Wind Turbines Blow an Ill Wind Over Locals, First Study Shows!

January 20, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

by: GRAHAM LLOYD
From: The Australian
January 21, 2015

‘PEOPLE living near wind farms face a greater risk of suffering health complaints caused by the low-frequency noise generated by turbines, a groundbreaking study has found.

The study by acoustics expert Steven Cooper is the first in the world in which a wind turbine operator had fully co-operated and turned wind turbines off completely during the testing.

It opens the way for a full-scale medical trail that may resolve the contentious debate about the health impact of wind farms.

Funded by wind farm operator Pacific Hydro, the study was conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria where residents have long complained about headaches, chest pains and sleep loss but have been told it was all in their minds.

As part of the study, residents living between 650m and 1.6km of the wind turbines were asked to diarise what they were experiencing, including headaches, pressure in the head, ears or chest, ringing in the ears, heart racing or a sensation of heaviness.

Their observations were separated into noise, vibration and sensation using a one to five severity scale.

“The resident observations and identification of sensation indicates that the major source of complaint from the operation of the turbines would appear to be related to sensation rather than noise or vibration,” the report says.

“For some residents experiencing adverse sensation effects, the impact can be exacerbated by bending over rather than standing, with the effect in some cases being reported as extremely severe and lasting a few hours.”
Mr Cooper said it was the first time that sensation rather than audible noise had been used as an indicator of residents’ perception of nearby wind turbines.

The report found offending sound pressure was present at four distinct phases of turbine operation: starting, maximum power and changing load by more than 20 per cent either up or down.

Mr Cooper said the findings were consistent with research into health impacts from early model wind turbines conducted in the US more than 20 years ago.

The relationship between turbine operation and sensation demonstrated a “cause and effect”, something Pacific Hydro was not prepared to concede, he said.

Survey participant Sonja Crisp, 75, said the first time she experience discomfort from the wind turbines, “it was like a thump in the middle of the chest.

“It is an absolute relief, like an epiphany to have him (Mr Cooper) say I was not crazy (that) when I am doing the dishes I feel nausea and have to get out of the house.”

David Brooks, from Gullen Range near Goulburn, NSW, said health concerns from wind farm developments were not confined to Cape Bridgewater.

The findings should be used as the basis for a thorough health study of the impacts from low frequency noise, he said. “Until this is done, there should be a moratorium on further wind farm developments,” he said.

Pacific Hydro and Mr Cooper agree that more widespread testing is needed. Andrew Richards, executive manager external affairs at Pacific Hydro, said: “While we acknowledge the preliminary findings of this report, what they mean at this time is largely unclear.

“In our view, the results presented in the report do not demonstrate a correlation that leads to the conclusion that there is a causal link between the existence of infrasound frequencies and the ‘sensations’ experienced by the residents.” Mr Cooper said the findings had totally discounted the so-called “necebo” effect put forward by some public health officials, who said symptoms were the result of concerns about the possibility of experiencing them.

The Cape Bridgewater study included six residents over eight weeks in three houses.

One hearing-impaired participant had been able to identify with 100 per cent accuracy the performance of wind turbines despite not being able to see them.

Another Cape Bridgewater resident Jo Kermond said the findings had been “both disturbing and confirmation of the level of severity we were and are enduring while being ridiculed by our own community and society.”

Mr Cooper said residents’ threshold of sensations were experienced at narrow band sound pressure levels of four to five hertz at above 50 decibels.

The nominal audible threshold for frequencies of four to five hertz is more than 100 decibels. Mr Cooper said an earlier investigation into health impacts of wind farms by the South Australian EPA had been flawed by limiting the study to only one-third octave bands and not looking at narrow band analysis.
“By looking at high sensation and narrow band I have developed a methodology to undertake assessments using narrow band infrasound,” he said.
“We now have a basis on how to start the medical studies,”
Mr Cooper was not engaged to establish whether there was a link between wind turbine operation and health impacts, “but the findings of my work show there is something there,” he said.

Mr Cooper said Pacific Hydro should be commended for allowing the work to proceed.

“It is the first time ever in the world that a wind farm has co-operated with a study including shutting down its operations completely,” he said.

Mr Cooper has coined the term Wind Turbine Signature as the basis of the narrow band infrasound components that are evident in other studies. He said the work at Cape Bridgewater had established a methodology that could be repeated very easily all over the world.

Pacific Hydro said it had conducted the study to see whether it could establish any link between certain wind conditions or sound levels at Cape Bridgewater and the concerns of the individuals involved in the study.

“Steven Cooper shows in his report, for the limited data set, that there is a trend line between discrete infrasound components of the blade pass frequency (and harmonics of the blade pass frequency) and the residents’ sensation observations, based on his narrow band analysis of the results,” Pacific Hydro said.

“However, we do not believe the data as it currently stands supports such a strong conclusion.”

The report has been sent to a range of stakeholders, including government departments, members of parliament, environmental organisations and health bodies.’

Another Huge problem, Caused by Useless, Destructive, Wind Turbines!

January 7, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Research – Bees and wind turbines

It is a known to everyone that noise from wind turbines generates sound both heard and inaudible to humans. Sounds emitted that are not within the scope of being audible to humans, basically come in the form of vibrations. These vibrations can travel much further than audible sound and affect a vast area, several miles from the wind farm itself. Downwind, these low frequency vibrations can travel up to 50 KM from the source.

The drastic increase in the number of wind farms in the United States began between 2004 and 2005, and has blossomed to cover vast sections of the country today, as seen on the blue map below.

Interesting to note is the time frame of drastic increases of the number of wind farms from 2004 to 2005. This time frame becomes very important, because it is also the exact time when massive disappearances of honey bees began to be reported, beginning in 2005, with drastic increases in the years to follow.

The next map shows the states where the most losses of honeybees have occurred.

The orange amp below is also an interesting map, because if you didn’t know better, you would believe it is another wind farm map. Although the southeast area of the United States, such as Florida does not have large numbers of operating wind farms, the honeybee disappearances in that area are attributed to weather events.

A series of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, including hurricane Katrina virtually wiped out this area’s honeybee population. With this in mind, the direct link to wind farms for the massive die off can be made.

While scientists scramble trying to find answers and offer theories ranging from a new form of virus, the earth’s magnetic shift, to perhaps solar flares. It would be wise for them to look into the effects of sound vibrations emitted from wind turbines.

In a report by WH Kircher, titled Acoustical Communication in Honeybees on 02/05/1993, finds that airborne sounds and vibrations play an important role in honeybee communication. It is also coming to light that honeybees use sound vibrations to navigate, similar to sonar used by marine life and bats.

Since vast areas are within affective range of low frequency sound levels emitted by wind turbines, it becomes clear that there is a connection between low frequency sound produced by wind turbines and the disappearance of honeybees. The areas with the most disappearances of honeybees directly

correspond with that of operating wind farms.

California is second, behind North Dakota for honeybee losses and first in wind farm operations, within range of areas where honeybee colonies are located. As of 2007, most North Dakota wind farms were concentrated within a small area in the southeastern portion of the state. Since then, wind farms have spread to many other sections of the state, and the resulting losses of honeybees will most likely increase as well.

On a world scale, areas of honeybee disappearances does correlate with operating wind farms in particular regions. It isn’t enough that the wind industry continues to operate under the guise of being a renewable energy source that will help in getting us off fossil fuel, when in reality they use more fossil fuel than they will ever produce.

The sad fact is this industry is only responsible for degrading our countryside with useless spinning towers. While the building and operations of the wind farms are killing millions of endangered bird species, raping pristine land and turning it into nothing more than a cluttered mess of steel and fiberglass. Turbines are destroying the natural habitat of wildlife in such areas. It seems now, that it may be responsible for the near destruction of the world’s honeybee population.

***************************************************************************

The above has been taken directly from the http://www.ufodigest.com website and does give room for thought on the matter. To see what a research consultant says about this aspect of possible bee destruction, let’s take a look at what Bio3 says about the matter.

Bio3 is a company recognized as a national leader in biodiversity consultancy, research and information systems. It has been awarded the title of SME Leader in Portugal in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. In 2011 Bio3 was considered one of the 174 most innovative SME’s operating in Portugal and was integrated in the COTEC SME Innovation Network.

Founded in 2005, Bio3 achieved a solid growth rate and is currently a national reference operating in its market. During the first 7 years of existence, Bio3 developed the biological section of over 400 projects, mostly related to environmental assessment, post-evaluation, environmental management and planning. Bio3 also executes applied research studies. They are experts on Ecological Baseline Studies and Biodiversity Monitoring Surveys, with an emphasis on renewable energy projects. Our clients include big Portuguese companies, such as EDIA, EDP Renewables, ENEOP2, ENERSIS, GALP Energia, GENERG, IBERWIND, REN and Ventinveste.

From day to day experience and knowledge of bee behaviour and ecology serious concerns are arising concerning to potential negative impacts of wind farms on bees derived from several effects, such as the noise, stray voltage, air pressure changes and turbulence and electromagnetic field caused by the turbines.

Some American apiarists have shown concern by the shadowing, flashing, strobing effect from the blades, since it lasts 2 to 3 hours a day for 2 to 3 weeks in spring and fall when the sun comes up. They fear that the bees would either become disoriented or irritated by the effect. Other concerns of these apiarists were the “thumping noise” from the blades and the effect of “stray voltage” to the bees.

More Professionals Coming Forward to Protect wind Turbine Victims.

December 14, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Syndrome: Public Health Crisis

By H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D — The Heartland Institute — December 12, 2014

Wind farms are a “human health hazard,” or so concludes Wisconsin’s Brown County Health Board (BCHB) with regard to the Shirley Wind Project, owned by Duke Energy (DE).

The board’s action has put Duke Energy on the defensive; the power company now has to prove its turbines are not making people sick or face a shutdown order.

This should also serve as a shot across the bow of other wind power operators, a warning to take health complaints seriously, because other towns and counties across the nation could follow BCHB’s example.
BCHB acted with cause. Its decision was based on a year-long study documenting infrasound in homes within a six-mile radius of the Shirley Wind turbines. In addition, BCHB examined peer-reviewed medical research and the complaints of people living around DE’s Shirley Wind Project, which included dozens of sworn affidavits attesting to chronic health problems they have suffered since the turbines began operation in 2010.

In repeated doctor visits, residents near the wind turbines reported experiencing unexplained chronic pain, inability to sleep, ear and head pressure, anxiety, and depression while at their homes, symptoms that disappear after a time away from the turbines. It’s become so bad some families living close to the wind farm have actually left their homes and are renting elsewhere while still paying their mortgages.

After examining all the evidence, BCHB declared “the Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI [are] a Human Health Hazard for all who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.”

I have written extensively debunking various phantom health scares hyped by environmental lobbyists. From fears that chemicals in everyday use are causing unusual rates of cancer to unfounded assertions that biotech foods will cause unspecified catastrophic harms to human health or the environment, I’ve refuted them all.

However, there are big differences between the faux scares noted above and the claims wind farms may be making people sick.

First, biotech foods and medicines, as well as most chemicals in everyday use, have gone through extensive testing, and the evidence shows they are safe. With “wind turbine syndrome,” research is just beginning, and, as BCHB pointed out, studies have found evidence linking wind farms and health problems.

Second, genetically modified foods and medicines and modern synthetic chemicals provide myriad benefits other products can’t match, whereas wind power requires huge subsidies, is still inordinately expensive, and is unreliable, and the public has numerous better options for electric power.

Third, the government does not require consumers to purchase or use any GM products or synthetic chemicals about which any particular customer may have concerns. Thus, with a little research and studious shopping, one can avoid any product containing those foods or chemicals.

That is not true for wind power. Many states, including Wisconsin, mandate the use of wind farms and subsidize them; rate payers are captive purchasers. Worse, many states, such as Wisconsin, preempt localities’ authority to set conditions for turbine siting. Residents who don’t want turbines near their homes, who may indeed be made sick by their operations, have to live with the problems or move. If the health complaints prove true, the state government has put those people at risk.

At this point, we don’t know whether wind farms pose substantial health risks to those residing near them, but evidence is mounting they might, and now a public health authority has said they do. Why are major media outlets silent on the possible link between wind power and chronic health problems? I can’t imagine this kind of silence would exist if coal-fired power plants or oil terminals were linked to chronic health concerns.

Certainly, based on the current research and the numerous public complaints from California to New York, and internationally from Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, one might think a good investigative journalist would consider wind-turbine syndrome worth investigating, if only to try to disprove it. Consider the challenge laid down.

H. Sterling Burnett (hburnett@heartland.org) is a research fellow with The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute based in Chicago, Illinois.

Torturing Residents With Wind Turbine Noise!

December 6, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK Plan to Ban Noisy Wind Farms

December 6, 2014 by stopthesethings

Noisy wind farms face ban as ministers launch review into ‘annoying’sound levels
The Telegraph
Emily Godsen
30 November 2014

Exclusive: Energy department commissions review into disturbance from turbine noise in order to decide when annoyance becomes unacceptable

Noisy wind farms that disturb local communities could be banned, after ministers launched an unprecedented review into the annoyance they cause.

In the first official admission that wind turbine noise can adversely affect local residents, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has commissioned an independent investigation to assess the levels of sound wind farms produce and the extent of disturbance caused as a result.

Experts from the Institute of Acoustics will conduct the research next year, the Telegraph has learnt, and ministers across Government will then use the data to decide at which point the annoyance officially becomes “unacceptable”.

The review is likely to lead to tighter planning guidance for new wind farms and could force existing wind farm operators to restrict their turbines’ operation to stay within the limits.

It is also likely to open the door to claims for compensation by residents subjected to noise above the official nuisance threshold.

Many residents living near wind farms have complained of noise disturbance, while studies have linked wind turbine noise to poor sleep and mental health.

As well as the routine “swishing” noise of the blades spinning, turbines can sometimes produce “thumping” noises when sudden variations in the wind speed cause the blades to stall.

Current planning guidance limits the swishing noise to 43 decibels at night-time for the nearest property but does not deal with the thumping noises, which are a deeper pitch and can be heard at 40 decibels a kilometre away from the turbine.

Residents near some wind farms have likened the noise to a cement-mixer or a shoe stuck in a tumble-dryer.

A source said the new review would consider all types of turbine noise. “Everything is on the table,” they said.

Developers could be forced to use software to adjust the angle of the blades to prevent the thumping being caused at an unacceptably annoying level.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “This review should empower local people to stop disruptive wind farms and make sure local authorities have all the information they need before giving a planning application the green light.”

The review is expected to be completed by June. While the Institute of Acoustics will independently draw up the index of noise annoyance, the decision over what will be deemed an acceptable threshold will be a political decision for the next Government.

The Conservatives have already pledged an effective ban on new onshore wind farms if they win the election, by ending subsidies for those projects that do not already have planning permission. They have also pledged that all future onshore wind farm planning decisions would be determined by local authorities, instead of large projects being deemed nationally significant.

Matthew Hancock, the Conservative energy minister, said: “It’s important that we maximize the potential of domestic energy resources but we must do this in a responsible way. We cannot jeopardize our green and pleasant land.”

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, has heavily criticized the Conservative plan to ban onshore wind, arguing it would push up consumer bills by forcing the UK to build more expensive types of renewable technologies such as offshore turbines to hit green targets.

Wind industry body Renewable UK said it had already conducted extensive research into the extent of the thumping problem – known as Other Amplitude Modulation – and had devised the ways of tackling it.

Independent research published by the lobby group late last year had helped “to pinpoint when, where and how this sound varies”, Gemma Grimes, the group’s Director of Onshore Renewables said.

“We found that this can be addressed by using computer software to adjust the way turbines operate, changing the angle of the blades to minimize the sound levels.

“We’re hoping that this will now be incorporated within the Institute of Acoustics’ existing Good Practice Guidance document,” she said.

But she said she did not believe the existing guidance on swishing noises would or should be changed. “In this [Institute of Acoustics] guidance, which they published last summer, there was no question of changing the current noise limits, which are rightly very stringent, so we wouldn’t expect any alteration in that when they update the current document,” she said.
The Telegraph

Ever noticed how it’s only the wind industry, its parasites and spin-masters that use the terms “swoosh” and “swishing” to describe the noise produced by their giant fans?

Language abuse like that goes hand-in-glove with the same kind of corporate subterfuge that has given us lines about the noise from turbines being quieter than a refrigerator 500m away and as soothing as waves lapping on a moonlit beach (see our post here).

Funny, though, that those forced to live anywhere near these things never talk about “swishing” and, instead, use a raft of terms pulled from the darker reaches of our lexicon: “roaring”; “thumping”; “grinding”; “whining” – and phrases like “a truck rumbling down the road but never arriving”; “a jet plane overhead that never lands”; and – as appears in the piece above: “a cement-mixer” or “a shoe stuck in a tumble-dryer”.

It’s like the wind industry’s spruikers have never spent a night trying desperately to sleep anywhere near their masters’ monsters. Funny about that, too.

To give them a clue – and to help you decide on whether it’s the impacted neighbours’ choice of language that better describes the racket – here’s a couple of videos of these things in action. Take a listen and see what you think:

blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/2189e6d8-9736-44e1-9d8f-c2b41473d799

STT particularly loves the second video – where a wind power outfit’s lawyer is telling a planning panel that “noise isn’t going to be an issue of concern” and compares the noise that would be produced by his client’s turbines with “a quiet library” and “an average home”. Hmmm …

STT also loves the claims by wind industry spin kings, Renewable UK that – when it comes to the thumping noise complained of by neighbours – like the Bob the Builder – it can fix most everything. Which begs the question, why is the “thumping” noise a problem at all?

But the argument about “fixing” the “thumping” noise is a typical red-herring response to the real and underlying problem: the incessant (and, therefore, grindingly annoying) nature of the low-frequency noise and infrasound emitted – where the former is audible and the latter isn’t, but operates on the auditory and other sensory systems to disturb sleep; with both combining to cause long-term sleep deprivation and other adverse health effects, as crack Professor Alec Salt explains in simple terms in this video – and as covered in our post here.

blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/2679c3be-4b60-49cb-9923-fd24e9a26627

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

November 18, 2014November 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Carmen Krogh, Brett Horner,

Statement Related to Health Canada Study

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

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

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

Please find attached our comments for your consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 18, 2014 / 1957chev / 5 Comments

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

November 18, 2014 by stopthesethings

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

Alan Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

foreign developers, I might add,

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

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

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

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

“Early this morning at 12

– this is awful –

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

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

“I wonder if Jo Smith,

that’s the woman who wrote the letter,

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

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

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

You know it.

I know it.

And my independent acoustician knows it.

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

Letters everywhere. Letters everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A human health hazard means a substance, activity or condition that is known to have the potential to cause acute or chronic illness or death if exposure to the substance, activity or condition is not abated”.

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

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

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

How can government ignore this?

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

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

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

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

Jay Tibbetts MD: Yes.

Alan Jones AO: What!

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well what does that tell you?

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

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

Alan Jones AO: Hazard.

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

Alan Jones AO: Good on you.

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

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

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

His conclusion is, based on the above,

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

Now his solution, if you will,

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

Alan Jones AO: That’s it, that’s it.

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

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

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

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

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

And they called the wind turbine syndrome:

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

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

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

Alan Jones AO: Yes. Just Amazing.

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

Alan Jones AO: No option at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County. WI. a Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.” – see our post here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audiologists Explain Why Wind Turbine Noise harms the Ears…

November 12, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANY SUCH COMPLAINTS

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

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

The Changing Rural Landscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes (↵ returns to text)

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

World Council for Nature Shares Info. On Wind Turbines!

November 3, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Note: Infrasound & Low Frequency Noise is often referred to as “ILFN”

Simulation of infrasound waves propagating in the atmosphere
Source: BGR http://www.bgr.bund.de

IMPORTANT NEWS Nº 1:

Health Board: wind turbines are a hazard to human health

October 17th, 2014
GLENMORE, WISCONSIN, USA: “This week the Brown County Health Board went on record declaring that wind turbines “are a human health hazard“.

“Folks living in the Glenmore area near the Shirley Wind Project have been saying this for years though, and now they have the health department on their side. By state statute wind turbines can be within 1250 feet of a home. The Brown County Board of Health says that’s too close for comfort.”

Read more: windfarm a health hazard — don’t miss the video

The wording of the motion was as follows:

“To Declare The Industrial Wind Turbines In The Town Of Glenmore, Brown County. WI. A Human Health Hazard For All People (Residents, Workers, Visitors, And Sensitive Passersby) Who Are Exposed To Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise And Other Emissions Potentially Harmful To Human Health.”

New Paper on Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound! by: J. Vanderkooy & R. Mann

October 31, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

New paper published by Vanderkooy and Mann: Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound

Posted on 10/31/2014 by windaction

Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound
MannVanderkooy John Vanderkooy and Richard Mann
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Computer Science University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Date posted: 2 October, 2014

Abstract
To extract the optimum coherent infrasound signal from a wind turbine whose rotation is not precisely periodic, we use an optical telescope fitted with a photodetector to obtain reference blade passage periods, recording these together with the microphone infrasound signal. Signal processing of the quasi-periodic microphone signal is then used to obtain periodic data, which are analyzed by an appropriate length DFT to extract optimum values for the fundamental and harmonics of the coherent signal. The general procedure is similar to order domain analysis for rotating machines and is thoroughly explained and illustrated with measurements and analysis from a number of different wind farms. If several turbines are measured by a single microphone with blade passage periods obtained from several separate reference tracks, it may be possible to retrieve separate useful coherent signals from multiple turbines by appropriate processing.

Conclusion
Our paper shows how the coherent part of the infrasound from a single WT can be extracted from a microphone signal by using a blade passage reference track from the turbine under study.

Our analysis reveals a characteristic infrasonic pulse. We conjecture that the pulse from a single WT is caused by the interaction of the blades against the pylon, while the rather more complex background
signal relates to the radiation of the Tyler-Sofrin spinning modes.

The random component of the infrasonic signal exceeds the coherent part, and this random component is related to wind noise, which appears to be similar whether one is near or far from a wind farm.

Our paper avoids the issue of health effects from WT infrasound. Information on both sides of the controversy abounds in the literature. Read full article

MI Wind Turbine Lawsuit Settled….Operating out of Compliance!

October 23, 2014 / 1957chev / 5 Comments

aeinews.org

MI turbine suit settled; another lesson in operating too close to already-generous noise limits

Posted: 22 Oct 2014 03:22 PM PDT

For the past couple of years the Lake Winds Energy Park in Mason County, Michigan has been embroiled in a contentious dispute about its noise levels (image to left is the “Park” under construction). In April 2013, five months after the 56 turbines began operating, 17 neighbors filed suit, claiming that wind farm noise, vibrations and flickering lights were adversely affecting their health. After commissioning an independent sound study, the Mason County Planning Commission formally declared the wind farm out of compliance and demanded a mitigation plan; the developer, Consumers Energy, disputed the findings yet lost two appeals, one at the Zoning Board of Appeals and one in Circuit Court. During that series of challenges, Consumers developed a plan to modify turbine operations for 7 turbines closest to the four sites where they were found to be marginally too loud.

Marginal is indeed the word: the sound study found 4 locations where the sound level peaked at 0.3 to 1.2 decibels over the 45dBA noise limit (it takes 3dB for a difference between two sounds to be audible); when using 10-minute averages, there were no violations. The various explanations by the consultant, Brian Howe, illustrated the fine line that the turbine operations were walking. His report stressed “general compliance with sound level criteria,” and noted that the brief violations “do not represent a statistically significant portion of time and do not indicate a systemic exceedance.” In his initial testimony at an August Planning Commission meeting, he said that there are no recommendations to correct for these times because “there is not a situation where they are predictably going over 45.” Later, in a November letter to the Commission, after learning that the county had previously decided NOT to allow for occasional exceedances, he stressed that “I can assure the County that competent, material and substantive evidence supports the conclusion that the turbines are not in compliance at certain residences on occasion” and elaborated:

Excursions over 45 dBA should have been anticipated since, as outlined in the acoustic study by Tech Environmental prepared in June 2011, the wind energy park was designed with sound levels identically equal to the 45 dBA criteria at some key receptors with no factor of safety to address the fact that the prediction methodology has a stated accuracy worse than +/- 3 dBA. If Tech Environmental was aware that achieving the criteria even 95% of the time was unacceptable to the County, it would have been prudent to incorporate a suitable safety margin to account for the statistical variation in sound levels.

And this the first half of the central lesson here: it’s essential that enough of a safety factor is built in to the sound models to account for known variability in sound production (how loud the blades are in various unsteady wind conditions) and sound propagation (how far sound travels as it gradually loses power). Regular readers will know that variability is indeed, as Howe mentioned, often more than the simplified 3dB margin of error that was neglected here (see AEI’s 2012 report). The second half the lesson is related: when noise limits—for the sound of the turbines when it reaches nearby homes—are set as high as 45dBA, they will be regularly audible at these homes, and likely well above night-time ambient sound levels. As many acousticians have stressed for years, these situations are very apt to trigger a significant number of complaints, especially if there are dozens of homes in that nearby range. Here, we had the worst of both worlds: turbine siting plans that pushed sound right at the limit into nearby homes, and a limit that was on the high end of tolerability for many neighbors. Indeed, after one such cautionary report was presented to the Mason County Planning Board, it decided to lower the limit to 40dB, but that change was revoked after push-back from Consumers Energy.

With this backdrop, this week the 17 original plaintiffs in the noise nuisance lawsuit agreed to a settlement offer from Consumers;
the financial and possible operational details are confidential (2 later additional litigants are yet to settle, but negotiations are ongoing). While many such lawsuits languish, as it can be very hard to prove causality of health effects or to prove nuisance, it is always notable when a company decides it’s more advantageous to settle than to push through a court hearing (which was set to begin, with the jury already seated). This is the latest of several such suits that were settled behind closed doors—other high profile compensation cases include Mars Hill, Maine and the Davis family in the UK, while property buy-outs of people who’ve either moved from their homes or become vocal about their issues are widespread, if not common, including a recent buy-out settlement with a family in Vermont, and purchases of multiple homes in Ontario’s Bruce and DufferinCounties. It’s unfortunate that confidentiality clauses leave the rest of us in the dark, for one of the ways forward is for the wind industry to more willingly compensate those most impacted by their operations, and these cases could offer some guidance as to what level of compensation may be mutually agreeable.

Meanwhile, to the best of my knowledge, Consumers Energy’s challenge to the Mason County demand for mitigation is ongoing; the latest report I’ve found is that the company filed an appeal in July after its loss in Circuit Court. The implications of how that plays out could be far-reaching. The challenge consists of two related technical points: whether instantaneous exceedances should be considered violations, and whether unattended sound monitoring can reliably identify violations. The latter question gets down into the technical weeds, including accounting for the presence of other ambient noise as well as turbine sounds, and the choice of measurement metric (L90 or Leq, as well as strict adherence to other sound measurement standards identified in the ordinance, which, like many local ordinances, is not necessarily savvy about all the implications and options for measurement). As reported by Michigan Capital Confidential, a good source for coverage of this issue:

Arguing that the County’s decision was an “erroneous ruling,” the utility filed a 38-page appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals on July 18. In addition, Consumers Energy is saying that if the ruling by 51st Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper were allowed to stand, it could have an impact on many other wind turbine plants across the state.

“This has implications beyond just Mason County,” Dennis Marvin, spokesman for Consumers Energy told Capitol Confidential. “We believe the study the county based its decision on was flawed. We took this decision (to appeal) very seriously, but ultimately our legal staff determined this was in the best interest of our customers and the landowners at the wind park.”

Rick James, of East Lansing-based E-Coustic Solutions, is an acoustician specializing in the production, control, transmission, reception and effects of sound. According to James, Consumers Energy is not exaggerating when it talks about the potential impact of the Lake Winds case.

“Consumers’ appeal has less to do with the supposed 1 decibel error, the topic of the appeal, and more to do with the wind industry’s broader concerns,” James said. “A decision by the Appeals Court in favor of Mason County would make it easier for other counties and townships with wind energy utility noise regulations to prove non-compliance.”

“Consumers would have been better advised if they had not accepted the conclusions of their acoustical consultant that the proposed project could be fit into the host community without causing problems,” James continued.

	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!

Acoustics experts.