Wind Turbine Emissions Can Make You Sick….Here’s More Proof!

Irish Wind Farm Study Proves Turbine Noise Causes Disease

Professor Alun Evans

****

WIND FARMS DO MAKE YOU SICK
Irish Daily Mail
Leah McDonald
16 October 2015

Irish scientists link them to cancer, stroke and heart attacks – wind turbines ‘too near family homes’

WIND farms can contribute to people getting diseases such as cancer and heart attacks, two leading Irish health experts have warned.

They say that noises emitting from turbines lead to sleep deprivation that can cause cancer and heart disease, along with a number of other illnesses.

Professor Graham Roberts, head of the Department of Endocrinology at University Hospital, Waterford, and Professor Alun Evans, an expert in public health at Queen’s University, Belfast, met Alan Kelly yesterday to warn the Environment Minister that the current guidelines in Ireland are a cause for alarm.

The rules allow turbines and power lines as close as 500 metres to a family home, while international standards demand they should be at least 2km away.

Prof Evans, recently wrote a report pointing to ‘serious adverse health effects associated with noise pollution generated by wind turbines’. The risks were due to sleep disturbance and deprivation with loud noise being one of the main causes.

He pointed out that sleep deprivation is associated with memory impairment in children and disturbed cognitive function in adults.

He told the Irish Daily Mail yesterday that distances between homes and turbines should be increased.

He said: ‘The bad effects of low frequency noise has been known for at least 40 years, the thing is 500 metres does not protect people. It is insufficient.’ He warned that there is evidence that the ‘infrasonic signatures’ that cause the damage can be picked up from 50 miles way, adding: ‘It is a serious problem. It doesn’t affect everyone the same way. Something like a quarter of people are more susceptible.’

Prof Evans explained: ‘It is a problem, the big thing being noise and sleep deprivation. Once you deprive people of sleep you make them more liable to become overweight and you delay their learning because while we sleep we reinforce memory.

‘Depriving people of sleep is not a good idea, overweight children become obese adults and obese adults are far more likely to [develop] a whole range of diseases particularly cardiovascular disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes.’ He added that the noise doesn’t have to have a direct effect to cause a problem. ‘It can be indirect but it is still very important,’ he said. ‘And you can prevent diseases by preventing the more distant causes.’

And in his recent report, Dr Evans said that there had been no proper cost-benefit analysis in Ireland before the widespread introduction of wind power.

Both he and Dr Roberts believe there are fundamental technical errors in reports on current wind farm and power-line projects here.

They are concerned over the consultation process with the public. Some parents of autistic children have particular fears about the effects turbines and high-voltage pylons have on their quality of life.

John Callaghan has objected to wind farms in Co. Meath, which he fears will affect the environment and health of his autistic son.

The engineer, who has studied renewable energy at postgraduate level, said his seven-year-old son is autistic and very sensitive to noise and says he has ‘grave concerns’ about the impact of the proposed wind farm on his son, himself, his family and the local area, including wildlife, heritage and the cultural landscape.

The meeting between the professors and the minister was organised by community campaigner David Reid of the Westmeath Alliance. Mr Reid said there are significant concerns about noise pollution for people living close to wind turbines. He said the World Health Organisation refers to this as ‘environmental insomnia’, if the noise is above a certain threshold.
Irish Daily Mail

Alun Evans made a brilliant submission to Australia’s Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud – available here.

David Reid is right on the money when he points out that “the World Health Organisation refers to noise pollution for people living close to wind turbines as ‘environmental insomnia’”. The WHO has defined noise induced ‘environmental insomnia’ as an adverse health effect, in and of itself, for something like 60 years. Its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII which covers the point – says:

NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH

There is plenty of evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show the adverse effects.

Noise disturbs sleep by a number of direct and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heart rate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown that awakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiological reactions.

The review of available evidence leads to the following conclusions.

  • Sleep is a biological necessity and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of adverse impacts on health.
  • There is sufficient evidence for biological effects of noise during sleep: increase in heart rate, arousals, sleep stage changes and awakening.
  • There is sufficient evidence that night noise exposure causes self-reported sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, increase in body movements and (environmental) insomnia.
  • While noise-induced sleep disturbance is viewed as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being.
  • There is limited evidence that disturbed sleep causes fatigue, accidents and reduced performance.
  • There is limited evidence that noise at night causes hormone level changes and clinical conditions such as cardiovascular illness, depression and other mental illness. It should be stressed that a plausible biological model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of the causal chain.

STT tends to think the World Health Organization – after more than 60 years of studying the problem – might just know a thing or two about night-time noise, sleep and health. And, after more than 5 years of suffering, so do Clive and Trina Gare.

Notwithstanding a $200,000 annual pay-cheque, and thousands spent on noise ‘mitigation’, the Gares still can’t sleep properly; or otherwise enjoy their own home – their suffering continues:

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise

What Alun Evans and his team have done is simply confirm what is simply obvious to any human being gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’: deprive someone of sleep over an extended period and their health will suffer.

Even after one ‘rough night’, you don’t ever hear the sufferer bubbling about how much better they felt in the morning. No, the usual response is about telling those around them to keep out of their way for the day, or there’ll be trouble (often in terms too ‘blue’ to print). However, that ‘trouble’ manifests as a danger not just to the sufferer and his nearest and dearest, but to a range of others who might end up tangling with the insomniac, as their sleep-deprived day draws on:

Wind Turbine Noise Deprives Farmers and Truckers of Essential Sleep & Creates Unnecessary Danger for All

Alive to the critical importance of regular, quality sleep to health, the common law has recognised a person’s right to a decent night’s sleep in their own home for over two centuries.

STT’s Nuisance “In-a-Nutshell”

Nuisance is a long recognised tort (civil wrong) at common law based on the wrongful interference with a landowner’s rights to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their land.

Negligence is not an element of nuisance, although aspects of the former may overlap with the latter.  Where, as here, the conduct is intentional (ie the operation of the wind turbines is a deliberate act) liability is strict and will not be avoided by the defendant showing that it has taken all reasonable steps to avoid the nuisance created.  Indeed, the conduct of the defendant is largely irrelevant (unless malice is alleged); the emphasis is on the defendant’s invasion of the neighbouring landowner’s interests.

A defendant will have committed the tort of nuisance when they are held to be responsible for an act indirectly causing physical injury to land or substantially interfering with the use or enjoyment of land or of an interest in land, where, in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, this injury or interference is held to be unreasonable.

The usual remedy for nuisance is an injunction restraining the defendant from the further creation or continuance of the nuisance.  Injunctions are discretionary, in all cases, and will not be granted unless the nuisance caused is significant.

Where interference with the enjoyment of land is alleged, the interference must be “substantial” and not trivial.

Interference from noise will be substantial, even if only temporary in duration, if it causes any interference with the plaintiff’s sleep.

The loss of even one night’s sleep through excessive noise has been repeatedly held to be substantial and not trivial in this sense (seeAndreae v Selfridge & Co [1937] 3 All ER 255 at 261, quoted with approval in Munro v Dairies Ltd [1955] VLR 332 at 335; Kidman v Page [1959] St R Qd 53 at 59; see also Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683 at 701: “a man is entitled to sleep during the night in his own house”).

It is not a defence for the party creating the nuisance to claim that he is merely making a reasonable use of his property.  The defendant’s conduct may well be otherwise lawful, but still constitute actionable nuisance.  The activity engaged in by the defendant may be of great social utility or benefit, but that has been repeatedly held as being “insufficient to justify what otherwise would be a nuisance” (see For example, Munro v Dairies Ltd [1955] VLR 332 at 335; see also Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683)

Halsey’s case is well worth a read – a real “David and Goliath” battle, as described by the trial Judge: “This is a case, if ever there was one, of the little man asking for the protection of the law against the activities of a large and powerful neighbour.”  And just like David’s epic battle with a thuggish giant, the little bloke won!

Here’s a link to the case: Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961] 1 WLR 683

Precisely the same principles were at work in the case pursued by Julian and Jane Davis, who successfully obtained a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator, for noise nuisance; and the resultant loss of property value (the home became uninhabitable due to low-frequency noise, infrasound and vibration).

The Particulars of Julian and Jane Davis’ Claim are available here: Davis Complaint Particulars of Claim

And Jane Davis’ Statement (detailing their unsettling experiences and entirely unnecessary suffering) is available here: davis-noise-statement

What the likes of Alun Evans have done, is to add to the growing body of irrefutable evidence, that is now well-and-truly sufficient to take on wind power outfits in Civil Proceedings; to win back everything that you worked so hard to obtain; and that they were prepared to simply steal from under you, with knowing assistance from your very own governments.

judges-gavel

Wind Pushers Try Everything Possible, to Deny Noises Caused by Their Useless Machines!~

Two decades of Deception of Wind

Turbine Noise!

by mabrake

PRESS RELEASE Two Decades of Deception of Wind Turbine Noise The wind industry and its acousticians have for many years been denying there are noise related problems associated with industrial wind turbines. A report released this week, and presented to the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the Independent Noise Working Group (INWG), shows how a small group of wind industry funded acousticians have taken control of the Institute of Acoustics (IoA) and its noise working groups. This façade of respectability afforded by the Institute of Acoustics has enabled the wind industry to dominate government noise assessment policy and planning guidance by providing inaccurate and misleading scientific advice. The parallels with the Volkswagen emission scandal are quite remarkable. The INWG suggest these two decades of deception are now resulting in serious annoyance and far reaching risks to the health and wellbeing of large numbers of people living in the proximity of wind farms. They have urged the Government to complete an overhaul of the planning conditions that have led to these wind farms being granted planning permission in the first place, and to ensure future developments are more strictly controlled. They also want the Government to provide robust protection for existing wind farm neighbours against the effects of turbine noise – specifically against Excessive Amplitude Modulation (EAM). EAM is a highly intrusive ‘whoosh’ or ‘thumping’ noise characteristic emitted by most wind turbines; a fact which has been continually denied and downplayed by the wind industry. This report is one of a number of elements within a major study which has been prepared for Government by the Independent Noise Working Group (INWG). The INWG is sponsored by Chris Heaton‐Harris MP (Conservative, Daventry). Heaton‐Harris paid tribute to the experts working on the INWG study for the last 12 months: “We have drawn people from a wide range of disciplines. This gives real authority to the final study when I present it to government departments later this autumn”. The INWG reports can be obtained at:http://www.heatonharris.com/reports‐publications Or by contacting us at: wind‐noise@tsp‐uk.co.uk and we can provide links to download all the INWG work packages.

Even in Iran, People are harmed by Wind Turbine Emissions….results of pilot study.

Impact of wind turbine sound on general health, sleep disturbance and annoyance of workers: a pilot-study in Manjil wind farm, Iran

Author:  <rel=author value=”Abbasi, Milad”>Abbasi, Milad; <rel=author value=”Monazzam, Mohammad Reza”>Monazzam, Mohammad Reza; <rel=author value=”Akbarzadeh, Arash”>Akbarzadeh, Arash; <rel=author value=”Zakerian, Seyyed Abbolfazl”>Zakerian, Seyyed Abbolfazl; and <rel=author value=”Ebrahimi, Mohammad Hossein”>Ebrahimi, Mohammad Hossein

Background: The wind turbine’s sound seems to have a proportional effect on health of people living near to wind farms. This study aimed to investigate the effect of noise emitted from wind turbines on general health, sleep and annoyance among workers of manjil wind farm, Iran.

Materials and methods: A total number of 53 workers took part in this study. Based on the type of job, they were categorized into three groups of maintenance, security and office staff. The persons’ exposure at each job-related group was measured by eight-hour equivalent sound level (LAeq, 8 h). A Noise annoyance scale, Epworth sleepiness scale and 28-item general health questionnaire was used for gathering data from workers. The data were analyzed through Multivariate Analysis of variance (MANOVA) test, Pillai’s Trace test, Paired comparisons analysis and Multivariate regression test were used in the R software.

Results and discussion: The results showed that, response variables (annoyance, sleep disturbance and health) were significantly different between job groups. The results also indicated that sleep disturbance as well as noise exposure had a significant effect on general health. Noise annoyance and distance from wind turbines could significantly explain about 44.5 and 34.2 % of the variance in sleep disturbance and worker’s general health, respectively. General health was significantly different in different age groups while age had no significant impact on sleep disturbance. The results were reverse for distance because it had no significant impact on health, but sleep disturbance was significantly affected.

Conclusions: We came to this conclusion that wind turbines noise can directly impact on annoyance, sleep and health. This type of energy generation can have potential health risks for wind farm workers. However, further research is needed to confirm the results of this study.

Milad Abbasi
Mohammad Reza Monnazzam
Seyyed Abolfazl Zakerian
Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Arash Akbarzadeh
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mohammad Hossein Ebrahimi
Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Shahroud University of Medical
Sciences, Shahroud, Iran

Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering (2015) 13:71
DOI: 10.1186/s40201-015-0225-8

Download original document: “Impact of wind turbine sound on general health, sleep disturbance and annoyance of workers: a pilot-study in Manjil wind farm, Iran”

Harm From Wind Turbines Will Dwarf that of Asbestos…..

June 2015                                                                                     New ZealandNew Zealand

Wind turbines worse than asbestos?

“In the future, I believe that the adverse health effects of wind turbines will eclipse the asbestos problem in the annals of history.”

The views of Dr Bruce Rapley given to the Australian senate select committee on wind turbines in June 2015.Video also available on our YouTube channel

Dr. Bruce Rapley is a consulting scientist with Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand, specialising in acoustics and human health.

He has three degrees from Massey University in New Zealand. A BSc in biological systems, an MPhil in technology (System Design and Testing of a Medical Biostimulator) and a PhD in acoustics and human health (Sound in the Military Environment: Detection, Measurement and Perception – undertaken in collaboration with the New Zealand Defence Force).

Dr. Bruce Rapley’s submissions to the Australian senate select committee on wind turbines:

Submission 1 – 27 February 2015

Appendices

Submission 2 – 1 June 2015

Dr. Bruce Rapley – June 2015

Brits Beginning to Hold Wind Pushers Accountable!

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning

David_Davis_2181020a

***

In a stunningly brilliant legislative move, David Davis MP recently introduced a Bill in UK’s Parliament which will allow Britons to enforce judgments against wind power outfits; and which will ensure the removal of these things when they grind to an inevitable halt within the next decade or so – whether because the massive subsidies they run on are chopped; or because they have flamed out; rusted out; thrown their blades to the four winds; or have simply collapsed in heaps.

The standard corporate structures used by wind power outfits involve a parent company – like Infigen, say – usually as a holding company, with a subsidiary, which usually takes on the name of the wind farm (threatened or realised), such as Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Infigen – going nowhere, thanks to its inability to obtain a Power Purchase Agreement).

The subsidiary is lumbered with all the current debts and other liabilities, which are loaded up in such a way as to exceed its assets (as long as the wind farm is operating, the parent sees that sufficient cash flushes through the subsidiary for it to remain technically solvent, at least in the short term).

In the event that a creditor pursues the subsidiary for any substantial claim, the parent (or related holding company) simply sits back and watches its subsidiary wind up in insolvency; leaving the creditor(s) without so much as a penny to pinch. Infigen has done it all before, back when it was called “Babcock and Brown”.

Among the class of creditors seeking to recover, are wind farm neighbours who successfully sue the windfarm operator (ie the subsidiary company) and who obtain a substantial award of damages for nuisance.

In David Davis’s speech below, he refers to the case of Julian and Jane Davis who successfully obtained a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator, for noise nuisance; and the resultant loss of property value (the home became uninhabitable due to low-frequency noise, infrasound and vibration).

The Particulars of Julian and Jane Davis’ Claim are available here: Davis Complaint Particulars of Claim

And Jane Davis’ Statement (detailing their unsettling experiences and entirely unnecessary suffering) is available here: davis-noise-statement

So, the next time you’ve got some wind industry parasite mouthing off that there has never been a successful claim against a wind power outfit, simply flick them a link to this post.

The other reason for setting up £2 subsidiary companies (in Australia referred to as $2 companies) of little or no real value, is to avoid (by winding up in insolvency) liability to clean up the mess after the rort is all over and done with.

Hawaii rusting turbines

***

While planning authorities often talk about obtaining what are called “decommissioning bonds”, whatever promises are made, are given by the subsidiary (not the parent), which is designed to have no assets available to cover the cost of decommissioning; whenever that inevitable event takes place. Hence, the thousands of wind turbines scattered all over California and Hawaii, left rusting as monuments to our political betters’ collective stupidity (see our post here).

To avoid that event, David Davis introduced the “Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill”, which is to be voted on sometime next month. Here’s David’s speech as he introduces the Bill  – video and then audio (Hansard – Transcript follows).

***

****

Audio Player

00:00
00:00

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill
David Davis
21 July 2015
House of Commons Hansard

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision about obligations on wind farm operators in respect of financial cover for potential liabilities arising from cause of public nuisance; and for connected purposes.

Wind farms are contentious. Some argue passionately that they are a great public good and the solution to global warming while others equally passionately believe they are a waste of money. This Bill takes no side in that debate. It is narrowly defined to one aspect of public interest; it requires the operators of wind farms, who are in receipt of £797 million of public subsidy a year, to organise their affairs so that they are able to meet the costs of any nuisance imposed on people living near them.

In 1995 the World Health Organisation recommended that to prevent sleep interruption low frequency noise should not exceed 30 decibels. However, in 1996 the Government’s Energy Technology Support Unit—ETSU—set the noise limit for wind turbines at 43 decibels. That is an enormous difference; on the logarithmic decibel scale it is approximately double the WHO limit. We still use those standards today.

In the last five years no planning application was refused on noise-related grounds, but there have been 600 noise-related incidents arising from wind farm operations. The majority of complaints arise as a result of amplitude modulation, which is the loud, continuous thumping or swishing noise regularly described by those living near wind farms.

Numerous studies have identified that sleep is disturbed on a regular basis even at distances over 1 km away from turbines, yet under the ETSU standards turbines can be installed just 600 metres away from residential property. The wind farm companies are acutely aware of this, and all the more so since a member of the public, Jane Davis, sued a wind farm near her home for noise nuisance. The matter was settled out of court, and there is a gagging order preventing us from knowing the details, but the settlement is rumoured to have been in the region of £2 million.

Since this case, some dubious measures have been taken by the industry to obstruct perfectly legitimate claims for nuisance. The use of shell companies in the wind industry seems to be the commonest trick. The parent company provides a loan to a specially created subsidiary to set up the wind farm, then leaves it in control of operations. The subsidiary’s balance sheet typically comprises the wind farm physical assets, but they are more than offset by a very large loan from the parent company, with a resulting net liability. Profits from energy generation and large amounts of public subsidy are siphoned off to the parent company. The subsidiary is left as a financial shell, with very few liquid assets and total liabilities greater than total assets. That makes it impossible to bring litigation against a wind farm, simply because there is nothing to win from them. As such companies have negative net assets, even liquidating them would generate no cash to pay either damages or a legal bill.

One of my constituents bought his house in my constituency to enjoy a quiet retirement with his wife. After living there for more than a decade a 10-turbine wind farm was built near the house. The closest windmill is just over 600 metres from his home. He was assured at the planning stage that the wind farm would not trouble him, yet he has suffered the misery of regular noise and turbine blade flicker which has rendered his home almost unliveable. The low frequency noise from the turbines easily penetrates the double glazing. The couple have had to change bedrooms in order to sleep, but even so the persistent noise from the wind farm has taken its toll on his wife’s health; she now suffers heart palpitations and is prescribed anti-depressants on a permanent basis by her doctor.

My constituent, fearing his retirement has been ruined and his home thoroughly devalued, attempted to use his legal insurance to claim for nuisance from the wind farm operators. While there was a good chance of success in court, the company’s finances were organised so that there was no realistic prospect of recovering either damages or the legal costs of bringing the case. That being so, his insurers would, quite understandably, not cover his legal costs. That is despite the fact that the eventual owner of the wind farm is AES, a multibillion dollar international company involved partly in renewables but largely in coal and gas, that paid its chief executive $8.4 million last year. It laughably claims in its annual report to be a “World’s Most Ethical Company”.

It is not alone in its hypocrisy. In March I raised this disreputable practice with Falck Renewables, prospective operators of a wind farm near my own village in my constituency. I asked it whether it was going to do the same. It did not reply.

My constituents have no way to recover the tranquillity of the lives that they thought they were going to enjoy when they first moved to rural Yorkshire. They can neither sell their house nor get any financial recompense to enable them to afford to move, so they are trapped in this misery.

My point is a simple one. My constituents are just individual representatives of a situation that is repeated up and down the country. Wind farm companies must be adequately capitalised so that there can be a reasonable prospect of financial success for prospective litigants whose way of life they have damaged.

It is not only the noise that is a nuisance, of course. When the sun is low in the sky behind a turbine it creates a “strobe effect” which can be harmful to health and wellbeing, and there are also now concerns that some wind farms could be abandoned at the end of their operational lifespan, creating another sort of visual blight, this time in perpetuity.

The simple solution that I propose in this Bill is to require wind farm-operating companies to hold enough cash in hand to manage a legal case at any time, and in addition a financial bond—a guarantee, or insurance policy—as a security against potential liabilities, including all public nuisance and final decommissioning costs.

Any wind farm that fails to do that should lose its right to subsidy—which, as I said, amounted to £797 million in one year for the industry.

This would ensure that citizens could reasonably sue when they suffer damage, but, just as importantly, it would be a strong incentive for the companies to operate wind farms in such a way as to avoid public nuisance, which is causing great distress in some cases, and would mean that when the turbines are decommissioned there is money or insurance to cover the cost of clearing the wind farm, avoiding a situation whereby the local council has to pick up the bill.

Whatever our stance on onshore wind, companies in receipt of public subsidy should be required to meet their public responsibilities. This measure seeks to ensure that the big wind farm companies can truly be held liable when they are at fault and gives families the protection they deserve. I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr David Davis, supported by Chris Heaton-Harris, Tom Pursglove, John Mann and Jim Shannon, present the Bill

Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be presented (Bill 62).

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill

tehachapi-wind-turbines-p1

Wind Industry Fraud & Corruption Exposed: Pacific Hydro & Acciona Defrauding the Commonwealth

263977-alan-jones

****

Following up on Senator John Madigan’s brilliant exposé of criminal fraud and corruption in Australia’s wind industry, which we covered in this post:

Pacific Hydro & Acciona’s Acoustic ‘Consultant’ Fakes ‘Compliance’ Reports for Non-Compliant Wind Farms

Alan Jones went to town on his 2GB Breakfast Show that – some 2 million listeners tune in to – via 77 stations across the Country.

Alan has been belting the great wind power fraud since June 2013, calling all and sundry to account. And this interview with John Madigan is no exception. You can read the transcript that follows….

Alan Jones OM: The date today is September 24. On Tuesday the 15th of September Senator John Madigan rose in the Parliament of Australia to make a speech. Now remember, this is all about carbon dioxide, and I’ve explained what that’s about – 0.038% of all the air, say 0.04%, is carbon dioxide. Human beings produce only 3% of that. 3% of 0.04 of a percent and Australia produces 1% of the 3%. So about one 10 millionth of CO2 in the air is produced by Australians.

As a consequence of that this mad obsession with renewable energy,  wind, solar which we can’t afford, which are many times dearer than coal-fired power. Which are killing manufacturing because they’ve increased massively the price of energy. And your electricity bills. As Terry McCrann said to me years ago, this represents a national suicide note.

Well on September 15th, Senator John Madigan rose in the Parliament, his opening sentence was this “Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry”. Who cares? Corruption and fraud.

Now before I go to Senator Madigan, let me remind you of a simple example of that. There’s a wind farm down near Goulburn, the Gullen Range wind farm. Believe me it’s completely illegal. Owned by Chinese Company, Goldwind. 69 of its 73 turbines have been built in areas that weren’t approved. Some were more than 180 metres from their original positions. Many were within the 2 km limit of residential homes. But the government of New South Wales is recommending that the Planning Assessment Commission approve the turbines on the basis that, well the company had reached financial settlement with 2 aggrieved property owners. How gutless is government? Are we so committed to this renewable energy nonsense and so frightened of the Chinese, that they’ve erected turbines in breach of their licence and it’s just business as usual.

The Labour government, prior to O’Farrell, had signed off on this Chinese outfit Goldwind’s appointment of an independent environmental monitor to oversee the turbine placement. Swallowed that hook line and sinker. Without knowing that the so-called expert was a Director of a consultancy firm that actually worked on the wind farm’s development. So technically this mob say well, we had approval. Goldwind should be told to rip up the turbines. They’ve put them in place in breach of their licence simple as that. If you are driving a car in breach of your licence they’ll take you, your keys and your car away from you. The same should apply to this mob.

Well may Senator Madigan say “Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry.” This is what he’s talking about. Only a week ago Graham Lloyd, the Environment editor of The Australian, Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter and he wrote, all levels of government have been duped by sham compliance reports which have allowed major wind farms to breach noise limits and collect millions of dollars in subsidies, that’s your money. He was quoting John Madigan.

John Madigan has just blown the whistle on what he said was a corrupt system of wind farm noise assessments and he singled out International noise consultants, Marshall Day and its consultant Christophe Delaire, who have been involved in more than 50 wind farm projects. Senator Madigan told the Senate this outfit MDA , the consultants commercial arrangements with wind farm operators Acciona and Pacific Hydro, had “adversely impacted the independence of its reports and the legitimacy of its conclusions.” In other words, the so called independent consultant is tied up with the proponent. With the proponent. So it’s signs off for the proponent and as a result they qualify for your money.

Senator Madigan was speaking in support of a Labour recommendation in its dissenting report to the Senate inquiry into wind farms and health. That wind companies should use independent consultants to assess post-construction. Now that’s a keyword, post-, well hyphenated word, post-construction noise compliance. Now this is a scandal but don’t expect anyone down there, they’re all furry and fluffy and warm and fuzzy about renewable energy. Now we’ve got the global warming advocates in the saddle in Canberra, so it will be renewable energy at any price. And that means break the law.

You’ve heard me talk about the awful predicament of people living in the vicinity of these wind farms. Especially in Victoria. You’ve heard me say that if they weren’t injurious to health, well put them in Macquarie Street. Put them on Bondi Beach. Put them in Collins Street Melbourne. Queens Street Brisbane. I’ve had a million and one letters from people about the Cape Bridgwater wind farm in Victoria.

John Madigan said in the Parliament “In 2006 Marshall Day Acoustics, with the consultant Christophe Delaire, prepared a – and this is the other key phrase – pre-construction noise impact assessment for the Cape Bridgewater wind farm. Pre-construction. The report predicted that compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater wind farm without of a rating 13 of the 29 turbines in reduced operational noise modes.

Now just think for a moment, ‘oh god now what’s this got to do with me?’ just imagine if you were living here beside this stuff. People become refugees in their own homes. But this so called independent report said – compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater. That’s before they were built.

As Madigan said, Senator Madigan, “before it was even built, developers knew that this wind farm would operate in breach of its permit unless adjustments were made”. But Delaire told the Committee of Inquiry, “following measurements on-site it was found the noise optimisation was not required.”

Asks Senator Madigan, “How did Delaire’s expert pre-construction and post-construction reports come to draw such contrasting conclusions?” He answers his own question. He said “The answer is simple, Pacific Hydro did not noise optimise its turbines at Cape Bridgewater, because they knew they didn’t have to. They only had to commission a post-construction noise report to say the wind farm was compliant. On both occasions Pacific Hydro got exactly the report they wanted from Marshall Day Acoustics, but the compliance assessments were not compliant with the standard and neither were the reports.”

Is that corruption? John Madigan, Senator, is on the line. John Madigan good morning.

Senator John Madigan: Good morning Alan.

Alan Jones OM: You’re talking into an empty tank. Eh? Unbelievable.

Senator John Madigan: Yes Alan, its very disconcerting and with any project Alan, as you well know, there is little point in giving permission for a wind farm to operate under certain conditions, or any industrial plant unless compliance with those conditions can be demonstrated and that what we’re being told is correct, so that people can have faith.

Alan Jones OM: That’s it. To put it in lingo that the people who are listening to you, who don’t listen to wind farms understand, you are talking about corruption. If this was in the trade union movement, we’d have Royal Commission. In the trade union movement. Taking money from others to which they weren’t entitled. That is what this is about. Corruption in the union movement. Oh yes we’ll have a Royal commission. Here we have, in relation to wind farms, the developers knew the wind farm would be operating in breach of its permit unless adjustments were made but they were able to get a post-construction report which miraculously came to the opposite conclusion.

Senator John Madigan: It’s just gob-smacking Alan, and it is there for all to see. I suggest to your listeners that, you know that the speech that I gave in the Senate is there on Hansard, I suggest people go and read it. As you and I both know, Alan how litigious these people are.

Alan Jones OM: Oh yeah they’ve got plenty of money. Don’t this mob, don’t this mob, Marshall Day Acoustics, on their website boast, not Madigan’s words, not Jones’ words, but they boast “they’ve got a proven record of successful wind farm approvals”. In other words, get us to investigate it and we’ll get you the green light. We write it, we’re regarded as independent, we’re regarded as authoritative and governments swallow it hook, line and sinker ‘cos they are on the renewable energy gravy train. That’s the guts of it isn’t it?

Senator John Madigan: That’s pretty much what I’ve said Alan.

Alan Jones OM: And people are lying, people are lying, basically. There was a pre-construction report which said you’re going to have to change here you’re not going to compliant. The original report identified non-compliance at multiple homes and at every wind speed. That’s the original report pre-construction. That didn’t satisfy the client. So suddenly on the 22nd of July 2009  – and John Madigan told the Parliament this – the same mob, Marshall Day Acoustics, issued revised monthly reports for every house and every month – but those reports were to Pacific Hydro’s satisfaction. The exact opposite of what they’d originally found. It’s beyond belief. This is trade, this is Dyson Heydon revisited.

Senator John Madigan: It’s beyond belief. As you’ve said Alan, we hear a lot about corruption in the union movement. You and I know there there are disreputable unionists as has been proven. This needs to be, that needs to be stamped out. But so does corruption anywhere, wherever it be, politicians, wherever it be, local government, Councillors, wherever it be, a company, any sort of company, that is acting disreputably, or outside of the law, or taking people down, ripping people off, should be held to account.

Alan Jones OM: Absolutely.

Senator John Madigan: And you can’t say the corruption only exists in the union, because Alan, its everywhere.

Alan Jones OM: Correct. Correct. Now in 2006, I’ll just repeat, and analysis by this mob, Marshall Day Acoustics, this is about Cape Bridgewater, these poor people write to me every day, compliance with the standard (I won’t go into detail about the standard, it happens to be a New Zealand standard forget all that, that’s irrelevant). There is a standard which applies to the granting of the permit to have these wind turbines. Compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater without operating 13 of the 29 wind turbines in reduced noise modes. Reduce, you can’t, its non-compliant. But a post-construction report cleared the wind farm. And then the government accepts the post-construction must report, and your money, millions of dollars of your money, subsidy payments are made to the operators. And Marshall Day Acoustics Chief Executive Peter Fearnside, said in relation to Senator John Madigan, “we’ve decided not to respond to Madigan’s comments in the Senate”. I mean where on earth? And anyway John the other thing here is Tony Abbott rightly said he wasn’t going to chase Holden down the road with an open cheque book, why are we chasing these people down the road with an open cheque-book anyway?

Senator John Madigan: Well you know Alan, as you’ve pointed out this is a industry that receives millions of dollars from consumers, through higher power prices. Now why?

Alan Jones OM: On the basis of fraudulent reports.

Senator John Madigan: And with the car industry leaving Australia, Alan, as you know I’m a great supporter of Australian manufacturing and if you were to have a look at how much the car industry was receiving and then analysed the social and economic benefits that flowed from that back to government through tax receipts, skills for people, for apprentices.

Alan Jones OM: You could justify giving the car industry the money, but not this mob.

Senator John Madigan: Well you know as I say Alan very dubious social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Alan Jones OM: That’s it.

Senator John Madigan: And that’s me being polite.

Alan Jones OM: That’s being polite. It’s what you said at the start, it’s what you said at the start, of your speech, and you made a very emphatic statement at the start of the speech when you simply said, and I’m finding that those words again, what were they, you said the whole thing is corrupt. “Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry.” Well Dyson Heyden is talking about it in the union movement.

John, we’ll keep at it. Don’t worry I have written and I am saying to you Josh Frydenberg, you’re the Minister for wind farms, you’re on notice, you’re on notice. And the first thing it you have to do is read Senator Madigan’s speech.

John Madigan thank you for the work you’re doing, it’s much appreciated.

2GB

John Madigan

Negative Health Effects From Wind Turbines…Chickens Coming Home to Roost!

US Wind Industry in Flat Panic: Report Confirms Turbines a ‘Human Health Hazard’

panic-disorder-971

Back in October last year, we reported on the Brown County’s Board of Health’s declaration that Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development is a “Hazard to Human Health”:

Board of Health Declares Wisconsin Wind Farm a “Human Health Hazard”

Since then, for the wind industry, things have gone from bad to worse.

Wisconsin ‘health hazard’ ruling could shock wind industry
E&E Publishing, LLC
Jeremy P. Jacobs
17 September 2015

A Wisconsin town of fewer than 1,200 stands on the verge of sending shock waves through the wind energy industry.

Late last year, Glenmore, a rural community just south of Green Bay, persuaded its county’s board of health to declare that the sounds of an eight-turbine wind farm pose a “human health hazard.”

It was the first time a health board has made such a determination. Wind energy opponents from across the country seized on the decision as proof of “wind turbine syndrome,” a supposed illness caused by low-frequency noise and “infrasound” that is typically undetectable to the human ear.

Local activists have continued to press the issue in hopes of shutting down the turbines, pointing to families who complain of sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea and dizziness — symptoms similar to sea sickness. Lawns display signs saying, “Turbines kill: Birds, Bats, Communities” and “Consider How Your Turbine May Harm Your Neighbor.” More than one family has moved out of their home.

Duke Energy Corp., which purchased the Shirley wind farm in 2011, has strongly pushed back against the hazard determination, pointing to a series of studies that have found no connection between infrasound and the symptoms described by the local residents. The case has caught the attention of the national wind industry, which is concerned about the precedent it could set and whether it could embolden local activists around the country. They claim it is part of a politically motivated campaign by anti-wind advocates.

Attention has now turned to the county’s lead health official, who has said she will rule on the issue by the end of the year. It’s unclear whether the official can force the wind farm to shut down, but if she does, Duke will be quick to challenge the decision in court.

By the end of the month, the local campaign, Duke Energy and other parties will submit binders of public comments making their cases. The local advocates appear bullish about their chances.

“Abandoned homes, sick families, continued Duke Energy ordinance violations,” said Steve Deslauriers of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the principal group opposing the farm. “If this were any other industry, they would already be shut down. It is high time that wind developers are held accountable for the hell they levy upon families.”

The Shirley wind farm looms large over Glenmore, with its sweeping turbines situated close to farms and family homes. It went online in December 2010 amid local opposition. Local newspapers featured opinion pieces and letters to the editor that expressed various concerns about the project, including health effects.

It produces 20 megawatts of electricity that it supplies to the utility Wisconsin Public Service Corp., enough to power 6,000 homes.

The controversy over the farm ramped up after Duke purchased it at the end of 2011. As the state was preparing to permit a larger wind farm elsewhere, it requested a study on the sound and health issues reported at the Shirley turbines.

In December 2012, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which is an independent regulatory agency, and the environmental group Clean Wisconsin released a study that included the findings of four acousticians. The consultants spanned the ideological spectrum; some worked primarily for opponents of wind farms, while others had worked on both sides of the issue.

The report’s top-line conclusion appeared incriminating.

“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry,” it said.

It acknowledged that there is “sparse or non-existent” evidence of sickness in “peer-reviewed literature” but concluded that the four specialists “strongly recommend additional testing” at the Shirley farm.

Local advocates seized on the findings as validation that their symptoms were caused by the turbines. They pressed the seven-member Brown County Board of Health to declare the farm a health hazard. In particular, they highlighted the conclusions of Robert Rand, a Maine-based “acoustics investigator” who has primarily worked for groups opposing wind projects.

Rand said turbine sounds and infrasound cause effects similar to sea sickness and health boards shouldn’t need peer-reviewed scientific papers to accept the health impacts.

“Most people accept — because it’s been occurring for thousands of years — that people get motion sickness,” Rand said in an interview. “And yet, in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of pushback.”

The findings grabbed the attention of the health board. Audrey Murphy, its president, said in an interview that the “symptoms are pretty universal throughout the world.”

Murphy insisted the board doesn’t oppose wind energy, saying the turbines should be located farther from homes. In Wisconsin, they must be at least 1,250 feet away.

There is some precedent for the board’s decision. The issue has long plagued local health boards in Massachusetts. Fairhaven, for example, in June 2013 shut down the town’s two turbines at night in response to complaints about sleep deprivation.

Falmouth, Massachusetts, found in 2012 that one turbine was violating local ordinances because it was too close to a home and emitting too much audible noise — not infrasound. But the controversy spurred studies by acousticians, including Rand, that concluded the turbines produce sounds capable of disturbing nearby residents and may lead to annoyance, sleep disturbance and other impacts. That led multiple residents to file lawsuits seeking damages for their health problems, claiming the turbines were to blame.

But wind supporters cite other studies showing no such linkages.

Murphy said the Wisconsin board has sought to take all the relevant findings into account.

“This has been done very slowly and very methodically,” she said. “The board has been concerned about the health of these people.”

‘No factual basis’
Wind proponents are quick to try to poke holes in the board’s findings, as well as the local activists’ evidence.

They start in Massachusetts. After the action in Falmouth, the state agency convened a panel of independent scientists and doctors. They found no evidence that wind turbines pose a tangible health risk to those living near them.

Plus, there have been several peer-reviewed scientific studies since then that have reached similar conclusions, including one by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another by Canada’s health ministry. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize “wind turbine syndrome” as an illness. The term was created by a pediatrician, Nina Pierpont, around 2006. Pierpont’s husband is an anti-wind activist.

Health Canada’s 2014 study, for example, found no evidence to suggest a link between exposure to turbine noise and any self-reported illnesses, including dizziness, migraines and chronic conditions.

North Carolina-based Duke Energy claims the complaints are unique to Brown County.

“Duke Energy Renewables operates about 1,200 wind turbines around the United States, and we’ve only had health complaints about the eight turbines we operate in Brown County,” said Tammie McGee, a company spokeswoman. “We don’t see these kinds of complaints, for the most part, anywhere else.”

She added: “We feel confident that we’ve met all the state and the town of Glenmore’s conditions for operations and compliance with all noise ordinances and laws and regulations.”

The American Wind Energy Association has also responded to the local group’s claims and pointed to some research on a “nocebo” effect. The concept is the opposite of the placebo effect, meaning that people who are told to expect certain symptoms may experience them whether or not the supposed cause of the symptom — in this case, turbines — is actually present.

But perhaps most importantly, some who were involved in the 2012 Public Service Commission study dispute the advocates’ interpretation.

Katie Nekola, the general counsel of Clean Wisconsin, which helped fund the study, said it was only an inventory of noise levels and shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions on health effects.

The local groups, she said, “took the equivocal nature of the preamble to mean that things are falling apart and everyone is going to die.”

There is “no factual basis in what they found for the health determination that the county made,” she added. “Nothing in our study provided any kind of basis to say that noise was making them sick.”

Rand, the acoustician who worked on the earlier study, contended that the results show what he’s argued for years: Some people experience the health effects, and they are real and scary. Others simply don’t and refuse to acknowledge they exist.

“Some people are saying this isn’t happening — or people are making it up in their heads,” Rand said. “People who don’t get seasick will never understand what you’re talking about. … It doesn’t require peer-reviewed scientific studies to accept that some people get motion sickness and sea sickness.”

What comes next
Deslauriers, the representative of the local group opposing the farm, declined to comment further, citing the ongoing public comment period on the health board’s finding.

That window closes at the end of September. Then the county’s top health officer, Chua Xiong, will rule on the issue by the end of the year after meeting with stakeholders and doctors.

It is unclear, however, whether she has the authority to shut down the turbines. Murphy, the head of the county’s health board, thinks Xiong does. Duke isn’t sure but will challenge such a determination in court.

The county lawyer, Juliana Ruenzel, refused to answer a question on Xiong’s enforcement authority before abruptly ending an interview with Greenwire. Xiong did not return several messages seeking comment.

Nekola of Clean Wisconsin said a county determination would apply only to local projects and shouldn’t affect other wind farms that have obtained permits from the state.

She said the Brown County effort was indicative only of a localized desire to block wind farms motivated by a not-in-my-backyard sentiment.

“There is just a contingent of people who oppose wind,” she said. “And they will use any mechanism they can think of to stop a project.”

But Rand sought to emphasize that the symptoms are real and he has felt them.

“This isn’t an intellectual exercise,” he said. “People get sick.”
E&E Publishing and Mid-West Energy News

Good to see the AWEA still sticking the long-debunked ‘nocebo’ story. Proving that desperation is a stinky cologne – when you’ve got nothing else, cling to what’s left.

The AWEA’s – indeed the entire wind industry’s – last redoubt is the same theory that was cooked up by a former tobacco advertising guru – lambasted by the Australian Senate after his hand-trembling appearance before them, to defend the desktop ‘studies’ he has plopped together for his wind industry employers. Our Senate stating that:

The committee highlights the fact that Professor Chapman is not a qualified, registered nor experienced medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, acoustician, audiologist, physicist or engineer. Accordingly:

  • he has not medically assessed a single person suffering adverse health impacts from wind turbines;
  • his research work has been mainly—and perhaps solely—from an academic perspective without field studies;
  • his views have been heavily criticised by several independent medical and acoustic experts in the international community; and
  • many of his assertions do not withstand fact check analyses.

For more on the guru’s ‘nocebo’ theory and what the Australian Senate concluded about it:

Wind Industry’s Propaganda King – Simon Chapman Forced to Apologise to Dr Sarah Laurie for False & Malicious Taunts

As for what turbine noise does to the class of people the guru says never, ever complain about adverse health effects from turbine noise:

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise

Wisconsin sign sick and tired

More About Wind Travesty in Falmouth – Wind Proponents Ignored Harm to Citizens

Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Resident Should Hang Their Head In Shame For What They Have Done To Their Neighbors
Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines &amp; Human Rights Abuse

Falmouth Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Below are three links it should be mandatory that everyone in Falmout watch these two videos and read the power point presentation by Attorney Chris Senie

What citizens should find interesting is the interaction between Attorney Chris Senie and the Zoning Board of Appeals just prior to the power point presentation in the Part 1 video about 35 minutes into the video.

Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals Orderer Ceast & Desist Falmouth Wind Turbine #1

Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 1

http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-1

Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 2

http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-2

Zoning Board of Appeals September 17, 2015 Senie & Associates, P.C. Representing Impacted Neighbors

https://windwisema.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senie-to-zba-ceasedesist-2015-09-17.pdf

Warning from Vestas Wind Company Falmouth Wind ll

Before the supply contract for Wind 2 was signed with the manufacturer, Vestas, the Town was asked by Vestas and its general contractor on the project (Lumus) to sign a letter taking full responsibility for the siting of Wind 2 in light of Vestas’ articulated concerns about the sound pressures this turbine is capable of creating in this location.

This request came in the form of a letter from Lumus dated August 3, 2010 (the “LumusLetter”).

Click here to read letter hidden for 5 years : August 3, 2010
Mr. Gerald Potamis
WasteWater Superintendent
Town of Falmouth Public Works
59 Town Hall Square
Falmouth, MA 02540

Lumus Letter :
http://www.windaction.org/posts/41357-vestas-raises-concerns-about-turbine-noise-letter#.Vfy4Y99Viko

The Town had its Wastewater Superintendent Gerald Potamis respond (the same day the Lumus letter was received), by sending a separate letter directly to Vestas. In that letter the Wastewater Superintendent assumed, for the Town, all such siting responsibility and liability (the “Potamis Letter”). An earlier draft of the Potamis letter, dated July 1, 2010 (so more than a month before the Potamis letter was sent to Vestas), called for the signature of the Falmouth
Town Manager.

The Town Manager was to Sign

During this month of discussion of what to do about the Vestas refusal to sell Wind 2 because of sound pressure concerns:
(1) it appears that no-one on the staff brought this to the attention of the Board of Selectmen (based on BOS meeting minutes); and (2) the signer was switched from the Town Manager to the Wastewater Superintendent (who apparently signed this letter assuming responsibility without authority).

The Distress Was Well Known (1)

As of August 3, 2010 Lumus warning letter, and the Potamis assumption of liability letter sent the same day (the “Warning Date”), The Town was well aware of the distress being caused by Wind 1.
By the Warning Date, the Town had received numerous complaints from neighbors. Brian and Kathryn Elder had sent the Town a registered letter (dated May 5, 2010), and met with the Assistant Town Manager and Building Commissioner at their property to show the degree of distress to Town officials. By the Warning Date the Town Planner had sent an email to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 3, 2010) regarding the turbine distress. Also by the Warning Date, the ZBA and the Falmouth Planning Board had held a joint meeting to discuss the problems with Wind 1 (that meeting took place on June 4, 2010

By the August 3, 2010 Warning Date the Town had held a meeting to discuss the scope of a sound study (to be done by an engineering firm known as HMMH) of Wind 1 (actual) and Wind 2 (projected) sound pressures (that meeting held on June 10, 2010).
Also a letter had been sent from Assistant Town Manager, Heather Harper, to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 15, 2010) discussing measures being taken by the Town in response to complaints. In her letter to Mr. Funfar, she indicates that the Town has instituted a mitigation measure which turns off Wind 1 in certain wind conditions, which had, by the date of that letter, been utilized 39 times, and had a “positive impact”.

Vestas Asked Weston & Sampson for an “updated study” for Wind 2
Fri 5/28/2010 1:48 PM
Brian Hopkins brhop@vestas.com
RE: Sound / Feasibility Studies
TO: Wiehe, Stephen, cc Duijvesteijn, Olle; Yanuskiewicz, Francis

“Steve, I don’t believe I saw a feasibility study for Falmouth other than Site Plans. Was a sound study updated with the additional turbine?

Does the information I provided in the octave band data support the conclusions that you are conservatvely within MA state sound regulations?
The table highlights the fact that V82 produces greater decibels when it reaches its stall regime beyond the IEC design standard at 95% capacity. The table also helps recognize the effects of shear on the sound levels experienced at receptors which should also be considering with the sound study.

My email was lost from the time we did the first turbine so I don’t have a great record of information but do you have this decibel mapping for Falmouth?”

There never was a reponse to this above email in town records –

It was assumed due to the lack of an email response in town records no noise decibel mapping was done for both Falmouth 1 & 2 together.

Windpushers Trying To Deny Accountability, for Making People Sick!

Wis. ‘health hazard’ ruling could shock wind industry

Rural wind turbineResidents in rural Wisconsin claim noise from a nearby wind farm is making them sick. Their campaign to shut down the turbines could pose a major threat to the national wind industry. Photo by Noelle Straub.

A Wisconsin town of fewer than 1,200 stands on the verge of sending shock waves through the wind energy industry.

Late last year, Glenmore, a rural community just south of Green Bay, persuaded its county’s board of health to declare that the sounds of an eight-turbine wind farm pose a “human health hazard.”

It was the first time a health board has made such a determination. Wind energy opponents from across the country seized on the decision as proof of “wind turbine syndrome,” a supposed illness caused by low-frequency noise and “infrasound” that is typically undetectable to the human ear.

Local activists have continued to press the issue in hopes of shutting down the turbines, pointing to families who complain of sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea and dizziness — symptoms similar to sea sickness. Lawns display signs saying, “Turbines kill: Birds, Bats, Communities” and “Consider How Your Turbine May Harm Your Neighbor.” More than one family has moved out of their home.

Duke Energy Corp., which purchased the Shirley wind farm in 2011, has strongly pushed back against the hazard determination, pointing to a series of studies that have found no connection between infrasound and the symptoms described by the local residents. The case has caught the attention of the national wind industry, which is concerned about the precedent it could set and whether it could embolden local activists around the country. They claim it is part of a politically motivated campaign by anti-wind advocates.

Attention has now turned to the county’s lead health official, who has said she will rule on the issue by the end of the year. It’s unclear whether the official can force the wind farm to shut down, but if she does, Duke will be quick to challenge the decision in court.

By the end of the month, the local campaign, Duke Energy and other parties will submit binders of public comments making their cases. The local advocates appear bullish about their chances.

“Abandoned homes, sick families, continued Duke Energy ordinance violations,” said Steve Deslauriers of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the principal group opposing the farm. “If this were any other industry, they would already be shut down. It is high time that wind developers are held accountable for the hell they levy upon families.”

The Shirley wind farm looms large over Glenmore, with its sweeping turbines situated close to farms and family homes. It went online in December 2010 amid local opposition. Local newspapers featured opinion pieces and letters to the editor that expressed various concerns about the project, including health effects.

It produces 20 megawatts of electricity that it supplies to the utility Wisconsin Public Service Corp., enough to power 6,000 homes.

The controversy over the farm ramped up after Duke purchased it at the end of 2011. As the state was preparing to permit a larger wind farm elsewhere, it requested a study on the sound and health issues reported at the Shirley turbines.

In December 2012, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which is an independent regulatory agency, and the environmental group Clean Wisconsin released a study that included the findings of four acousticians. The consultants spanned the ideological spectrum; some worked primarily for opponents of wind farms, while others had worked on both sides of the issue.

Homemade signsLocal advocates are posting home-made signs on their lawns in Glenmore. Photo by Noelle Straub.

The report’s top-line conclusion appeared incriminating.

“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry,” it said.

It acknowledged that there is “sparse or non-existent” evidence of sickness in “peer-reviewed literature” but concluded that the four specialists “strongly recommend additional testing” at the Shirley farm.

Local advocates seized on the findings as validation that their symptoms were caused by the turbines. They pressed the seven-member Brown County Board of Health to declare the farm a health hazard. In particular, they highlighted the conclusions of Robert Rand, a Maine-based “acoustics investigator” who has primarily worked for groups opposing wind projects.

Rand said turbine sounds and infrasound cause effects similar to sea sickness and health boards shouldn’t need peer-reviewed scientific papers to accept the health impacts.

“Most people accept — because it’s been occurring for thousands of years — that people get motion sickness,” Rand said in an interview. “And yet, in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of pushback.”

The findings grabbed the attention of the health board. Audrey Murphy, its president, said in an interview that the “symptoms are pretty universal throughout the world.”

Murphy insisted the board doesn’t oppose wind energy, saying the turbines should be located farther from homes. In Wisconsin, they must be at least 1,250 feet away.

There is some precedent for the board’s decision. The issue has long plagued local health boards in Massachusetts. Fairhaven, Mass., for example, in June 2013 shut down the town’s two turbines at night in response to complaints about sleep deprivation.

Falmouth, Mass., found in 2012 that one turbine was violating local ordinances because it was too close to a home and emitting too much audible noise — not infrasound. But the controversy spurred studies by acousticians, including Rand, that concluded the turbines produce sounds capable of disturbing nearby residents and may lead to annoyance, sleep disturbance and other impacts. That led multiple residents to file lawsuits seeking damages for their health problems, claiming the turbines were to blame.

But wind supporters cite other studies showing no such linkages.

Murphy said the Wisconsin board has sought to take all the relevant findings into account.

“This has been done very slowly and very methodically,” she said. “The board has been concerned about the health of these people.”

‘No factual basis’

Wind proponents are quick to try to poke holes in the board’s findings, as well as the local activists’ evidence.

They start in Massachusetts. After the action in Falmouth, the state agency convened a panel of independent scientists and doctors. They found no evidence that wind turbines pose a tangible health risk to those living near them.

Plus, there have been several peer-reviewed scientific studies since then that have reached similar conclusions, including one by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another by Canada’s health ministry. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize “wind turbine syndrome” as an illness. The term was created by a pediatrician, Nina Pierpont, around 2006. Pierpont’s husband is an anti-wind activist.

Health Canada’s 2014 study, for example, found no evidence to suggest a link between exposure to turbine noise and any self-reported illnesses, including dizziness, migraines and chronic conditions.

North Carolina-based Duke Energy claims the complaints are unique to Brown County.

“Duke Energy Renewables operates about 1,200 wind turbines around the United States, and we’ve only had health complaints about the eight turbines we operate in Brown County,” said Tammie McGee, a company spokeswoman. “We don’t see these kinds of complaints, for the most part, anywhere else.”

She added: “We feel confident that we’ve met all the state and the town of Glenmore’s conditions for operations and compliance with all noise ordinances and laws and regulations.”

The American Wind Energy Association has also responded to the local group’s claims and pointed to some research on a “nocebo” effect. The concept is the opposite of the placebo effect, meaning that people who are told to expect certain symptoms may experience them whether or not the supposed cause of the symptom — in this case, turbines — is actually present.

But perhaps most importantly, some who were involved in the 2012 Public Service Commission study dispute the advocates’ interpretation.

Katie Nekola, the general counsel of Clean Wisconsin, which helped fund the study, said it was only an inventory of noise levels and shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions on health effects.

The local groups, she said, “took the equivocal nature of the preamble to mean that things are falling apart and everyone is going to die.”

There is “no factual basis in what they found for the health determination that the county made,” she added. “Nothing in our study provided any kind of basis to say that noise was making them sick.”

Rand, the acoustician who worked on the earlier study, contended that the results show what he’s argued for years: Some people experience the health effects, and they are real and scary. Others simply don’t and refuse to acknowledge they exist.

“Some people are saying this isn’t happening — or people are making it up in their heads,” Rand said. “People who don’t get seasick will never understand what you’re talking about. … It doesn’t require peer-reviewed scientific studies to accept that some people get motion sickness and sea sickness.”

What comes next

Deslauriers, the representative of the local group opposing the farm, declined to comment further, citing the ongoing public comment period on the health board’s finding.

That window closes at the end of September. Then the county’s top health officer, Chua Xiong, will rule on the issue by the end of the year after meeting with stakeholders and doctors.

It is unclear, however, whether she has the authority to shut down the turbines. Murphy, the head of the county’s health board, thinks Xiong does. Duke isn’t sure but will challenge such a determination in court.

The county lawyer, Juliana Ruenzel, refused to answer a question on Xiong’s enforcement authority before abruptly ending an interview with Greenwire. Xiong did not return several messages seeking comment.

Nekola of Clean Wisconsin said a county determination would apply only to local projects and shouldn’t affect other wind farms that have obtained permits from the state.

She said the Brown County effort was indicative only of a localized desire to block wind farms motivated by a not-in-my-backyard sentiment.

“There is just a contingent of people who oppose wind,” she said. “And they will use any mechanism they can think of to stop a project.”

But Rand sought to emphasize that the symptoms are real and he has felt them.

“This isn’t an intellectual exercise,” he said. “People get sick.”

Falmouth Wind Turbine Emissions Ignored….Nearby Residents, Tormented!

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Tonight ,September17, 2015 at 6:30 PM the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals will hear several appeals regarding lack of zoning enforcement by the Zoning Enforcement Officer to cease and desist operations of Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines located at 154 Blacksmith Shop Rd, West Falmouth.

The Board of Appeals acts on matters within its jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 11 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts Generals Laws, as amended and subject always to the rule that it will give due consideration to promoting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, encouraging the most appropriate use of land, and conserving property value, that it shall permit no building use, injurious, noxious, offensive or detrimental to a neighborhood, and that it shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in each case.

The ZBA’s determination should be a belief that there’s nothing more important than good health.

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) is a publicly-funded agency dedicated to a renewable energy agenda of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy at the cost of residential home owners health, property and all Massachusetts taxpayers. The agenda calls for an all out war on fossil fuels. They are fighting the war as a real war taking the health, property rights and tax money of anyone who has property in the way of the agenda.

The MassCEC state agency has an agenda likened to a 1943 country in Europe where like Falmouth human dignity has been ignored.

Falmouth has lost sight of the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. Health and saftey is primary in a civilized society.

Falmouth public officials are following a “Dangerous” script paid for by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. The MassCEC recently gave Falmouth 1.8 million taxpayer dollars to help pay litigation costs and finance a drawn out protracted legal defense of Falmouth wind turbine # 1. Falmouth officials are being “advised” how to vote.

You can say wind turbine victims and taxpayers are being shot with their own tax dollars paying massive litigation fees making law firms rich at taxpayer expense.

The Friends of Falmouth Wind a group of former and present elected officials have convinced a majority of Falmouth voters its OK to take the health and property rights of their neighbors for the greater good for the past five years with no compensation. They are playing God. They should hang their heads in shame.

The Town of Falmouth has broken two of the Ten Commandments;

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Falmouth taxpayers are obvious to the tax liabilty they are incuring torturing their neighbors for the past 5 years. The town commercial general liability insurance will not pay one dime towards any court restitution with the wind turbine victims. At some point in time in the future the court is going to order taxpayes to pay restitution to pay back the damage you caused to the victims.

The taxpayes are on the hook because the MassCEC knew the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine had noise problems prior to the installation. The town had been warned prior to the installation by the manufacturer Veatas Wind Company. The MassCEC was the owner and seller of the turbine to the Town of Falmouth. The MassCEC in April of 2013 three years after the installation sent a memo to the Town of Falmouth admitting they knew and extrapolated noise tests to pass Massachusetts noise regulations. As expected the turbine broke state noise guidlines. They always knew they would.

The town hid the noise warning letter for five years, memos, not posted wind studies and in general kept negative information from the public. The town was found guilty of not following its own bylaws in Massachusetts Superior Court. The Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals found twice in the past the turbines are a nuisance. The Massachusetts courts shut the turbines down 12 hours a night and Sundays.

In the written injunction to shut the turbines down. Judge Muse said the court finds the wind turbine victims claims that they did not experience such symptoms prior to the construction and operation of the turbines, and that that each day of operation produces further injury, to be credible.

The Court rejected the town’s claim that reducing the turbines in hours would cause financial harm, as it was counting on revenue generated by the sale of excess energy back to the grid.

The Falmouth taxpayers had a chance to take down the turbines for 12 or 15 million dollars. Today with all the facts including the hidden letters, documents, videos and studies how much is a jury going to award up to 200 residential home owners for five plus years of torture ?
The Town of Falmouth always knew the turbines were too loud

Massachusetts Judge Robert Rufo did not rule out imposing a cease and desist order at any point it time.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

PolitiSite

Pioneer in Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Fact-Checking

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem