Doctors stick up for wind victims!

Sleep Deprivation, and The Effects! (Wynne Gov’t Torturing Rural Residents Near Wind Turbines!)

/ 1957chev / 5 Comments

The Spooky Effects of Sleep Deprivation
by Sara G. Miller, Staff Writer | October 27, 2015
It’s no surprise that a night without enough Zzzs can lead to a groggy morning. But bleary eyes and gaping yawns aren’t the only things that can happen when your body needs more shut-eye.

Indeed, there are more nightmarish side effects to sleep deprivation.

If a person is deprived of sleep, it can lead to “tremendous emotional problems,” said Dr. Steven Feinsilver, the director of the Center for Sleep Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Sleep deprivation has been used as a form of torture,” he said. [7 Strange Facts About Insomnia]
There isn’t a clear definition of exactly how long a person must go without sleep, or how little sleep a person has to get to be considered sleep-deprived, and different people need different amounts of sleep, so there may be no universal definition of “sleep deprivation.” Rather, a person is considered sleep-deprived if they get less sleep than they need to feel awake and alert, researchers say.

But still, research over the years has shown that people can be physically and psychologically damaged from not getting enough sleep, said David Dinges, a professor of psychology and the director of the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania.

In fact, the damage is so apparent that it is unethical to coercively deprive someone of sleep, Dinges said. In the studies of sleep deprivation that Dinges and his colleagues conduct in their lab, healthy volunteers are placed in medically safe environments and constantly monitored.

But studying sleep deprivation is important, according to these researchers and others who study the condition. They say that learning what happens in people who are deprived of sleep can help researchers better understand the function of sleep and its importance for both physical and emotional health.

Emotions askew

The problems can start on a somewhat minor scale.

“Clearly, your brain doesn’t work very well when you’re sleep-deprived,” Feinsilver said. Even a low level of sleep deprivation has an impact on cognitive and emotional function, he said.

Dinges explained that some of the first emotional impacts of sleep deprivation involve positive emotions. “When people get sleep-deprived, they don’t show positive emotion in their faces,” Dinges said. A sleep-deprived person may say they’re happy, but they still have a neutral face, he said.

And they won’t recognize other people as happy, either. A positive look on someone’s face can appear neutral to a sleep-deprived person, and neutral look is often interpreted as a negative look, Dinges said. The sleep-deprived brain may not be as capable of detecting positive emotions as a more rested brain, he said.

And sleep-deprived people also don’t tolerate disappointment very well, Dinges added.

Microsleeps

As little as a single night of sleep deprivation can result in a person having a phenomenon called “microsleeps,” the next day, Feinsilver said.

A person begins to fall into mini-snooze sessions, which last up to 30 seconds. Some people’s eyes remain open during microsleeps, but the disturbing thing about microsleeps is that during sleep, the person is essentially blind, even if their eyes are open, Feinsilver said. They’re not processing information, he said.

Studies show that during microsleeps, the brain goes into a sleep state rapidly and uncontrollably, Dinges said. People can force themselves awake, but they will soon fall into another microsleep, he said.

Both Dinges and Feinsilver said that this condition can be incredibly dangerous, especially if you’re behind the wheel.

Delirium

People often say they feel loopy after a night of no sleep. But in more extreme cases, losing sleep may cause delirium.

True delirium occurs when a person becomes completely disoriented, Feinsilver said. “Sleep can play a role in that,” he said. [5 Things You Must Know About Sleep]

Patients who have been hospitalized in intensive care units — where lights and sounds may continue all day and night — can develop a condition that doctors call “ICU delirium,” he said. And while it’s unclear if sleep deprivation is the cause of this delirium, doctors do think that loss of sleep is one reason people in the hospital for extended periods develop bizarre behavior, he said.

The worst thing you can do for sleep is put someone is a hospital, Feinsilver added. It’s fairly common for for hospitalized patients to develop insomnia, he said.

Hallucinations

Seeing things that aren’t there can be a side effect of chronic sleep deprivation, but whether sleep deprivations can induce true hallucinations may be up for debate.

Feinsilver said he personally experienced hallucinations due to sleep deprivation, in October of his first year out of medical school. A newly minted medical resident, Feinsilver said he had been chronically sleep-deprived for several months.

“I [knew] it was October, because I was in the ICU after a night on call,” and there was pumpkin by the nurses’ station, he said. “I had a very vivid feeling of the pumpkin talking to me,” he said.

But Dinges was more skeptical about hallucinations.

“There’s no question that misperceptions can occur,” Dinges said. When people are very sleepy and performing a task, they may see something flicker in their peripheral vision, or they may think they see blinking lights, but not be sure, he said. All of these are indications that the brain isn’t interpreting information clearly, he said.

Can you die of sleep deprivation?

In a famous series of animal experiments, researcher found that total sleep deprivation could kill lab rats.

In 2012, a Chinese man reportedly died after going 11 days without sleep. However, it’s unlikely that lack of sleep alone caused his death (other factors likely played a role, such as drinking and smoking).

Of course, studying this phenomenon in humans is difficult – even when you put aside the clear ethical dilemmas.

“Can you die of sleep deprivation? It’s not easy,” Feinsilver said. “Because you’ll fall asleep,” he added.

Dinges agreed.

“I don’t believe that people can keep themselves awake until they succumb to death,” because the drive to sleep turns on, and then continues to turn on, he said. “You can’t will yourself to stay awake that long,” he said.

Still, there’s no question that sleep deprivation has “serious adverse health effects,” Dinges said.

“Everything we know about sleep loss is harmful,” he said. But — on a more positive note — most of the effects of sleep deprivation dissipate after you sleep, he added.

Follow Sara G. Miller on Twitter @SaraGMiller. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on Live Science.

Doctor Stands Up for People, that are Suffering from Wind Turbine Emissions!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Wind turbines proven to be threat to people’s health

Posted on October 20, 2015by

Saint Albans Messenger; October 16, 2015

This review is intended to educate the public on the concerns and eventualities of the implementation of Wind Turbine energy on the health and welfare of those who will live close by and within the radius of that construction and the susceptibility to the impact of the noise and light levels that will have an impact Vermonters. There is clinical evidence that substantiates that there is a clear correlation between the dba levels and the distance of the effect of the noise and specifically the infrasound that will adversely affect residencies and the respective residents. This particular stance is not contrived or based on conjecture, the facts stand on the complaints of individuals who have suffered greatly to include lost sleep, severe headaches, increases in blood pressure and increased levels of stress and eventually, having had to abandon homes and properties as a result of their continued deteriorating health and welfare. Here are some responses that offer some insight and come from the study: Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes:

The Impact of Wind Turbines Noise on Health a review of the literature I discussion of the issues by Barbara J Frey, MA (University of Minnesota) & Pater J. Hadden (Est Man), FRICS January 2012:

“Whereas, assessing the potential health impact of wind turbines has been difficult to measure but if present would be of significant concern. This is especially apparent regarding the noise level and other noise characteristics specific to industrial wind turbines.

“Therefore be it resolved that the Maine Medical Association work with health organizations and regulatory agencies to bring to the public’s attention the scientific information of known medical consequences of wind development.

“Further Resolved that the Maine Medical Association (1) encourage performance of studies on health effects of wind turbine generation by independent qualified researchers at qualified research institutions, (2) ensure that physicians and patients alike are informed of evidence-based research results.” [Maine Medical Association. Resolution Re: Wind Energy and Public Health.

MMA (USA), 2009] Here is one individual’s status: “Her symptoms came on quickly. She experienced bad headaches, dizziness, queasiness, a heart rhythm sensation and a vibration inside her body…”

[Woman Tells a Tale of Turbine Torment: Retired Pharmacist Speaks to Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards about the Effects Industrial Wind Turbines had on her. Health. Barry’s Bay This Week, 11 February 2009] “It was just like the whole room was spinning says Lisa Michaud of Thamesville, Ontario, as she recalled the weeks after the Kent Breeze wind farm began operating in May. The noise at night keeps you awake. But it’s not just the noise that you hear.

It’s something else that’s coming at you constantly that you don’t hear, but you feel. It’s just not right.”

[Seglins D and Nicol J. Wind Farm Health Risks Claimed in $1.5M Suit: Ontario Family Sues Suncor, Alleging Health Problems. CBC News, 21 September 2011http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ toronto/story/2011/09/21/seglins- windfarms.html; see also Seglins D and Nicol J. Ontario Wind Farm Health Risks Downplayed: Documents. CBC News, 22 September 2011 This particular study offers many more responses from individuals adversely affected by the con struction of the Wind Turbines. In addition, there is a multitude of articles that one can access and review that substantiate health risks and adverse affects from the construction of the Wind Turbines especially as that relates to a safe radius from residencies and respective residents.

Our group who opposes the construction of the Wind Turbines on Rocky Ridge by Mr. Travis Belisle’s company is not in opposition to embracing alternative energy sources and embracing renewable energy as a means of self-sustaining our economies and advancing our independence from fossil fuels. Our stance and position is that Vermont lives matter and the health and welfare of our residents in the towns of Fairfield, Swanton and St. Albans.

This is especially true for those who have young children who will be affected and the elderly.

As legislators, you need to be concerned as well and should be thinking of the heath issues and not just focusing on the return on investment for grants. When the realities of the noise and dba levels come to fruition and the respective health degradations, you cannot stand on the sidelines and state you were not aware of the consequences; this letter and many more of us who have factored this critical point in our essays have gone on the record and advised you of the facts. The call to question is this; do Vermont lives matter? Your actions will obviously answer that question.

What is the solution? First recognize there is an impact on health and welfare for those who live close to the construction sites. Second, there needs to be disciplined reviews and measurements by third party resources that trend the noise levels and if those levels exceed the recommended levels for safe operations then the turbines will be shut down until they can be successfully run or are run when the noise levels will not aversely affect those residents.

If these points are ignored, many Vermont residents will be adversely affected and we can then argue that Vermont lives do not matter. We need to learn from previous construction sites of Lowell and Georgia, Vermont and the lessons that those resident’s health and welfare and economic security to include homes and property value were adversely impacted.

Robert Perkins PhD, Fairfield

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

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Irish Wind Farm Study Proves Turbine Noise Causes Disease

October 20, 2015 by

Professor Alun Evans

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH

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

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

The review of available evidence leads to the following conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STT’s Nuisance “In-a-Nutshell”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

judges-gavel

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

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aussie Senator, Chris Back, Demands Moratorium on New Wind Farms….

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Liberal Senator – Chris Back – Demands Moratorium on New Wind Farms

October 17, 2015 by

no wind turbines

****

Over bitter opposition from Labor and the Greens, and following almost 6 months of solid graft, 8 hearings in 4 States and the ACT, dozens of witnesses and almost 500 submissions, the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud delivered its ‘doorstop’ final report, which runs to some 350 pages – available here: Senate Report

The first 200 pages are filled with facts, clarity, common sense and compassion; the balance, labelled “Labor’s dissenting report”, was written by the wind industry’s parasites and spruikers – including the Clean Energy Council (these days a front for Infigen aka Babcock & Brown); theAustralian Wind Alliance; and Leigh Ewbank from the Enemies of the Earth.

One of the hard-working Senators on the Inquiry was Chris Back – a Liberal from WA – the ‘Liberals’ are meant to be Australia’s free-market Conservatives. True to his colours, Chris is still in there fighting for a ‘fair go’ for rural communities and Australian power consumers, everywhere.

But it’s not just the lunatic left that Chris is up against. He faces dogged efforts to kill off the Senate’s recommendations by Patrick Gibbons – the wind industry’s ‘Mr Fix It’; who ‘controls’ traffic in order to protect his wind industry mates, from within the (notionally) ‘Liberal’ Environment Minister, young Gregory Hunt’s office.

Notwithstanding rats in his own ranks, Chris Back is determined to see the benefits of 6 months of hard work get delivered. Here’s a taste of what Chris is all about.

Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines

In November 2014, I sponsored the motion in the Senate to establish the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines. The Committee concluded its Inquiry and reported to the Senate on 3 August 2015, making a number of important recommendations. The government has committed to responding actively and in good faith to the findings.

The Committee has recommended that:

The government sets up an Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Industrial Sound (IESC). This is in response to the large number of reports of ill-health from witnesses living near turbines.

A pilot acoustic study of the low frequency sound and infrasound produced by large industrial turbines has indicated that there is a link between sound and sensations damaging to human health. This recommendation has been accepted by the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt. I have made recommendations to the Minister regarding membership of the Committee.

The IESC develop a single national acoustic standard for the operation of wind turbines and reports to the relevant Health, Environment and Planning Ministers.

The IESC forms National Wind Farm Guidelines.

The government establish a National Wind Farm Ombudsman in response to community complaints. Minister Hunt has recently begun the process of establishing a Wind Farm Commissioner. I have recommended Terms of Reference to the Minister.

Eligibility to receive Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) will be made subject to compliance with the national acoustic standard and the wind farm guidelines.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conduct a performance audit of the Clean Energy Regulator’s (CER) compliance with its role under the legislation.

The Government directs the Productivity Commission to conduct research into the impact of electricity generated by wind turbines on retail electricity prices.

All State Governments consider shifting responsibility for monitoring wind farms away from local councils to the State Environmental Protection Authority and failing that, a national regulatory body be established.

That all new wind farms will be eligible to receive RECs for a period of no more than five years (under current legislation they would be receiving subsidy until 2030).

These recommendations are required because:

In the absence of a known safe distance between wind turbines and occupied residences, the government must adopt a precautionary approach to protect people. The best precautionary approach is a moratorium on new wind farms.

In an industry that has operated with little regulation to date, strict regulation of noise compliance is necessary to protect people living in proximity to wind turbines.

Wind turbines are not reducing emissions in the electricity sector by the same amount that the industry is claiming and being subsidised.

The federally issued subsidy to wind farms (RECs) are paid for in the retail price of electricity which is paid by families, schools and hospitals. The retail price is set by power purchase agreements (PPAs) and amounts to billions every year. The subsidy issued to wind farms amounts to half a million dollars per turbine per year.

The new Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 33,000 GWh will require upwards of 2,500 new wind turbines to be built in rural areas across Australia.

Rural communities are caught unaware when they are canvassed to sign ‘Landholder Agreements’ and ‘Neighbour Benefit Schemes’ which sign away their personal and property rights.

Labor is vehemently in denial of the current issues, taking a completely unaffordable 50% RET to the next election. Furthermore, in their dissenting report, Labor refused to accept the evidence pointing to adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines.

The Greens refused to participate in the Inquiry at all.

I appreciate the support and interest by many State Councillors, especially Robyn Nolan, on this long term challenge.

Kind regards
Dr Chris Back
Liberal Senator for Western Australia

Chris Back

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

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
June 2015                                                                                     New ZealandNew Zealand

Wind turbines worse than asbestos?

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

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

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

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

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

Submission 1 – 27 February 2015

Appendices

Submission 2 – 1 June 2015

Dr. Bruce Rapley – June 2015

Brits Beginning to Hold Wind Pushers Accountable!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

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

August 26, 2015 by

David_Davis_2181020a

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaii rusting turbines

***

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

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

***

****

Audio Player

00:00
00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

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

Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill

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

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill

tehachapi-wind-turbines-p1

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

September 28, 2015 by

263977-alan-jones

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator John Madigan: Good morning Alan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Jones OM: Absolutely.

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

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

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

Alan Jones OM: On the basis of fraudulent reports.

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

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

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

Alan Jones OM: That’s it.

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

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

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

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

2GB

John Madigan

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

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

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

September 24, 2015 by

panic-disorder-971

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report’s top-line conclusion appeared incriminating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But wind supporters cite other studies showing no such linkages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin sign sick and tired

Dr. Pamela Kenny Talks About the Health Effects From Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Turbines Make People Ill: Fact not Fiction Dr. Pamela Kenny Would I say this?: “Hundreds of thousands of people around the world live near and work at operating wind turbines without health effects. Wind energy enjoys considerable public support, but wind energy detractors have publicized their concerns that the sounds emitted from wind turbines cause adverse health effects. These allegations of health-related impacts are not supported by science. Studies show no evidence for direct human health effects from wind turbines.” It is certainly not me talking. It is the claim of The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the national trade association for the U.S. wind industry. Wind power developers and their lobby groups around the world are shouting the same message – that the noise and vibration (infrasound, sound pressure, and low frequency noise) produced by large-scale wind turbines produce no direct health effects. In reality, their claim is a lie. There is an ocean of documented evidence to support the assertions of anti-wind campaigners that the noise and vibration from wind turbines causes a range of health problems in significant numbers of people. If you search for just a couple of hours online, you can find personal stories by the thousand, and also numerous highly technical research papers by eminent medics and scientists detailing, amongst others, these symptoms:  Chronic sleep deprivation  Sleep disturbance  Increased blood pressure  Increased blood sugar (dangerous for diabetics)  Poor concentration and memory  Depression  Headaches and migraines  Dizziness, unsteadiness, ear pain and vertigo  Vibration in the body, particularly the chest  Nausea / “seasickness”  Tinnitus  Sensations of pressure or fullness in the ear  Stress  Panic  Annoyance, anger and aggression  Increase in agitation by those with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, and ADD / ADHD Some of these symptoms can be attributed to sleep deprivation. It is increasingly clear from peerreviewed medical papers that night noise interrupting sleep has an adverse effect on both cardiovascular health and stress levels. Interrupted sleep can also have serious effects on daytime concentration leading, potentially, to increased risk of industrial accidents and road traffic collisions. As these problems are likely to occur at locations remote from the cause of the interrupted sleep they are difficult to attribute to their actual cause. Dr. Christopher Hanning, a now-retired Consultant in Sleep Disorders Medicine to the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, writes: In the short term… deprivation of sleep results in daytime fatigue and sleepiness, poor concentration and memory function. Accident risks increase. In the longer term, sleep deprivation is linked to depression, weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. 1 I do not pretend to be an expert in the effects of noise, but I do know that in over 30 years as a GP I have seen countless patients presenting with the effects of insomnia, and shift workers in particular suffer far more than the general population with the effects of disturbed sleep. What I find astonishing is that the noise regulations for the wind industry permit MORE noise to be generated by the turbines at night than during the day. This is completely contrary to noise pollution legislation, World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines – and common sense. Other symptoms listed above are likely to be a response to exposure to infrasound (sound with a frequency of less than 20 Hz) and low frequency noise (sound with a frequency of less than 200 Hz) produced by the turbines. Both low frequency noise and infrasound occur naturally in the environment (for instance, from household appliances and machinery in the case of low frequency noise, and ocean waves in the case of infrasound). In periods when the wind is blustery, large wind turbines generate both very low frequency sounds and infrasound which can travel much greater distances than audible sound. These sounds are not audible to the human ear, but our brains certainly detect them and some susceptible people suffer some of the unpleasant symptoms I have listed, such as tinnitus, ear pain and vertigo. If you feel up to reading some technical, but very interesting, research on this subject, take a look at Wind-Turbine Noise. What Audiologists Should Know by Punch, James and Pabst, published in the American publication Audiology Today in 2010.2 Other reasons why people experience health impacts from wind turbines include the swishing or thumping of the blades, which is highly annoying as the frequency and loudness varies with changes in wind speed and local atmospheric conditions. This is not at all like the sound of a passing train, aeroplane or tractor which moves on rapidly to be replaced by less intrusive background sounds. The noise of wind turbines has been likened to a “passing train that never passes” which may explain why it is prone to cause sleep disruption. Some of those with heightened sensitivity to specific repetitive stimuli, such as those with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD / ADHD), can be seriously affected by the noise. Consultant clinical psychologist Dr. Susan Stebbings, from the Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust, said more research was needed into wind turbine noise and these disorders: Because it is clear from our clinical knowledge of the condition of autism that the sensory difficulties individuals can have are possibly going to be impacted on by the presence of such large sensory objects in their environment. 3 Indeed, there is at least one case on record of a wind farm application being turned down because of the proven impact on children with autism.4 Then there is shadow flicker or strobing which occurs when the rotating blades periodically cast shadows through the windows of properties. This can be truly unpleasant to live with and can trigger

1 http://www.algonquinadventures.com/waywardwind/docs/Hanning-sleep-disturbance-wind-turbinenoise.pdf 2 http://docs.wind-watch.org/AudiologyToday-WindTurbineNoise.pdf 3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-19374360 4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8646326.stm

migraine and – much more rarely – epileptic fits in those suffering from photosensitive epilepsy. 5 At night, the red warning lights on the tops of some turbines can cause blade glint and strobing effects, so it is not just a daytime phenomenon. Then there is the effect of stress. If you live in a tranquil rural area like ours, where the daytime and night time noise levels are almost always very low, you may well suffer varying levels of stress from the imposition of industrial-scale wind turbines into the landscape. The stress can occur long before the turbines are erected: during the planning process; during the noise and disruption of the construction; when you see the turbines for the first time and cannot believe the scale of them; and, then, during their operation when your sleep is disrupted and other physical and mental symptoms present themselves. The effects of wind turbine noise have been known for several years now. In February 2007, a Plymouth GP, Dr. Amanda Harry, published a report Wind Turbines, Noise and Health.6 The report documents her contacts with 39 people living between 300 metres and 2 kilometres from the nearest turbine of a wind farm. She discovered symptoms such as those I have outlined experienced by people living up to 1.6 kilometres from the wind farms. The wind industry has repeatedly tried to discredit Dr. Harry’s report, and another – published in 2009 – by a leading American Pediatrician Dr. Nina Pierpont, who coined the phrase “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to cover the range of health problems she investigated over five years in the US, the UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada.7 The global wind industry also spends vast sums attempting to discredit scientifically sound research studies, and the papers of experts in the physiology of the ear that prove infrasound can have adverse effects despite it not being audible. It is true that both Dr. Harry’s and Dr. Pierpont’s research is largely anecdotal and does not reach the high standards needed for statistical validity. However, that also applied to reports on the association between lung cancer and smoking, and asbestos and asbestosis, in the early days. We have now reached the stage in the debate when there can be no reasonable doubt that industrial wind turbines – whether singly or in wind farms – generate sufficient noise to disturb the sleep and impair the health of those living nearby.8 In fact, our own Government has long been fully aware of the problems, as demonstrated in a 2008 Economic Affairs Committee Memorandum by Mr Peter Hadden, which concludes:9 …onshore wind turbines built within 2km of homes offer no benefits and should not be part of a plan to provide the UK with a viable, secure, predictable supply of electricity. Indeed, onshore wind turbines ensure an unpredictable energy supply, by the very nature of the wind, with a long list of adverse impacts that diminish their supposed usefulness. Other renewables, such as solar and hydropower, offer more options and more predictability, especially combined with the still necessary (and technologically advancing) conventional sources of energy. I find it unbelievable that the wind industry is permitted to inflict health nuisance such as sleep disturbance, stress, and headaches on our communities – let alone more serious health issues such

5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18397297 6 http://www.savewesternny.org/pdf/wtnoise_health_2007_a_barry.pdf 7 http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/ 8 http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463- 1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage=243;aulast=Nissenbaum 9 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/195we34.hm

as depression, and heart and diabetes problems. To suggest, as the wind industry does, that there is “no problem” when faced with the huge body of evidence from around the world is perverse. What sums up this entire problem for me is the quote below. It is by Dr. Noel Kerin of the Occupational and Environmental Medical Association of Canada. He was attending the First International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects and Industrial Wind Turbines, held in Canada in October 2010. He was shocked by the overwhelming evidence on the harmful effects of wind turbines: First we had tobacco, then asbestos, and urea formaldehyde, and now wind turbines. Don’t we ever learn? Our public health system should be screaming the precautionary principle. The very people who are sworn to protect us have abandoned the public.10 My extensive reading into the harmful effects of wind turbines leaves me in no doubt that, to protect our community, we need to oppose the erection of three 125 metre turbines on Berry Fen. Quite aside from the damage to our beautiful landscape, our tranquillity, our tourism industry, and wildlife, this wind farm would have serious implications for the health of many who live and work here for the entire 25-year life of the wind farm, and well beyond. There is still time to object to the planning application. You do not have to write a long letter – just a couple of points outlining why you object will be perfect, and every single person in your household should write individually as the number of objections will make a difference. Whichever method you choose, please include your name and full postal address, and the Planning Application Number 14/00728/ESF:  Send your objection by email to plservices@eastcambs.gov.uk  Or write to: Mrs Penny Mills, Planning Officer, East Cambs District Council, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, Ely, CB7 4EE  Or drop off to the following addresses: Simon Monk, Dunelm House, 4d The Borough, Aldreth and Ian Munford, 4 Orchard Way, Haddenham. About Dr. Pamela Kenny MB.BS.,MRCS.LRCP.,FIMC RCSEd. Dr. Pamela Kenny was a founder of the current Haddenham and Stretham GP surgeries in 1986. She retired from practice there in 2006, but continued to work in Cottenham and St Ives and is a Trustee of the emergency medical service MAGPAS. Dr. Kenny has always had an interest in how lifestyle factors affect patient’s health, and continues to do so in the interests of the community. She has immense sympathy with anyone who might be affected by any form of flicker as she has always suffered from flicker-induced migraine. She also has the kind of hearing that is super-sensitive to both high and very low sound.

Photo credit: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=82819&picture=woman 10 http://www.windvigilance.com/international-symposium/wind-turbines-linked-to-sick-building-syndrome