Wind Turbine Torture… How long can the WHO ignore the facts?

“There is no escaping the torture from infrasound emissions from industrial wind turbines.”

“I would like to ask one question of the WHO: Under what circumstances would the WHO condone torture?”

Wind turbine torture
Wind turbine torture

On July 21, 2016, Emyr Griffiths from Wales wrote to the members of the panel developing the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region:

Dear Mrs Héroux,

My name is Emyr Griffiths, and I live in Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK. I and my wife live off-grid in very rural hilly terrain. Please accept this email plus attachments as my submission to the WHO review of the environmental noise pollution guidelines for Europe.

Wind farms that we know that can be heard:

Wind farm Name No. of turbines Owner Height Gen Capacity Year
Ffynnon Oer 16 RWE-npower 92 m 2 MW 2006
Alltwalis 10 Statkraft 110.5 m 2.3 MW 2009
Mynydd y Betws 15 ECO2 90 m 2.3 MW 2013
Salem Turbine 1 Carmarthenshire Energy 74 m 500 kW 2016

If you happen to be sensitive to infrasound and low frequency noise, through no fault of your own, there is no escaping the torture from infrasound emissions from industrial wind turbines.

My wife has been plagued by unexplained infrasound since 2006 – after Ffynnon Oer wind farm was commissioned. Our observations and research over this time have convinced us that the unexplained infrasound noise pollution is most probably emitted by surrounding wind farms as far as 40 km (25 miles) away from our home.

When my wife started hearing unexplained low frequency noise (LFN) in our home intermittently through the winter of 2006/07, she thought the noise was coming from airplanes since we live under a busy transatlantic flight path. Apart from the planes (which fly over regularly, but not constantly), the occasional distant tractor or other large agricultural machine, there are no known sources of LFN anywhere near our home which could explain the LFN my wife can hear.

My wife also hears LFN over an extensive area around our home while driving around the area. She can’t hear the LFN while driving – only when the engine is turned off. Prior to the winter of 2006 she never heard any unexplained LFN. Several months after she first heard the LFN we discovered other people could also hearing unexplained LFN. One of the LFN hearers used to drive around at all hours of the night “looking for the bugger operating the big machine”.

We live about 200 m above sea level in a very rural location at the end of a long track (0.9 miles) and have no grid electricity. There any no pylons nearby which could produce electrical noise pollution. The nearest main road is about 6 miles away and the nearest town is about 8 miles away, and there is no heavy industry which could produce the LFN my wife can hear.

In late May 2013 my wife became ill for the first time with symptoms identical to those identified as “wind turbine syndrome” – her world was spinning all the time and her balance was very unsteady. Onset of the illness started a few days after commencement of a period of constant loud LFN (not the loudest she’s heard LFN though) during a long period of a stable high pressure weather system. After the weather broke in late June the symptoms of her illness gradually diminished and eventually disappeared over a period of about 10-14 days.

3 years later, a new 74 m 500 kW wind turbine was commissioned 3 km (1.95 miles) from our home near the end of May 2016.

Soon after the turbine became operational, she started hearing metronomic pulses within the infrasound/ low frequency spectrum too – she thinks those were the thumps caused by the blades passing the tower, but since we can’t see the wretched turbine from our home we could not verify that observation.

Within 2.5 weeks of the turbine becoming operational, my wife left home at very short notice due to the speed and severity of the deterioration in her health. Within a few days of the turbine becoming operational, she has been feeling constantly ill – and was getting worse – with constant headaches, nausea, vertigo symptoms and now sharp chest pains.

The chest pains got her so worried, she left home at very short notice like a terrified animal. She has now become a wind turbine refugee 😦

She couldn’t take the chronic torture any more, so she left home. She couldn’t even wait to make a doctor’s appointment to report her health problems because her health had deteriorated so alarmingly quickly.

It may not be a fast death, but it’s a death by a thousand cuts. The chronic torture has taken my wife from me piece by piece over the last 9-10 years, more so since a wind farm was commissioned 8.5 miles (13km) from our home in Sept 2009.

It has been heartbreaking to observe the effects of the torture on my wife – even though the damage is invisible. It has taken her departure to make me realise that my long held suspicions that the chronic effect of torture on her health were correct.

She couldn’t bear to tell me how bad she was getting or that she was planning to leave home. I knew she was deteriorating since the turbine became operational, but I had no idea she’d be driven out of her home so soon after the wretched turbine started turning.

This day has been a long time coming, yet it’s still a shock when the day arrived.

My fight goes on with even more determination than ever before. Many politicians continue to refuse to acknowledge the hard evidence of health damage to human beings and other life forms. They are all in a state of denial… they are complicit in inflicting torture on law abiding citizens living peacefully in their own homes. SHAME on them and any pretence they have for being caring and compassion people. Ignorance is NO excuse in the eyes of the law. In their case it is WILLFUL ignorance.

Within a few days of leaving home and moving to a wind turbine-free area, all my wife’s symptoms have disappeared and her energy has returned – she felt like a new person. She was only home for 1 week before she had to leave again for health reasons.

These observation adds weight to my account above that the infrasonic noise pollution emitted by the newly erected turbine was probably responsible for her severe symptoms and hasty departure. When we discussed these repeatable observations with her doctor on her return, he said there had to be an environmental reason for my wife’s health problems.

Many people like my wife have to endure state sanctioned torture inflicted by infrasound noise pollution emissions by industrial wind turbines (IWTs) because the wind industry has buried NASA’s research for a good 30 years. The industry continually dismisses this body of detailed research because they claim that wind turbine designs have changed.

A Brief history of the start of the “modern” wind industry:

The first reported complaints about wind turbine noise pollution arose in 1979, shortly after a single large wind turbine was erected in N Carolina, USA. This led to 9 years of thorough research and field studies headed by NASA and several other institutions to investigate the source of those complaints. The head researcher was physicist Dr Neil Kelley.

The NASA led research proved a number of points:

  1. LFN and ILFN noise pollution emissions from wind turbine was the source of the complaints reported by people.
  2. Certain frequencies were responsible for health problems reported by people.
  3. Cumulative exposure to LFN/ILFN resulted in increased sensitivity and progressively worsening health problems.
  4. Buildings amplify noise indoors at their resonant frequencies, exacerbating problems of wind turbine noise pollution emissions.

Dr Kelly presented a paper to the wind industry at a conference in San Francisco in Oct 1987, advising the industry how to minimise exposure of wind farm neighbours to LFN/ILFN emissions. The wind industry and buried this information for over 25 years before it was unearthed by some Australian researchers a couple of years ago.

Dr Neil Kelly also informed the wind industry, in 1987, that the use of A-weighted readings would be the worst standards to use to afford reasonable protection to people’s health and use of their amenities.

Yet, 9 years later in the UK in 1996, ETSU-R-97 adopted standards that ignored all the above research. Based on this evidence, the wind industry has clearly demonstrated that it is reprehensible and morally bankrupt – a colossal fraud. With all the research conducted by NASA, it is no wonder that the wind industry continues to fight tooth and nail to avoid having to measure noise emissions in the LFN/ILFN spectrum, and also doing their utmost to discredit the 9 years of thorough research headed by NASA and Dr Kelley.

If you want to get a bit more general background, the following post will give you a very clear and succinct historical picture of the development of the wind industry.
stopthesethings.com/2015/02/22/three-decades-of-wind-industry-deception-a-chronology-of-a-global-conspiracy-of-silence-and-subterfuge
Also read the timeline embedded in the above blog:
cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0Ak2bgr7C0nhPdGR3S1lEekU3T3p
4ZDhUNDdRV2Y2ZkE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=650

– it contains a very succinct summary of who knew what and when in relation to the development of the wind industry – it is eye opening if you don’t already know the full facts. What I outlined above is demonstrated in the timeline, which contains links to supporting documentary evidence.

The burden to the British National Health Service caused by health problems related to chronic exposure to LFN/ILFN emissions will grow significantly over the next 10-20 years. Read about this 1 case in Portugal (2 Euronoise documents attached.) and see the list of symptoms that will develop over time in response to chronic exposure to LFN/ILFN. These clinical symptoms of VAD (Vibroacoustic Disease) were derived from 30 years of research By Dr Alves-Pereira et al on the health of aircraft engineers. They have found the same symptoms developing in some wind farm neighbours (see the 2 Euronoise documents).

Alves-Pereira VAD clinical symptoms

The wind industry has steadfastly declined to conduct any research to prove that their machines are safe – they know what the results would be. Kelley et al have done the requisite research very thoroughly, and more recent work at the Shirley wind farm in Wisconsin (report attached) and Steven Cooper in Australia have verified some of Kelley’s research.
stopthesethings.com/2015/02/24/pacific-hydros-cape-bridgewater-wind-farm-public-relations-disaster-video-of-a-corporate-calamity-unfolding

Some Australian farmers lambing near industrial wind turbines have reported lambing rates as low as 5-7% (down from an average of 85%). And have observed foetal defects for the first time in their long farming lives.
(See: stopthesethings.com/2015/04/15/senate-inquiry-hamish-cumming-ors-tip-a-bucket-on-the-great-wind-power-fraud for several witness accounts from the 2015 senate inquiry in Australia)

If you need further evidence that LFN/ILFN noise pollution emissions from industrial wind power are dangerous, I am more than happy to supply more documents to you.

I would like to ask 1 question of the WHO:

  1. Under what circumstances would the WHO condone torture?

If, after all the evidence I have presented, the WHO do not reform their European noise guidelines, the WHO would be complicit in condoning state sponsored torture by refusing to afford adequate protection to law abiding citizens living in their own homes. Convicted and suspected terrorists already have more human rights than law abiding people living in their own homes.

Concerning noise standards in the UK – ETSU-R-97:

Based on my research, I would state that ETSU-R-97 guidelines never WERE fit for purpose. The opening statement in the introduction states:

“This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or local authorities.”

To the latter part of the aim, the ETSU regulations have been very successful.

However, ETSU standards and protocols do not afford adequate protection to people’s health and use of amenities because they were designed to NOT to measure the bulk of the noise pollution emitted by industrial wind turbines – i.e. Low Frequency (LFN) and Infrasound (ILFN). This was achieved primarily as follows:

  1. Adopting A-weighted measurements – A-weighted noise readings employ a filter which attempts to approximate the noise that hear by the “average” human ear”. It does this by filtering out a large percentage of the LFN spectrum (20-200 Hz), and an even larger percentage of the ILFN spectrum (<20 Hz). The bulk of the noise emitted by an industrial wind turbine is in the LFN and ILFN frequency spectrum. See attached diagram which illustrates the effect of employing A-weighted readings.
    Noise filters effects
  2. Only predicting noise levels outdoors, AND assuming a 15 dB reduction in noise levels indoors due to attenuation (reduction in volume) by walls and windows. The standards disregard the well known experiments that proved the problem of building resonance. Every building has a resonant frequency spectrum – in the ILFN/LFN spectrum. If you have ever listened to a vibrating tuning fork – you have to have it close to your ear. However, if you place the vibrating tuning fork on a piano or box, the noise is amplified considerably, and is audible from a much further distance… this is the demonstrable effect of resonance. The use of A-weighted readings, combined with the assumed reduction in volume indoors by 10-15 dB totally disguise the known LFN/ILFN noise problems associated with building resonance. See attached graph from Shirley wind farm studies in 2013.
    Shirley wind farm LFN resonance
  3. Using time average readings – use of time averaged readings masks the amplitude modulation (pulsating changes in the noise volume). Annoyance and health problems arise, not so much from steady noise levels, but from the pulsating noise levels. The spinning blades create enormous pressure pulses, particularly when the blades pass the tower.

Further notes on ETSU-R-97:

  1. ETSU disclaimer at the front of the document:

    “This report was drawn up under the direction of the Noise Working Group. While the information contained in this report is given in good faith, it is issued strictly on the basis that any person or entity relying on it does so entirely at their own risk, and without the benefit of any warranty or commitment whatsoever on the part of the individuals or organisations involved in the report as to the veracity or accuracy of any facts or statements contained in this report. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ETSU, the Department of Trade and Industry or any of the other participating organisations.”

  2. ETSU recommendation to review the guidelines in 2 years time (ie. 1998)

    “The report was drafted in the light of the best information available at the time. However it is acknowledged that as more experience and information become available and as circumstances develop it may become necessary to revise and improve the contents of this report. The Noise Working Group therefore suggests this report and its recommendations are reviewed in two years time. To this end, any comments on the usefulness of the report would be most welcome, including any suggestions for improvement with any supporting evidence where possible.”

    (ETSU-R-97 has never been reviewed or updated and therefore should be declared invalid or obsolete.)

  3. Since the ETSU guidelines were established in 1996, industrial wind turbines have grown significantly in size. They never WERE fit for the purpose of affording adequate protection to people’s health and enjoyment of their amenities. This means that even more of their noise emissions are in the low frequency and infrasound spectrum … most of the noises in this spectrum are DISCARDED and/or ignored by the use of ETSU-R-97 protocols and procedures. Yet successive British governments have refused to update ETSU guidelines. Those governments are therefore complicit in condoning state sanctioned torture. (In the UN definition of torture, noise is considered an instrument of torture.)

I trust you will consider all my evidence and observations in developing better noise guidelines for protecting people’s health from infrasonic noise pollution emissions from industrial wind turbines and other sources.

Please also refer to attached documents for further details.

Sincerely,
Emyr Griffiths

Advertisements

Litigation is the Only Language WindPushers Understand!

Wind Farm Noise Victims Sue Developer & Noise Consultant for $Millions

Jury-being-sworn-in-006

Litigation is where the rubber hits the road: myths get replaced with facts; evidence overtakes spin and propaganda. Court rooms (and where they determine the facts, juries) strike fear into the (ordinarily icy) hearts of those that stand behind or run with wind power outfits.

Wherever in the world civil actions have been pursued in nuisance and negligence, wind power outfits have bent over backwards to settle out of court.

Sure, wind power operators have deep pockets (obscenely stuffed with the massive subsidies drawn from their victims, among others). But they have never won a common-law case demonstrating that wind farms do not cause noise nuisance.

And the reason they have never won such a common-law case, is that every one that has ever been pursued by wind farm neighbours (and, in Texas, 23 contracted turbine hosts – see our post here), has been settled, very quietly, out of court.

True it is that wind farm developers routinely ‘win’ rubber-stamp planning approvals, when they’re out to spear these things into the hearts of rural communities, despite furious objection from the vast majority within those communities.

However, the common law right to live in one’s own home free from unreasonable interference from noise has nothing to do with noise ‘standards’ (written by the wind industry), planning terms or the views of bent quasi-government authorities, like Australia’s NHMRC.

The Waubra wind farm – which is run by Spanish outfit, Acciona – has drawn something like 1,400 noise complaints and has driven 11 farming families from homes that neighbour its operation, since it started operating over 6 years ago in July 2009 (see our post here).

The owners of those homes had been complaining bitterly about low-frequency noise and infrasound from the moment the turbines commenced operation.

Terrified of litigation, Acciona’s lawyers quietly went to each of the families complaining; purchased their properties and stitched them up with bullet-proof gag clauses – that prevent them from ever talking about the “sale” (see our post here).

So terrified were they that word of Acciona’s out of court settlements would get out, they even pursued one of the victims, Trish Godfrey all the way to Adelaide in South Australia in an effort to prevent her from giving evidence in a wind farm planning case about her acoustic torment – (seethis article and our posts here and here).

Other common law nuisance cases where the developers have paid out substantial compensation to plaintiffs neighbouring wind farms, include English couple, Julian and Jane Davis who won a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator (detailed here).

Another involved the claim filed in April 2013, by a group of 17 residents living next to the Lake Winds wind farm (others joined the group later) against Consumers Energy in Mason County Circuit Court, Michigan. One of the successful plaintiffs, Cary Shineldecker summed up the result of their lawsuit, which was resolved during the late summer and autumn of 2014:

“It was just about to go to trial; in fact I was in court waiting to be the first to testify, when we were told a settlement had been reached,” Shineldecker said. “It took about two months to work out the wording; then ours was actually finalized the week of Dec. 17.

“To me, we were helping others by being willing to take a stand,” Shineldecker added. “One of these days the facts are going to come out. Twenty years from now the health impacts of living with these industrial wind turbines will be common knowledge. It will be like the way it happened with cigarettes. But right now those who know the truth are a minority.”

The full story is covered here: US Wind Farm Operator Settles to Shut Down Neighbours’ Dynamite Damages Case

Cary Shineldecker hits the nail on the head when he says that “One of these days the facts are going to come out”. And that’s precisely the reason that the wind power outfit being sued settled with him and all of the other plaintiffs in that case. And, for the same reason, why Acciona bought out and gagged 11 families at Waubra in Victoria. And, again, why Julian and Davis were offered £2 million on the steps of the Court before the trial began.

In the US, another case has been bubbling along: here’s an update on its progress.

Homeowner: “I will have to move due to the constant noise and flicker shadow that comes into my home”
Jefferson’s Leaning Left
Richard Wiley Sr. 16 June 2016

Iberdrola and the same sound engineer who did the work on the original Clayton-Thousand Island Horse Creek industrial wind turbine sacrifice zone is still involved in a lawsuit with Herkimer County homeowners.

Fairfield homeowner, “I will have to move due to the constant noise and flicker shadow that comes into my home.”

In 2012 more than 60 residents of Herkimer County sued the developer and their sound engineer claiming that the 37 turbines they built are bigger and noisier than they were told during the planning stage. They claim the turbines are causing health problems and depressing their property values. Plaintiffs have said they will have to move from their homes.

The plaintiffs are represented by, Melody D. Scalfone (www.scalfonelaw.com) and Jeff DeFrancisco (jeff@defranciscolaw.com).

The lawsuit has been in local, state and national news. Attorney Scalene has traveled with one of the plaintiffs to other states to give testimony concerning living under industrial turbines.

From a source, JLL has learned that the lawsuit that you can read at this link is progressing.

Some of the claims against Iberdrola and their sound engineer:

94. The Defendants represented to the Town of Fairfield and residents in the areas where the turbines were placed that the subject wind turbines would not be noisy, would not adversely impact neighboring houses, and there would not be any potential health risks.

95. Defendant Atlantic Renewables LLC released “projected” noise levels that showed that the wind turbines would not go over 50 dB.

96. The aforementioned 2006 noise level study by Defendant Atlantic Renewables LLC was based on projections for General Electric 1.5LSE, 389-foot tall turbines, and not the Gamesa G90, 476-foot turbines, that Defendants collectively placed in the Hardscrabble project.

98. The Defendants failed to adequately assess the effect that the wind turbines would have on neighboring properties including, but not limited to, noise creation, significant loss of use and enjoyment of property, interference with electrical functioning of homes such as satellites, television, internet and telephone services, diminished property values, destruction of scenic countryside, various forms of trespass and nuisance to neighboring properties, and health concerns; among other effects.

99. Despite the foregoing, and in opposition to many residents who own property in close proximity to the wind turbines, in 2010 the Defendants erected 37 Gamesa G90 wind-turbines that stand 476 feet tall in and around the Towns of Fairfield, Middleville, and Norway, New York.

102. In 2011, the Defendants conducted a noise study that showed noise levels as high as 72 dB.

103. As a result of the aforementioned 2011 study, the Defendants thereafter faulted their own study and conducted two additional noise studies to demonstrate compliance with the Town of Fairfield’s Local Ordinance 1 of 2006, which sets the maximum noise level at 50 dB.

104. These new studies conducted by the Defendants show the average wind speeds, direction and expected percentage of operation.

105. The Defendants’ new studies did not measure the maximum wind speeds and do not measure the noise levels in the winter months, when the noise levels are higher.

106. The Defendants’ new studies fail to acknowledge and assess the extent of the problems, including the full log of Plaintiffs’ complaints that are in the thousands.

108. Since the huge wind turbines in this project produce very little electricity, when the government subsidies expire, the people in the Hardscrabble area will be confronted with a poorly maintained and deteriorating wind energy facility that may one day become derelict.

114. The Defendants’ noise studies also fail to address the aforesaid levels of infra and low frequency sounds by only focusing on audibility, and not on other sensations such as vestibular and other symptoms that fit with the Wind-Turbine Syndrome profile or other health concerns.

115. The wind turbines are causing such significant problems and/or injuries that residents, including the Plaintiffs, are continuing to have many difficulties on their properties, house values have been significantly compromised, and some residents were even forced to abandon their homes; among other damages as set forth in this complaint.

121. The aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently created and/or assisted in the creation of the massive wind-turbine structures that have caused and continue to cause significant harm to residents in the area of the turbines.

122. The aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently failed to adequately disclose the true nature and effects that the wind turbines would have on the community, including the Plaintiffs’ homes.

125. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.

128. The studies performed by CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE lacked a total and real assessment as it related to the potential harm.

129. It is a requirement of acoustic engineers, pursuant to the International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering and civil engineers (as per New York State licensure) to protect public safety, health, and welfare.

130. Defendants knew or should have known that the wind turbines erected produce acoustic pressure pulsations that affect peoples’ health.

131. It was the responsibility of CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE to advise their clients and the public, including Plaintiffs, of the potential for adverse health risks and other impacts to property in the Hardscrabble project area.

133. As a result of the aforesaid, the Plaintiffs have suffered significant and permanent injuries as more fully set forth herein.
Jefferson’s Leaning Left 

insomnia

As the evidence of the harm caused by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound goes from solid to incontrovertible, more and more victims will enlist lawyers and get the remedies (injunctions) and compensation (damages) to which they are obviously entitled. While the Herkimer County case is being mounted against the developer and its pet acoustic consultant, the list of potential defendants isn’t so limited.

The grounds for liability to victims are pretty straightforward: common law claims in nuisance and/or negligence (for starters) to obtain substantial damages for personal injury – caused by either – for pain and suffering, loss of amenity and enjoyment of life etc – as well as very substantial damages for the loss of the use and benefit of homes; diminution in the value of those homes and properties; relocation costs etc, etc.

The obvious cast of defendants includes:

  • the wind power outfits concerned;
  • the landowners hosting the turbines that cause the damage;
  • local Councils (where they are responsible for approving noise conditions and/or enforcing them);
  • State government Planning Departments (where they are responsible for approving noise conditions and/or enforcing them);
  • authorities, such as Environmental Protection Authorities (where they have either been involved in the creation – and/or (non)-enforcement – of wind farm noise standards);
  • acoustic experts engaged by the wind industry for their manifest failure to protect the health and well-being of wind farm neighbours – part of their (purported) ethical responsibilities, and especially those involved in the production of the noise standards;
  • State Health Departments, etc.

In short, a veritable cast of ‘thousands’. And behind them (with the exception of turbine hosts) stand a phalanx of insurers and underwriters – who will, no doubt, be taking a good hard look at their exposure.

The wind industry and its parasites were pretty quick to set the ‘rules’ in a way that means wind power outfits can operate around the clock, without any regard for the harm caused (eg, sleep deprivation) – ‘rules’ maliciously designed to discriminate against wind farm neighbours.

These are the boys who have sought to evade and avoid any kind of reasonable controls on their operations.

From the outset, they’ve made every effort to ensure that irrelevant and, therefore, woefully inadequate noise standards were adopted and are maintained – for a chronology of wind industry deception on this score, see our post: Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge 

And wind power outfits have doggedly refused to cooperate whenever victims are trying to impose even those woeful standards; and who, when troubled by an ‘unhelpful’ noise report, simply get their pet acoustic consultants to ‘redraw’ the results and, using fabricated data, claim compliance with an utterly irrelevant ‘standard’: Pacific Hydro & Acciona’s Acoustic ‘Consultant’ Fakes ‘Compliance’ Reports for Non-Compliant Wind Farms

Whether it’s in Herkimer County, or elsewhere, a day of legal reckoning approaches; and it can’t come soon enough.

judges-gavel

Corrupt Government Tries to Avoid Wind Turbine Investigation!

Concerned citizens dismayed as wind turbine investigation comes off the rails

Credit:  Huron County, Ontario, May 18, 2016 — Concerned Citizens for Health ~~

Rural Ontario is up in arms today over the apparent suspension of a one-of-a-kind wind turbine health investigation that may never happen.

Medical Officer of Health for Huron County Dr. Janice Owen became aware of numerous health complaints from people in her community shortly after she was hired a year ago by the current Huron County Board of Health. Owen began researching the issues last August and contacted many in the field researching the topic.

This February 4, Owen presented to her Board the outline and components of a wind turbine health complaints investigation stating that she had visited wind projects, sought information from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as well as Public Health Ontario and had spoken and heard from many members of the community.

In March this year the announcement of the new investigation was posted on the Health Unit’s website and immediately people suffering as a result of wind projects began to sign up. In April Dr. Owen was informed her services were no longer needed and she was put on administrative leave. This is a devastating blow to Huron County people exposed without consent to the acoustical emissions of wind turbines in proximity to their homes.

More questions than answers arose about the investigation’s future and were addressed on May 12 when the Board put the research on hold – likely permanent – stating that it seemed to be a duplication of a long term Ontario-wide public health survey with nothing to do with industrial wind adverse reactions.

“The people of Huron County do not want to become another Flint Michigan. Health administrators and those tasked with the protection of our health and safety need to see this ground-breaking research through to the end,” says Gerry Ryan for the group Concerned Citizens for Health (CCH). “The eyes of communities around the world who are suffering the same fate as us are watching what happens in Huron County Ontario. The wind industry is watching and the Ontario government whose policy this is are also watching.”

The CCH calls upon the temporary Medical Officer of Health Dr. Meriam Klassen to be courageous like Dr. Owen and find out where this investigation will take her. This is only fair.

Source:  Huron County, Ontario, May 18, 2016 — Concerned Citizens for Health

Please Contribute to Dr. David Lawrence, for his Study on Adverse Human Effects, from Wind Turbines!

April 25, 2016Connecticut

Important: Support for Research on wind turbines

Dr David Lawrence, Internal Physician from Connecticut, USA:
This is about trying to scientifically establish a cause and effect relationship of IWTs and adverse human effects.

Waubra Foundation CEO Sarah Laurie wrote today:

I have got to know David, and he is completely genuine, understands the global nature of the problem and the urgent need to gather evidence of direct causation, and he and his family and some of his neighbors are badly impacted already from a short duration.

He has the perfect clinical background to be able to convince his medical colleagues that there is a serious problem and I think it is well worth supporting this field research which could help to establish direct causation in someone who is clearly badly impacted.

Dr. David R. Lawrence
Dr. David R. Lawrence

Hello to those in receipt of the message:

I am hoping to raise money to study the impact of Industrial Wind Turbines on human health.

My expectations are modest. Small donations from the many affected might be enough to meetMY GOAL. I am a doctor, not a researcher. I am feeling my way through this. I hope this will work.

If you believe in this project, please circulate this to any interested people.

My GoFundMe campaign: https://www.gofundme.com/IWTResearch

Respectfully,

David R Lawrence, MD

Industrial Wind Turbine Research

My GoFundMe campaign: https://www.gofundme.com/IWTResearch

I am Dr. David R. Lawrence. I practice Primary Care in Internal Medicine in a small town in Northwestern Connecticut. On October 17, 2015, two Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) began operation as close as 1600 feet from my house. My wife became so severely affected by the turbines that we moved into our basement the next morning to shield us from Infrasound and whatever else caused the physical effects, possibly including “dirty electricity.”

Most people cannot feel the effects of IWTs. If they do, they do not often realize that something is going on or they do not know it is from the turbines. But for those who are highly sensitive-like my wife-the symptoms start almost immediately. Head pressure, posterior head pain, dizziness, loss of balance with falls, palpitations, the thumping of the blade in her chest. Sleep disturbance is prominent and has a significant adverse health impact. The clinching factor is that everything goes away when the turbines are not operational or the person leaves the area. Not just my wife, but people around the globe. I have interviewed people with similar problems in Connecticut, Massachusetts (Falmouth) and Wisconsin (Shirley Wind Farm). I have heard from people from around the globe.

The developers of wind power tell us there is not a problem. They hire “experts” who agree. Many say it is mind over matter, so called “nocebo.” They are not scientists and they are not clinicians. They cannot argue the truth, but they can hide the truth.

Physical disturbances are happening to my wife and to a substantial number of other people. What is happening to those of us who don’t feel anything and to the very young who cannot well express what they feel is to be determined. And so it is with the possible long term effects.

I m looking for funds to tie IWT infrasound to changes in human physiology. I need sound monitoring equipment, data logging equipment andSOFTWARE to interpret it, as well as funds for the help of an acoustics expert to get the data to make sense. For monitoring of human physiology, I am hoping to purchase a heart monitor, a portable EEG and sleep monitoring equipment.

This is not about me or my wife. We need to leave our house for her sake. This is about trying to scientifically establish a cause and effect relationship of IWTs and adverse human effects.

“Many hands make light work.” A small contribution from a number of people is meaningful and makes a statement. I would like to think that anyone who contributes believes that there is a problem because they have a problem or know someone who does, or even because they believe in what I say.

Read more:

Wind Turbine Projects, a Breach of Human Rights!

March 2016Australia

Human Rights and Wind Energy Projects

This document is a review of the possible breaches by wind energy projects of various of the human rights of people living in the vicinity of a wind project.

It identifies and considers a number of potential breaches of varying impact and of differing ease or difficulty of establishing. In this context the rights to health, safe working conditions and property may be the simplest to establish whether breaches have or have not occurred.

Readers of this document need to understand that it is not in any way a legal argument and that whilst all reasonable steps have been taken in its construction the author makes no representation that the information is complete nor that the analysis and conclusions are correct.

Those interested in the subject should obtain their own advice before proceeding with a formal complaint.

Prepared by:
Peter R Mitchell AM, BChe
March 2016

Index

  1. Summary
  2. Introduction
  3. The Relevant Facts
  4. Has the Wind IndustryPROVEN Its Machines Are Safe?
  5. Level of Disturbance
  6. Human Rights Legislation
  7. Major Breaches of Human Rights
    1. Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
    2. Discrimination
    3. Arbitrary Interference
    4. Working Conditions
    5. Family
    6. Children
    7. Physical and Mental Health
    8. Homes and Other Assets
  8. Obligations of Civil Servants

Appendices

Each Appendix repeats relevant articles from the Declaration and Convenants with comments in italics on their applicability to the problems discussed in the memorandum.

  1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
  2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
  3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
  4. Covenant on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
  5. Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)

A. Summary

IndustrySPIN and uncritical but determined admirers of wind energy have encouraged the political and public view of the wind industry as beyond criticism and critical analysis. In contrast people living in the vicinity of Wind Energy Projects (WEPs) have been suffering both mentally and physically since turbines have appeared in their previously quiet, peaceful and healthy environments.

Some high quality work by US scientistsi in the 1980s uncovered a wind turbine sound profile (signature) that included infrasound and low frequency sound (ILFN). This signature was unlike that of any other source of sound. ILFN at very low and specific frequencies was identified as the cause of health problems in humans. The industry and their favoured acousticians “forgot” this work; but recent field workii in Australia has confirmed the unique sound profile and the cause and effect. Advances in instrumentation are allowing more work to be undertaken in victims’ homes by privately funded acousticians independent of the wind industry.

Characteristically the victims have no funds to seek legal relief or advice but that may become easier as the findings are repeated. Meanwhile the victims continue to endure what they claim are intolerable bodily impacts with their personal sensitivity increasing with timeiii.

Whilst the industry currently feels secure against court action, it has occurred to some that the industry and government regulatory authorities are quite possibly causing major breaches of certain of the victims’ human rights; and that this is an avenue that should, and can, be diligently pursued with a minimum outlay of scarce funds.

Matching of thePROVEN impacts with defined and accepted human rights is the purpose of this document.

Matching shows that rights involving:

  • Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
  • Discrimination
  • Arbitrary Interference
  • Working Conditions
  • Family
  • Children
  • Physical and Mental Health
  • Homes and Other Assets

are seemingly being both ignored, and breached.

It is not necessary that every one of the above identified rights is breached. One alleged breach against one person at one wind project is enough to trigger the obligations of the Human Rights Commission.

B. Introduction

The Clean Energy Council website states that: “Australia had 1866 wind turbines spread across 71 wind farms at the end of 2014. Three wind farms with a combined power generation capacity of 566.7 megawatts (MW) were completed in 2014 and a further five wind farms remained in progress early in 2015 and are expected to be completed in 2015”.

Individual turbine size (rated capacity) ranges from less than 1MW to about 3.3MW.

Changes to the Renewable Energy Target will require additional renewable energy capacity to be built, most of which can be expected to be wind derived.

There are a variety of problems with wind energy that are unlikely to be rectified soon. This document is concerned solely with the physiological and psychological impact on families and farm workers living within 10km of a WEP.

The purpose of WEPs is to produce power from a sustainable source without producing carbon dioxide. It may or may not be that the planet is facing disastrous global warming; it may or not be that carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels is a, or perhaps the, major cause. Many believe (but may not actually know) the answers to the above options are in the affirmative. Political parties and members of State and Federal parliaments have, with some exceptions, accepted the affirmative view. The Commonwealth, through the Renewable Energy Act, has directed that power consumers pay large subsidies for renewable energy in order for wind energy and some other renewable energies to become viable. Thus the wind industry operates with aGUARANTEED PROFIT at a level which is very attractive to some investors who increasingly are foreign.

The wind industry’s interest is to protect and enhance its cash flows. Capitalism has a poor record if its product or service is damaging to the public and the environment. In these circumstances it commonly does not seek to change its product but to defend its continuation. Unfortunately this reaction includes tactics of denial and dissembling, refusing to undertake sufficient research on its own products, delaying research by others and attacking those who see problems with the product and are prepared to say so. An expensive campaign of denial andSPINis progressively developed and practised.

Those convinced of the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions see wind energy as a win-win solution (both sustainable and reducing carbon dioxide). However, in the matter of its more carefully defined purpose, that being the net reduction of carbon dioxide per unit of power produced, it is a failure.iv This is mentioned here so that readers may realise that wind energy is not the saviour first thought, and that there is no question of “wind power or we perish”.

However this document does not make the argument about wind being not fit for purpose. Others have done and continue doing that. The purpose here is to consider whetherPROVEN impacts on residents constitute transgression of their human rights.

The following facts relating to the generation of power from wind are drawn from published research and unpublished field work, much of which is available on websites such as the Waubra Foundation, National Wind Watch, etc. website. These are discovered and researched facts, not unfounded assertions nor the output of “post modern” science.

Matching of these facts with defined and accepted human rights is the purpose of this document.

C. The Relevant Facts

An understanding of the nature of the sound pressure wavesv emitted by turbines and the impacts of that energy upon neighbours is essential to any assessment of the possible breaching of human rights. Facts vital to this evaluation follow.

  • Wind turbines produce sound (airborne pressure waves) across the infrasound, low frequency and audible ranges.
  • Sound in the very low frequency spectrum (0.1 hertz to 20 hertz) characterised as infrasound, as well as excessive low frequency noise (20 to 200 Hz) causes serious physiological and psychological impacts on some or all of the residents in a significant number of houses up to at least 10 km from the nearest turbine.
  • Residents do not become accustomed to these pressure waves, but become sensitised, so that the impact becomes increasingly damaging with ongoing exposure.(See Endnote ii)
  • A major impact of these sound waves is chronic sleep deprivationvi often associated with waking suddenly and regularly in a panicked state; but other primary or secondary health problems such as tinnitus, vertigo and balance problems, tachycardia, nausea, migraine, exacerbation of chronic medical conditions such as heart disease, and concentration problems, as well as physiological and psychological stress are also common.(See Endnote ii) Chronic sleep deprivation is classified by the World Health Organisation as a contributor to diseasevii.
  • Many residents find their formerly peaceful homes are rendered sonically toxic and ultimately uninhabitable and, on full disclosure to possibly interested buyers, unsaleable.
  • Young children are unable to understand or express their discomfort, which is often extreme, old people are unable to move for various reasons including financial; and all ages suffer declining health and cognitive power and are increasingly at risk in operating farm machinery, fixed machines and even cars and trucks.

D. Has the Wind Industry Proven Its Machines Are Safe?

The information to support the above facts is readily available and mounting. Whilst the wind industry and its variously motivated supporters deny any evidence exists, and discredit the motives and background of the whistleblowers, the industry has never been inclined or required to prove that their ever larger turbines are safe, or to prove another source that has any scientific credibility for the health impacts that arise around wind turbineINSTALLATIONS.

E. Level of Disturbance

Please read on

Prepared by Peter R Mitchell | March 2016

More Evidence of Harm From Wind Turbine Noise

Tonic tensor tympani syndrome (TTTS)

There has been a suggestion that this condition is actually part of what some people chronically exposed to wind turbine noise might be experiencing.

Tensor tympani muscle
Tensor tympani and stapedius muscles contract reflexively in response to loud sounds to prevent damage to the hearing receptors.
Noise & HealthApril 9, 2013Australia

Tonic tensor tympani syndrome in tinnitus and hyperacusis patients: a multi-clinic prevalence study

Myriam Westcott et alter

Abstract

Tonic tensor tympani syndrome (TTTS) is an involuntary, anxiety-based condition where the reflex threshold for tensor tympani muscle activity is reduced, causing a frequent spasm. This can trigger aural symptoms from tympanic membrane tension, middle ear ventilation alterations and trigeminal nerve irritability. TTTS is considered to cause the distinctive symptoms of acoustic shock (AS), which can develop after exposure to an unexpected loud sound perceived as highly threatening. Hyperacusis is a dominant AS symptom. Aural pain/blockage without underlying pathology has been noted in tinnitus and hyperacusis patients, without wide acknowledgment.

This multiclinic study investigated the prevalence of TTTS symptoms and AS in tinnitus and hyperacusis patients. This study included consecutive patients with tinnitus and/or hyperacusis seen in multiple clinics. Data collected: Symptoms consistent with TTTS (pain/numbness/burning in and around the ear; aural “blockage”; mild vertigo/nausea; “muffled” hearing; tympanic flutter; headache); onset or exacerbation from exposure to loud/intolerable sounds; tinnitus/hyperacusis severity. All patients were medically cleared of underlying pathology, which could cause these symptoms. 60.0% of the total sample (345 patients), 40.6% of tinnitus only patients, 81.1% of hyperacusis patients had ≥1 symptoms (P < 0.001). 68% of severe tinnitus patients, 91.3% of severe hyperacusis patients had ≥1 symptoms (P < 0.001). 19.7% (68/345) of patients in the total sample had AS. 83.8% of AS patients had hyperacusis, 41.2% of non-AS patients had hyperacusis (P < 0.001). The high prevalence of TTTS symptoms suggests they readily develop in tinnitus patients, more particularly with hyperacusis. Along with AS, they should be routinely investigated in history-taking.

Introduction

The tensor tympani reflex is a startle reflex, which is exaggerated by high stress levels. The tensor tympani muscle contracts immediately preceding the sounds produced during self-vocalisation, suggesting it has an established protective function to loud sounds, assists in the discrimination of low frequency sounds, and is involved in velopharyngeal movements.

Tonic tensor tympani syndrome (TTTS) was originally described by Dr. I. Klockhoff. TTTS is an involuntary condition where the centrally mediated reflex threshold for tensor tympani muscle activity becomes reduced, so it is continually and rhythmically contracting and relaxing. This appears to initiate physiological reactions in and around the ear without objectively measurable dysfunction or pathology. Symptoms consistent with TTTS can include: tinnitus; rhythmic aural sensations such as clicks and tympanic membrane flutter; alterations in ventilation of the middle ear cavity leading to a sense of aural blockage or fullness, a frequent aural “popping” sensation and mild vertigo; minor alterations in middle ear impedance leading to fluctuating symptoms of “muffled” and/or “distorted” hearing; irritation of the trigeminal nerve innervating the tensor tympani muscle, leading to pain, numbness and burning sensations in and around the ear, along the cheek, neck and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) area.

The specific and consistent cluster of physiological symptoms of acoustic shock (AS) is consistent with TTTS, without underlying aural or TMJ pathology. AS can occur involuntarily after exposure to a sudden unexpected loud sound perceived as highly threatening (acoustic incident). AS becomes an acoustic shock disorder (ASD) if symptoms persist. AS was originally identified in call center staff, who arevulnerable to AS because of the increased likelihood of exposure near the ear(s) to an acoustic incident transmitted via a telephone headset. The research on AS has focused on this cohort, however acoustic incidents can occur anywhere.

Symptoms such as aural pain and a sensation of aural blockage/fullness, with no underlying aural or TMJ pathology, have been observed in tinnitus and hyperacusis patients. These symptoms have been linked to TTTS by Jastreboff and Hazell and Westcott. However, these symptoms have not been widely acknowledged or investigated in this patient population. TTTS has been more intensively investigated in temporomandibular disorder (TMD) research, with TTTS considered to be a secondary consequence of TMD and/or TMJ dysfunction, predominantly responsible for referred tinnitus, ear pain and other symptoms in and around the ear.

This multiclinic study aimed to investigate in a sample of tinnitus and hyperacusis patients the prevalence of:

  • Symptoms consistent with TTTS
  • Symptoms consistent with TTTS developing or being exacerbated by intolerable sound exposure
  • AS aetiology triggering the onset of their tinnitus and/or hyperacusis.

[…]

Conclusion

The high prevalence of symptoms consistent with TTTS in this sample suggests they can readily develop as a primary phenomenon in patients with tinnitus, and more particularly in those with hyperacusis. These results support a central relationship between tinnitus, hyperacusis and TTTS, with further research indicated to explore this relationship and the efferent pathway triggering TTTS.

TTTS offers an explanation for the aural pain reported by many hyperacusis patients, often triggered or aggravated by intolerable sound exposure. Symptoms consistent with TTTS are subjective and can cause high levels of anxiety. This can lead to tinnitus escalation, the development and escalation of hyperacusis, and limit the efficacy of tinnitus/hyperacusis therapy. These symptoms should be routinely evaluated in history taking, de-mystified to patients to provide reassurance, and treated accordingly.

These results indicate that AS is a world-wide phenomenon, with significant clinical, medico-legal and military diagnostic/rehabilitation implications. It is recommended that evaluation of an acoustic incident at the time of tinnitus/hyperacusis onset is routinely carried out in history taking with tinnitus and hyperacusis patients.

→ Please read on

Definition of “Wind Turbines”….from an “Honest Encyclopedia”

Wind turbine:

Wind turbine.jpg

Wind turbine is the modern day windmill which is marketed as a clean energy solution to replace power from fossil fuel plants. The addition of multiple wind turbines in the same geographical location is referred to as a wind farm. The sales pitch…wind turbines power millions of homes with wonderful “free” energy. The truth is a much different story. “The wind power industry claims switching from conventional power to wind power will save consumers money and spur the economy. However, data from the top 10 wind power states show just the opposite.” [1]

Cost breakdown

Wind energy from turbines are power generating losers when compared to other technologies such as coal, hydro, gas and nuclear. One giant downside is no wind, no power generation. Sources say you need at least 10MPH wind speed to generate power and speeds in excess of 50MPH will shut down turbines to prevent damage. [2] Industry promoters often paint a rosy picture of the benefits of wind power when other sources claim as little as 8% of usable generation.

Not widely known but wind turbines actually use electricity from the grid (coal/gas/hydro/nuclear) to power their hydraulic systems that keep the blades facing in the same direction as the wind. In freezing weather conditions, electricity from the grid is used to keep the bladesspinning at low speeds as a method of de-icing.

The misconception is that youinstall a wind turbine and it will pay itself off within a decade. From that point out, it is a net energy gain at a fraction of a cost. Nothing can be further from the truth. Constant costs are involved to maintain these mechanical structures; Overheating bearings, plastic that melts, gallons of brake oil leaking, gallons of hydraulic fluid leaking, [3] blades that fall off, towers that collapse, replacement of yaw gear drives, bearings, gearboxes, and generators. The cost to put out wind turbine fires, some self-extinguish themselves out but others need fire departments to extinguish turbines and put out the brush fires below.

The cost to manufacture wind turbines prevents any offset gained transitioning to a ‘clean’ energy environment. [4]

A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons.

Landscape, seascape wildlife costs are a major downside to power from wind. Eagles, bats, birds of all kinds are killed in the thousands by wind blades. Their rotting carcasses litter the ground below. Estimates place the number of birds killed by wind turbines at 30 million per year. [5]

In Ontario Canada, every turbine destroys 3 acres of land, roughly 21,000 acres of farmland. [6]

Wind Turbine Syndrome

Many people living within 2 km (1.25 miles) of thesespinning giants get sick says a peer-reviewed study by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. [7] Low frequency noise and infrasound appear to be the chief disease-causing culprit according to Dr. Nina Pierpont. In Wisconsin, a study showed noise emanating from the turbines was detectable inside homes within a 6.2-mile radius of the industrial wind plant and declared wind turbines a health hazard. [8]

Government Subsidies and Crony Capitalists

Billions of taxpayer dollars are being shoveled into this inefficient scheme in order to promote Global Warming agendas at the expense of real power sources and the tens of thousands of jobs they replace. Government subsidies keep the growth of wind turbine construction alive and keep this technology running afterinstalled. Without government financial involvement, wind turbines become to costly to operate, go idle and start rusting the landscape. Without government funding, investors sell theirinvestments and shelve plans to expand.[9] The UK’s Labour party insists that wind turbines can’tmake a profit without subsidies. [10] Tax credits are given to companies that manufacture, to companies thatinstall/maintain, to municipalities that own the property. The IRS is giving away $13 Billion per year in wind energy subsidies.[11]

The world’s biggest billion dollar corporations, such as General Electric and Siemens, are reaping the investments made in subsidized wind turbine construction. The U.S. government has laid the groundwork for an endless welfare system devoted to big wind companies. [12]

See also

External links

References

  1. Jump up Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States, Forbes, October 17, 2014
  2. Jump up AS BRITAIN FREEZES, WIND FARMS TAKE POWER FROM GRID TO PREVENT ICING, Breitbart.com. January 2, 2015
  3. Jump up 2 Year Old Siemens Turbines Falling Apart: Wind Farm Investors, Get Out While You Can, Stopthesethings.com, Febuary 1, 2015
  4. Jump up Carbon Shift: How Peak Oil and the Climate Crisis Will Change Canada (and Our Lives), Author Thomas Homer-Dixon, 2010
  5. Jump up RIP STEFAN THE STORK – ONE OF 30 MILLION BIRDS KILLED BY WIND FARMS EVERY YEAR, Breitbart, August 17, 2015
  6. Jump up Wind Ontario
  7. Jump up Wind Turbine Syndrome
  8. Jump up Wisconsin Wind Turbines Declared Health Hazard, Michigan Capitol Confidential, November 8, 2014
  9. Jump up Wind Energy’s Ghosts, American Thinker, February 15, 2010
  10. Jump up Tories to end onshore windfarm subsidies in 2016, The Guardian,June 18, 2015
  11. Jump up The IRS Is Giving Away $13 Billion A Year In Wind Energy Subsidies, Without Congressional Authorization, Forbes
  12. Jump up What do we have to show for government subsidies of wind power?, TheHill, February 24,2015