of their £700,000 property fall by £250,000 because of approved plans for a wind turbine.

Glyn Davies, the Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, said: “I’m expecting this report to find that house prices will be reduced over the country by a measure of billions. It is my view that any unbiased study will show that. What is absolutely crucial is that this report is allowed to come out.” He added: “I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t want the public to know the conclusions – irrespective of what the report says.”

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph today, Mr Davey says: “My department is not blocking a Defra report on the impact of wind farms.

“The Government is committed to moving to a secure, affordable, low carbon energy system, without excessively relying on any single technology.

“So, this cross-government study will look at maximising the benefits and minimising the negative impacts of all technologies, including shale gas and nuclear.”

Details of the study, the first major review of renewables and their impact on house prices, were disclosed in The ENDS Report , an environmental policy magazine. A spokesman for Defra said: “It is our role to rural-proof policy. We need to ensure that energy is generated in a way that is sustainable. Sustainability includes the economic as well as social and environmental impacts.”

Jennifer Webber, of RenewableUK, said: “All the expert academic research published in this country and abroad over the last few years shows there’s no conclusive evidence to suggest that wind farms affect house prices.”

The dispute between Defra and DECC comes after a series of Coalition rows over wind farms. Mr Davey last year slapped down a former Conservative energy minister, John Hayes, after he said the spread of wind farms across the countryside would be brought to a halt.

David Cameron this month said people should not “expect to see a lot more wind power onshore in the UK” and that there was a “limited potential for onshore wind”.

Allegany Wind Project….Officially Dead! Wonderful news for the Community!

September 11, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Allegany wind project officially dead!

Kate Day Sager/Olean Times Herald

Allegany wind issue closed

A Chipmonk resident expresses the emotions of many Tuesday by throwing out her arms in joy after the Allegany Town Board rescinded a wind overlay district that effectively killed a proposed EverPower Wind LLC project in the community.

Posted: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:18 am

By Kate Day Sager, Olean Times Herald |

ALLEGANY — Close to eight years of legal battles, community upsets and neighbors bickering with neighbors over a proposed 29-turbine wind project in the town of Allegany came to an end Tuesday.

The final nail in the coffin of the proposed EverPower Wind LLC project in the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas was hammered when the Allegany Town Board unanimously voted to rescind the wind overlay district.

“It’s been a long time coming, and I’m glad this is over,” said Chipmonk resident Karen Mosman after the meeting. “But I’m in shock — is it real?”

The vote came at the beginning of Tuesday’s regular meeting in the Allegany Senior Center on Birch Run Road. The room was three-quarters full of residents who sat quietly as Town Supervisor John Hare read through a 25-page State Environmental Quality Review form and zoning map amendment to rescind the wind overlay district. The form listed a number of issues that will not be affected by rescinding the overlay district, such as geological features, air, plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, transportation, energy and human health. The board agreed with each of the 13 issues reviewed before voting unanimously on a “negative declaration regarding the removal of the wind overlay district.”

The action brought applause from the audience.

The board then voted unanimously on another motion to adopt an ordinance that rescinds the wind overlay district created by town board members on Aug. 29, 2011, which brought another round of applause.

When an older member of the audience asked Mr. Hare to explain exactly what had transpired the town supervisor replied, “Basically by the two actions we took tonight, this rolls back or eliminates the overlay district created approximately three years ago.”

“Thank you very much,” responded a woman in the audience before everyone got up to leave.

The board was asked to decide on the matter in June after the Allegany Town Planning Board recommended that the wind energy overlay district be rescinded. Their recommendation came three months after the New York State Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by EverPower against the planning board.

Following the dismissal, EverPower relinquished its rights to build a wind farm in the town of Allegany. The company had planned to build the $160 million wind farm after it was given the go-ahead for the project by the previous town board. The project fell through after three years of legal struggles with the town and Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County.

Residents who included Kathy Boser, president of Concerned Citizens, wanted to see the overlay district rescinded because the planning board had indicated that another developer could potentially step in and use the zoned parcel for a new wind-turbine project.

Following the meeting, Mrs. Boser said she and others in the community were grateful for the actions of the town and planning boards.

“Now that it’s rescinded, any (wind company) could come back in, but they’d have to start over again,” she said. “I think there were some lessons learned from this one and I think the boards will be better prepared.”

Concerned Citizens member Gary Abraham agreed with this thought and declared, “It’s over for any (proposed) wind farm in Allegany.”

Allegany resident and businessman Dennis Casey said he was “thrilled” with the outcome.

“We’ve had time to anticipate this,” he said in commenting on the relatively quiet response from the audience during the vote.

Others who commented included Mrs. Mosman’s husband, Ray, who said he hopes the action will help the community heal.

“I think this is done; it’s been a long haul and a heck of a burden off our shoulders,” Mr. Mosman said. “But I think now is a time of healing, because this made enemies out of friends.”

(Contact reporter Kate Day Sager at kates_th@yahoo.com)

Mike Barnard…..Windweasel – EXPOSED! A Paid Shill for the Wind Industry.

September 10, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Mike Barnard’s disreputable wind industry propagandist role revealed

J A Rovensky

Vicious, grossly inaccurate and sometimes defamatory attacks on professionals and researchers are relentless from the wind industry and its vocal cheer squad. Their targets include individuals such as Dr Nina Pierpont, Professor Bob McMurtry, Dr Michael Nissenbaum, Dr Sarah Laurie, Mr Steven Cooper, Professor Colin Hansen, Mr Les Huson, Mr Rick James and numerous others, who work to uncover the truth of reported acoustic emission related adverse health impacts linked to Industrial Wind Turbines.

One of the most prolific and virulent is someone called Mike Barnard, an IBM employee. It seems he began his attacks when living in Canada, and is now physically located in Singapore. Whilst Barnard claims to be operating independently of his employer, IBM, the amount of time he spends blogging on wind power and smart grid related issues, and the business connections IBM have with the renewables industry with respect to smart grid technology and renewable energy, make his assertion that IBM are not involved and supporting his activities questionable.

When one of Barnard’s cyber bullying victims informed him what he’d written was libellous, Barnard’s comment in response was to the effect that he was laughing at them because he was untouchable by living in Singapore and utilising free blogging software in a “Cloud”? IBM has a strict policy on cyberbullying, and has been specifically made aware of Barnard’s activities. What action has IBM taken to discipline their vocal employee, who is bringing their organisation into considerable international disrepute with his behaviour?

So who is Mike Barnard, and what are his professional qualifications? On Barnard’s personal blog site he states he became interested in blogging on energy concerns several years ago, and this led:

to significant contacts, research and writing related to wind energy and its myriad societal and commercial interconnections, including the electrical grid, wind energy innovations, social license, health, noise and legal aspects.[1]

In a response to comment on one of his blogs he responded with:

For a little context on my background, I was the Business Architect responsible for delivery of the world’s first full public health surveillance system for communicable diseases, … funded by the Canadian government …

On his blog site introduction he states:

IBM was engaged to build the major technical solution which automated management of communicable disease and public health surveillance.

This related to Canada. He goes on to state he:

joined the program in the late 2000’s as the business architect, responsible for understanding policy, epidemiology and other business drivers and balancing them with what was pragmatically possible …

IBM was contracted in 2006 to design a system to be completed in 2007. They completed the design of the program in 2008, but in June 2013 the Canadian Medical Association Journal : Journal de l’Association medicale canadienne (CMAJ:JAMC) published an article which reported since then progress had been delayed because of numerous technical problems and confusion among provinces and little had been heard of the program since, “The concept has gone almost nowhere” [2].

Barnard continues to inform us how he has read through health studies and reviews related to wind power from around the world and claims:

constant and deep access and conversations related to public health management, epidemiology and the nature of medical evidence … That experience and on-the-job education has been invaluable as I’ve read through health studies and reviews related to wind power from around the world …

This has apparently also led to

recognition of my expertise … I’m pleased to say that my material is helping to shape legal defences of wind energy, advocacy programs and investments in several countries.

In addition in 2013 he was assigning a blog “debate” relating to bird flight paths through a proposed Wind Turbine site, as being his impetus to start collecting material, and creating his own personal blog saying:

A few years ago I started down a road that has led to an unexpected place.

However, blogs can be found from him on energy from around 2010 [3], his voyage into health issues seems to have begun around 2012 when he attacked Dr Nina Pierpont and Dr Nissenbaum. Barnard has been involved in blogging on wind energy issues for some time, and he considers himself to be an integral part of the wind industry’s product defence strategy, which is certainly consistent with his behaviour. This is also consistent with how he is perceived by others who are also actively engaged in the same dishonest activities of denying the known adverse health impacts of wind turbine acoustic emissions; known to the wind industry and acousticians to cause damage to health via “annoyance” symptoms including sleep disturbance and body vibrations for nearly thirty years, since the work undertaken by Dr Neil Kelley et al in collaboration with NASA and a number of research organisations and wind turbine manufacturers.

The list of “publications” following these claims relate to blog sites and/or websites which are sites supporting Renewable Energy production and blogs which repeat the misinformation. They are not peer reviewed journal articles, nor has Mr Barnard been qualified to give expert evidence in any jurisdiction on wind turbine health and noise issues.

Barnard proudly displays a list of his 50 “Skills and Expertise” which includes “Wind Energy and Health”. None of the others cover any medical or health skill or expertise, and it hasn’t been possible to locate any medical or health related training or degree, or indeed any other relevant technical, professional or academic qualifications he has achieved with direct relevance to wind turbine noise or health, as he does not provide details of them. This suggests that Mr Barnard does not have that relevant professional background, academic training or expertise.

Just what is Mr Barnard’s specific expertise in this area?

Throughout Barnard’s blogging career he has concentrated on castigating, defaming and ridiculing those who do have qualifications, research and/or authorships, and who are demonstrably independent of the wind industry and from those who benefit financially from its operations.

One person in particular he’s taken aim at is Dr Sarah Laurie from South Australia, who is the CEO of the Waubra Foundation. The Waubra Foundation was established to facilitate independent multidisciplinary research into the impacts of infrasound and low frequency noise and vibration on human health. Wind turbine noise is just one source of noise the Foundation is concerned with.

Dr Sarah Laurie is a fully trained and qualified doctor, with clinical experience as a highly regarded rural General Practitioner, but she is not currently registered to practice medicine because of personal and family health issues and caring responsibilities. In Australia, it is a requirement that to practice medicine, you must be currently registered with the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA). Dr Laurie is not currently practising medicine with her current work as CEO of the Waubra Foundation. She is not seeing patients, she is not diagnosing conditions, and she is not prescribing medicine. She is listening carefully to what people adversely impacted by environmental noise tell her about their health problems, and the diagnoses their treating health practitioners have given them, if they choose to share that information with her.

Claims made by Mr Barnard (and others working with the wind industry such as Infigen Employee Laura Dunphy, and VESTAS employee Ken McAlpine) that she is deregistered are deliberately false. Implying that she has been “struck off” for professional misconduct is just one example of Barnard’s regular defamatory utterances, which are then repeated by others. Further his claims that she was “forced” to stop using the title of Doctor are also false. Mr Barnard continually deliberately misleads his readers with such comments and is clearly disinterested in the truth.

Because of a spurious complaint to the regulatory authority that she was “practising medicine whilst being unregistered” Dr Laurie voluntarily offered to AHPRA not to use the title “Dr” which retired or non-practising doctors are legally entitled to do in Australia, because she did not wish to mislead anyone about her current non registered status in her work with the Waubra Foundation. There had been no complaints to AHPRA from anyone who Sarah had interacted with that she had misled them as she had always been careful to ensure that anyone contacting her directly for information about their own circumstances was well aware of her current unregistered status. Indeed anyone with any awareness of this issue would be well aware of her current unregistered status because of the wide and frequent publicity this issue was given by the wind industry and its vocal supporters, particularly Professor Simon Chapman, the ABC and Fairfax media.

There is no restriction on anyone else referring to her as “Dr”, nor is there a restriction on her using the title if she was not performing her role as the Waubra Foundation CEO. AHPRA staff expressed their gratitude to her for this offer not to use the title “Dr”, which they accepted, with the proviso that when she reregistered to practice she would resume using the title “Dr”.

This issue was specifically clarified in the Environmental Review Tribunal Decision: Bovaird v. Director, Ministry of the Environment where the judgment stated the following:

The Tribunal finds that this evidence supports Ms. Laurie’s assertion that the AHPRA did not make any finding in respect of the complaint made against her.

Why did Mike Barnard ignore this finding of the Tribunal?

It is clear that he did not mention it because his intent was to deliberately smear Dr Laurie’s professional and personal reputation. It is also clear that the original widely publicised complaint to the NHMRC and AHPRA alleging professional and research misconduct, was done for precisely the same reasons by those within public health and wind industry circles in Australia who were unhappy with the attention the issue of health damage from wind turbine noise was attracting.

Those involved in this sordid episode include senior people in the ranks of public health bodies in Australia, including the Public Health Association of Australia, whose CEO, Michael Moore made the complaint, and whose computer created the defamatory “anonymous” allegation document. Mr Moore has since apologised to Dr Laurie, and the NHMRC CEO Professor Warwick Anderson has also apologised for the NHMRC’s behaviour towards Dr Laurie in a letter to the Chair of the Waubra Foundation, Peter Mitchell. The NHMRC unnamed “spokesperson” had leaked information about the allegations to crikey journalist Amber Jamieson, specifically naming Dr Laurie. Others such as Professor Simon Chapman have admitted they “saw a draft” of the defamatory allegations document, and Infigen Energy’s propagandist Ketan Joshi is uncharacteristically silent when challenged by others on various blog sites about his knowledge and involvement in the production and distribution of this defamatory document. The format of the document was remarkably similar to the way Infigen energy prepares their responses to issues raised by objectors to their environmental assessments.

Among Dr Laurie’s credentials are her positions as a former Examiner for the Australian College of General Practitioners, a former Mid-North Division of General Practice representative and former member of the regional Mental Health Advisory Committee. She was a provider of pro bono services to the local Aboriginal community and a cofounder of the regional Rape and Sexual Assault service. She also undertook emergency care work at the local rural hospital as a visiting medical officer, in addition to her role as an employee, associate and then partner in a local medical practice.

These credentials are not confidential, and are available to Mr Barnard and anyone else who wishes to ascertain her qualifications, just by looking at the Waubra Foundation website [4], and reading the speech given in the Australian Federal Parliament about this matter, by the former Member for Hume, Alby Schultz [5].

Dr Laurie states clearly she has no expertise in acoustics, but does consult regularly and collaborates closely with those who are acousticians, to help ensure she understands what she needs to in relation to exposure levels of infrasound, audible noise and vibration and correlations with reported health symptoms. She also repeats constantly she does not undertake and is not trained to do research in an academic manner, but is actively facilitating the research being conducted by others. What she goes to great pains to explain is that she listens very carefully to the symptoms people living near environmental noise experience themselves and then try and describe. This is a core skill required by rural general practitioners, something she was specifically trained to do and was particularly skilled at. Rural doctors need excellent diagnostic skills, most of which is dependent on taking a very careful clinical history, as they do not have the luxury of specialists “next door” and easy and rapid access to a range of diagnostic facilities which city counterparts take for granted.

Dr Laurie then collects and collates pieces of information given to her by people reporting changes to their health after wind turbines and other industrial noise sources begin operating in their vicinity, looking for similarities and patterns which give important clues as to direct causation. Occasionally people provide her with some of their medical records and other health data, which is kept confidential unless the person concerned gives their permission for the information to be out in the public domain, or the information has already been reported publicly in the media or in oral or written testimony to courts, tribunals, and parliamentary inquiries.

Dr Laurie always maintains confidentiality, even when under significant and very public pressure from others demanding she release information to them for their research. One example is the repeated private and public harassment from Professor Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health at Sydney University, and Expert Adviser to the Climate and Health Alliance, to release the names of residents forced to leave their homes and other details such as locations of their abandoned homes [6]. Much of that information had been provided to her in confidence, and some of the information could have caused significant harm to the people concerned – for example because of non-disclosure clauses in legal documents signed by people providing the information, or by their close relations. Others requested privacy because of concerns about property damage, burglary or arson to unoccupied homes. It has subsequently emerged from inquiries made by Senator Madigan’s staff, that at the time Professor Chapman conducted his inquiries, he did not have in place prior ethics committee approvals from the Sydney University Ethics Committee. Requests for information were made directly to wind turbine noise affected residents, causing them considerable distress.

Whatever the Bovaird ERT Tribunal said in Ontario, Dr Laurie cannot be objectively considered as having been “diagnosing” patients since she ceased practicing.

Examination of information consisting of health issues diagnosed by treating physicians and discussing this information with the informants does not constitute “making a diagnosis”, which is a process requiring a thorough clinical evaluation by a treating health practitioner. What Dr Laurie did in the Boviard case is no different to what she has done elsewhere, and can only be considered as evaluating the combination of specific individual clinical circumstances with respect to the available research evidence and clinical knowledge. That was precisely what Dr Laurie had been asked to do. She was not asked to diagnose patients, nor would she have done so, as she is well aware of the appropriate constraints on such activities for those who are not currently registered to practice medicine.

Irrespective of the Environment Review Tribunal’s questionable determination in the Boviard case, which is consistent with other questionable decisions made by the same Tribunal resulting in many rural Ontarians being harmed by wind turbine noise because of unsafe and continuing wind turbine development approvals, it is logically impossible for anyone to diagnose someone “before” they have symptoms.

Identifying that some people who have one or more acknowledged risk factors prior to Industrial Wind Turbines beginning to operate provides information about predictable health problems which may ensue with exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise. You don’t have to be a trained doctor or research academic to come to that conclusion, but clearly the knowledge attained from years of study and subsequent clinical practice does put a formerly registered practising medical practitioner in a position where her expertise can be utilised, as an expert witness in this field, without her currently “practising” medicine.

The complete lack of critical thinking used by members of the Ontario Environment Review Tribunal who used such irrational logic to determine whether someone has the ability to offer a hypothesis, is mind boggling at best and disturbingly suggestive of bias at worst.

There are constant references to Dr Laurie not being able to stipulate what distance she determines is a safe distance these turbines should be from people. Dr Laurie consistently states she cannot provide a fixed distance, as there are many variables to be considered and the multi-disciplinary research needs to be undertaken first. After all, not only are turbines becoming larger, and installed in greater numbers in individual projects or through extending existing project many other variables have to be taken into account, such as the geology, wind directions and speed, seasonal changes, temperatures to name some.

Professor Colin Hansen’s research group’s latest acoustic survey at Waterloo Wind Development in South Australia [7] is a good example of the sort of research Dr Laurie has been stating is required for the last four years. That acoustic survey demonstrated that there is indeed a low frequency noise problem for neighbours to Waterloo wind development, and that it can extend out even beyond 8km under certain circumstances.

This is precisely what Dr Laurie stated three years ago; when the Waubra Foundation’s explicit Cautionary Notice was issued on 29th June, 2011. The information which led to the distance of 10km being specified in that document came from adversely impacted residents at Waterloo. Professor Hansen’s team’s research findings have now supported Dr Laurie’s statement in 2011 about the distance of impact and are consistent with the residents’ consistent reports for nearly four years of a low frequency noise problem from the wind turbines at Waterloo, which severely disrupts their sleep.

Much is made by Mr Barnard and others of the “nocebo” effect, whilst they dismiss the existence of “wind turbine syndrome”. However Mr Barnard fails to disclose that British Acoustician Dr Geoff Leventhall specifically acknowledges the existence of the symptoms of wind turbine syndrome, indeed Leventhall stated in June 2011 in a presentation to the National Health and Medical Research Council [8] that he had been familiar with the identical symptoms to WTS which he calls “noise annoyance” for “years”. Leventhall further noted that Dr Nina Pierpont’s contribution to the field of environmental noise was to identify certain risk factors for developing “noise annoyance” symptoms.

For those interested, the presentation and the slide show are available on the NHMRC website, and also on www.wind-watch.org. The relevant slides are slides 42–44, and the footage is between 49 and 52 minutes of the video.

Mr Barnard has also failed to disclose that leading otologist, and Harvard Professor Steven Rauch has recently confirmed that he is seeing patients with the characteristic symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome”. Journalist Alex Halperin had this to say in a recent article [9]:

Dr Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTS suffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test for either condition but “Nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim.”

Mr Barnard also fails to mention the opinions of rural family physicians such as Dr Sandy Reider, from Vermont, who is at the front line of clinical care for those affected by wind turbine noise, that “wind turbine syndrome” is a euphemistic description which does not sufficiently depict the clinical severity of the clinical cases he is seeing [10].

Mr Barnard fails to mention the opinion of Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Colette Bonner, who has also publicly acknowledged the existence of “wind turbine syndrome” and said that those affected need to be treated with understanding. A recent media report from Ireland stated the following [11]:

The Department of Health’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Colette Bonner, has said that older people, people who suffer from migraine, and others with a sensitivity to low-frequency vibration, are some of those who can be at risk of “wind turbine syndrome”.

“These people must be treated appropriately and sensitively as these symptoms can be very debilitating,” she commented in a report to the Department of the Environment last year.”

Mr Barnard, and those whose commercial interests he is working so hard to protect, is involved in a grubby, dishonest, misinformation and vilification campaign, as part of a global defence strategy for the global wind industry. This industry has been well aware of the problems directly caused by wind turbine noise since 1987, when Dr Neil Kelley’s research [12] establishing direct causation of annoyance symptoms from infrasound and low frequency noise was presented at the American Wind Energy Association conference.

Mr Barnard and his associates’ behaviour is further eroding the personal and professional reputations of all those involved, and eroding the reputations of the companies and organisations they work for, including in this instance IBM.

However, perhaps more importantly Mr Barnard’s behaviour is further eroding the public’s confidence in the global wind industry and its social licence to operate. Such tactics in Australia will only result in the lessening of political and public support for the large subsidies from electrical consumers which are required to keep the wind industry operating.

As Professor Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, recently pointed out, the wind industry runs on subsidies [13]. Without the support of the public who are funding the wind industry via their mounting electricity bills, and the politicians responsible for the legislation which forces the subsidies to be collected directly from the public, the wind industry in Australia and elsewhere around the world is doomed – a fitting consequence for such a dishonest and health damaging industry which has shattered the lives of too many rural residents and their families for too long.

It’s time, as a growing number of professionals and researchers are openly saying, for the wind industry to accept the problem, and work to eliminate it. “Shooting the professional messengers” as the Energy and Policy Institute publication by Barnard [14] has tried to do, will not stop the litigation for noise nuisance, negligence against complicit acousticians, or applications for injunctions to cease the operation of turbines, and will only further reduce the diminishing social licence for the wind industry to operate.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.barnardonwind.com

2. CMAJ 2013. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.109-4450 June 11 2013. National electronic disease surveillance: a dream delayed

3. http://www.umrscblogs.org.

4. http://www.waubrafoundation.com.au

5. http://www.stopthesethings.com May 31, 2013, Schultz Slams Simon Chapman and Mauls Michael Moore in the Big House on the Hill.

6. http://www.reneweconomu.com.au by Simon Chapman, Where are Australia’s wind farm refugees, by Simon Chapman. 3 October 2013 and Abandoning homes due to wind farm : the deep fragrance of factoid. 25 July 2014

7. Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamesek and Colin Hansen, Noise Monitoring in the vicinity of the Waterloo Wind Farm. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, May 2014

8. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au Leventhalls June 2011 NHMRC presentation, Wind Farms and Human Health Scientific Forum, 7 June 2011

9. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118138/big-wind-is-better-than-big-oil- by Alex Halperin, June 15, 2014

10. http://www.waubrafoundation.com.au Dr Sandy Reider, Testimony, Wind Noise & Adverse Health Effects PBS Hearing July 29, 2914: Wind Noise and Adverse Health Effects

11. http://www.waubrafoundation.com/2014/i-need-protect-my-child-from-wind-farms Credit: by Celine Naughton/Irish Independent/ Published 9 June 2014

12. Kelly, et al, 1898, Acoustic Noise Associated with the MOD 1 Wind Turbine. Solar Energy Research Institute, Feb 1985

13. http://www.stopthesethings.com Professor Ross McKitrick: Wind Turbines don’t run on wind, they run on subsidies, August 31 2014.

14. http://www.energyandpolicy.org Wind Health Impacts Dismissed in Court, Authors: Gabe Elsner and Matt Kasper, Forward Simon Chapman, August 2014.

Additional References:

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Noise & Infrasound

We Know That Windweasels Are Corrupt….. Here’s More Proof!

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER: WIND INDUSTRY RIDDLED WITH ‘ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION’

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.

Official Report, (Hansard) Committee for the Environment, Wind Energy Inquiry….Ireland

Official Report (Hansard)

Committee for the Environment

Wind Energy Inquiry: Mrs Ursula Walsh, University of Ulster

Fighting the Corruption Behind the Windscam!

How to Fight the Great Wind Power Fraud

Self-Destructing Wind Turbines…..a Brilliant Idea!

New Wave of Turbine Terror: Brits Brace as Giant Fans Keep Collapsing

Dictatorial Governments Bound to Get Backlash! Listen When We Say NO!!

NIMBYs are not the problem

The lack of a process to involve citizens in decisions means supporters of renewable energy development projects have less incentive – and little opportunity – to influence project approval.

Windweasels Deny Health Problems Caused By Wind Turbines….They’re Not Telling the Truth!

How Do Wind Turbines Affect Human Health?

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

~ World Health Organization

Danish Court Agrees….Wind Turbines Detract from House Values, and Scenic Views!

DANISH WIND FARM COMPANY SUED FOR SPOILING VIEW

Proof that the Wind Industry and Gov’t Know That Wind Turbines Decrease Home Values!

Secret wind farm report into house price blight

The official report at the centre of the Coalition row over renewable energy will disclose for the first time the impact of wind farms on rural house prices, The Telegraph has learned.

Allegany Wind Project….Officially Dead! Wonderful news for the Community!

Allegany wind project officially dead!

Allegany wind issue closed

Mike Barnard…..Windweasel – EXPOSED! A Paid Shill for the Wind Industry.

Mike Barnard’s disreputable wind industry propagandist role revealed