Windpushers Play the Same Dirty Games, Everywhere They Go….Lies, Fraud, and Cover-ups! Disgusting!


Frank Haggerty

Why did Falmouth officials hide this letter for years: Because they were aware of the 110 decibels of noise prior to the installations ! – That’s why they avoided the Special Permit 240 -166

The Massachusetts Superior Court found the town broke its own laws and now is still worried about money rather than the health and property rights of up to 200 homes.

Falmouth is guilty of assault and battery on the environment – It’s time federal prosecutors!

U.S. Attorney, Ms. Ortiz has overseen the criminal prosecution of corrupt Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi. Sal DiMasi is the father of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act. If she can put him in jail its time to start looking at everyone involved in the two Falmouth wind turbines

Vestas raises concerns about turbine noise (Letter)

Bruce Mabbott – August 3, 2010
Impact on People Noise Massachusetts

After noise complaints started coming in following the erection of WIND 1, the first Falmouth turbine at the wastewater treatment facility, Vestas required confirmation that the Town of Falmouth “understands they are fully responsible for the site selection of the turbine and bear all responsibilities to address any mitigation needs of the neighbors.” WIND 2 would not be released to the town for erection until the letter was signed. The letter explaining the situation is provided below and can be accessed by selecting the link(s) on this page.

August 3, 2010
Mr. Gerald Potamis
WasteWater Superintendent
Town of Falmouth Public Works
59 Town Hall Square
Falmouth, MA 02540

RE: Falmouth WWTF Wind Energy Facility II “Wind II”, Falmouth, MA
Contract No. #3297

Dear Mr. Potamis,

Due to the sound concerns regarding the first wind turbine installed at the wastewater treatment facility, the manufacturer of the turbines, Vestas, is keen for the Town of Falmouth to understand the possible noise and other risks associated with the installation of the second wind turbine.

The Town has previously been provided with the Octave Band Data / Sound performance for the V82 turbine. This shows that the turbine normally operates at 103.2dB but the manufacturer has also stated that it may produce up to 110dB under certain circumstances. These measurements are based on IEC standards for sound measurement which is calculated at a height of 10m above of the base of the turbine.

We understand that a sound study is being performed to determine what, if any, Impacts the second turbine will have to the nearest residences. Please be advised that should noise concerns arise with this turbine, the only option to mitigate normal operating sound from the V82 is to shut down the machine at certain wind speeds and directions. Naturally this would detrimentally affect power production.

The manufacturer also needs confirmation that the Town of Falmouth understands they are fully responsible for the site selection of the turbine and bear all responsibilities to address any mit igation needs of the neighbors.

Finally, the manufacturer has raised the possibility of ice throw concerns. Since Route 28 is relatively close to the turbine, precautions should be taken in weather that may cause icing.

To date on this project we have been unable to move forward with signing the contract with Vestas. The inability to release the turbine for shipment to the project site has caused significant [SIC] delays in our project schedule. In order to move forward the manufacturer requires your understanding and acknowledgement of these risks. We kindly req uest for this acknowledgement to be sent to us by August 4, 2010, as we have scheduled a coordination meeting with Vestas to discuss the project schedule and steps forward for completion of the project.

Please sign in the space provided below to indicate your understanding and acknowledgement of this letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

(Bruce Mabbott’s signature)
_____________________
Bruce Mabbott Gerald Potamis
Project Manager Town of Falmouth

CC: Sumul Shah, Lumus Construction, Inc.
(Town of Falmouth’s Wind-1 and Wind-2 Construction contractor)

Stephen Wiehe, Weston & Sampson
(Town of Falmouth’s contract engineers)

Brian Hopkins, Vestas
(Wind-1, Wind-2’s turbine manufacturer, and also Webb/NOTUS turbine)

A short Video On “Ontario’s Wind Travesty”, and it’s “Key Players”….

TIME TO MAKE A “CHANGE”….

A beautifully made video, giving a brief, but very intense overview of the torture that rural families are being subjected to, in the name of “Greed Energy”.  There is certainly nothing “green”, about it.  We need to fight back against the Liberal corruption that is being perpetrated, and we need to end the suffering!

Tales of Wind Turbine Torture….NOT a Bedtime Story!

Curt Devlin: Details a Decade of Turbine Torture

Curt Devlin

****

Curt Devlin hales from Fairhaven, Massachusetts U.S.A. He was formerly a Teaching Fellow in the Philosophy Department at Tulane University.  He revved up against the great wind power fraud back in 2007, when a wind power outfit set out to spear a clutch of giant fans into the undisturbed and ecologically sensitive salt marshes surrounding a quite estuary in the Little Bay area of Fairhaven – an area bordered by densely populated neighborhoods. Although this project was defeated, construction began on the sly, starting on Veteran’s Day in November of 2011.

Since then, Devlin been an outspoken critic of the wind industry and its proponents. He’s written numerous articles and editorials on this and related topics. He has been a guest speaker at the Fairhaven Wind Forum in 2012, where he criticized the irresponsible siting of turbines in residential neighborhoods across Massachusetts and around the world.

In 2013, he spoke on the fundamental human right to be free of unwarranted experimentation at the Falmouth Human Rights Conference in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Professionally, Devlin works as a software architect focused on the development of health science solutions for the detection and treatment of cancer and the improvement of human health.

Here’s Curt detailing a decade-long, unnecessary nightmare.

June 1 Ten Years Massachusetts Wind Turbine Torture
Friends Against Wind
Curt Devlin
1 June 2015

“People are willing to tolerate, approve, and contribute to the torture of their neighbors with the ill effects of wind turbines simply because they have been told by public officials, the media, or green zealots that it is necessary to ‘save the planet’ from global climate change.”

It is easy to forget just how essential sleep is to health and happiness; until of course, you yourself have been deprived of it for a night or two. Firsthand experience of sleep deprivation, even for a few days, is a powerful reminder of how mentally and physically debilitating it is. Even the ongoing disruption or restriction of sleep for a relatively short period of time can have devastating health consequences. Medical research has clearly shown that sleep is essential to human health and wellbeing. Prolonged sleep deprivation has been linked to memory loss, hallucination, weakened resistance to pain, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, impaired immune response, extreme anxiety, stress, clinical depression, and suicide. In the most extreme cases, animal experimentation suggests that lack of sleep can kill you.

Sleep deprivation has long been recognized as torture by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT), and the United States War Crimes Act. Depriving someone of proper sleep is torture, regardless of whether it is perpetrated by the CIA against suspected terrorists, OR by reckless planning authorities who permit the wind industry to site industrial-scale wind turbines in residential neighborhoods, or by noise pollution regulatory authorities and health authorities who ignore consistent reports of sleep deprivation from neighboring residents. When authorities deem developments “compliant” with regulations, or wind developers effect specious mitigations; they are inflicting torture. They are violating fundamental human rights.

Recently, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee released what has come to be known as the Torture Report. It reveals that sleep deprivation was one of the frequently used CIA “enhanced interrogation” tactics. The use of prolonged sleep deprivation led Committee Chairman, Diane Feinstein to conclude “…that, under any common meaning of the term, CIA detainees were tortured.” She goes on to say “…that the conditions of confinement and the use of authorized and unauthorized interrogation and conditioning techniques were cruel, inhuman, and degrading.” The same can be said of the practice of siting industrial turbines too close to homes. Failure to take action to stop excessive noise pollution, or to enforce existing legal limits on “noise nuisance” whenever noise-induced sleep disturbance or deprivation is reported by wind turbine neighbors, hosts, or their families is full complicity with torture.

It is grimly ironic that the US Senate Committee condemns sleep deprivation as cruel and inhuman when used by the CIA interrogators on terror suspects, but blithely ignores it when imposed by wind developers and local authorities on ordinary, law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to anyone. The only threat they pose is to the income generated by taxpayer subsidies to unscrupulous wind developers.

Is it really fair to compare the torture of detainees to that of turbine neighbors? Consider that the detainees were forced to endure sleeplessness for a few days at a time on many occasions, but never more than a week. Wind turbine victims must endure this same deprivation for arbitrary periods of time whenever the wind is blowing, sometimes intermittently for decades. Often, their only hope of escape or reprieve from this torment is to flee their homes which no one will buy—despite the fact that they are not suspected of any crimes whatsoever. At least detainees were not forced to lie awake and watch their families suffer the same deprivation.

When the turbines were shut down during a winter storm with near hurricane-force winds, one young mother of infant twins living in Fairhaven, Massachusetts USA wrote “Isn’t it crazy that in a weird twist it takes a blizzard to give us peace. According to the power dash the beasts stopped at around 9PM.” Later on, she wrote, “I sleep ok in the basement but the babies still wake up randomly almost every night.” Most who are tortured by turbines will tell you that “the beast” can usually finds them even when they are hiding in the cellar. Not only are people kept awake by the turbines, but they must endure headaches, nausea, dizziness, breathing difficulties, and in some cases uncontrollable anxiety and severe acute depression.

In one incident described in the Torture Report, an Afghani named Arsala Khan “…suffered disturbing hallucinations after 56 hours of standing sleep deprivation….” Afterwards, the CIA determined that he actually was not involved in any plans or activities to harm the U.S! The innocent victims tortured by the wind industry are in a position to know just how it feels to be tortured indiscriminately.

Publicly, the Bush administration and the CIA chose to describe their treatment of detainees as “enhanced interrogation.” The wind industry chooses to call its noise impact mere “annoyance” and refer to residents’ “concerns”. These euphemisms are carefully selected to conceal the ugly reality that sleep deprivation is torture, plain and simple. Such terms attempt to hide what is known to be—by any standard of human decency—utterly wrong and depraved. The Senate Intelligence Committee and others have begun to shine a spotlight on the CIA torture program; but the wind industry program of cruelty continues to operate with impunity, largely beyond the glare of public scrutiny.

When the US Senate Committee report placed the issue of torture front and center in the media, it prompted outrage among some journalists, who have used terms like ‘depravity,’ ‘harrowing,’ and ‘gruesome’ to describe the techniques used by the CIA. Yet the media has no outrage when prolonged sleep deprivation and cruelties are routinely visited on local neighborhoods throughout America and across the world. When the subject turns to wind turbines, all talk of human rights violations immediately goes silent.

Remarkably, and despite the condemnation of the Intelligence Committee and the outraged media reaction to it, public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans still consider the CIA’s use of torture justified. Even those who disagree with this view, may be able to understand it. The rationale for torture is that it was necessary to prevent another 911; but what, then, is the rationale for torturing ordinary men, women, and children in their own homes on a nightly basis? What accounts for the almost universal apathy of government officials, mainstream media, and the general public, toward the victims of wind energy? It seems America is one nation, with liberty, and justice for all—except for those unlucky few, who can be tortured without any good cause at all. Our silence gives consent to continue.

Perhaps this silence about turbine victims can be partially explained by a monumental form of social denial. Psychologists have noted that when confronted with tacit complicity with torture, most people tend to diminish in their own minds the actual harm being inflicted. Terms like ‘enhanced interrogation’ and ‘annoyance’ encourage such forms of self-deception. However, this pervasive complicity with torture cannot be fully explained by denial alone. There is a far more ominous and compelling explanation supplied long ago by the experiments of Stanley Milgram.

In 1962, Milgram, a Harvard-trained psychologist, devised a set of experiments designed to explain why people are willing to accept and even participate in torture. Initially, Milgram thought it was a lack of moral fiber. Prior to conducting his experiments, Milgram believed that most Americans were morally superior to those who were responsible for the torture and atrocities of the Holocaust. He predicted that most of his (American) subjects would reject the use of torture out of hand. Milgram also polled many of his fellow psychologists, who made similar predictions. Contrary to all expectations, however, Milgram’s experiment actually proved that about two thirds of Americans were willing to administer torture by electroshock to innocent victims, even to the point of possible lethality, simply because they were told by someone in a position of perceived authority that it was necessary to do so. Contrary to the much beloved American mythology of rugged individualism and personal independence, Milgram has shown that most Americans are just as blindly obedient to authority as everyone else.

Since that time, Milgram’s experiment has been repeated dozens of times by him and other scientists, with subjects from different counties and cultures, but the results are always the same. About 65% of all subjects are willing to administer torture—even to the point of lethality—as long as someone in authority tells them it is necessary. Even when controls are added to identify potentially confounding factors, this result is highly repeatable. This shows that obedience to authority, even to the point of partaking in torture of innocent victims, is so deeply ingrained in human nature that it transcends language, culture, and moral outlook—it is a truly global phenomenon. The evidence for this is sadly pervasive.

People are willing to ignore, condone, and even participate in torturing detainees simply because they are told that it was necessary to protect America from new terrorist attacks. Similarly, people are willing to tolerate, approve, and contribute to the torture of their neighbors with the ill effects of wind turbines simply because they have been told by public officials, the media, or green zealots that it is necessary to “save the planet” from global climate change. There is ample evidence to show that torture is not an effective means of interrogation and that industrial wind turbines cannot stem climate change. No matter. Like subjects in Milgram’s experiment, the public is being told by authority that “the experiment requires that you continue.”

In a position paper entitled Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and Human Rights First (HRF) have collaborated to publish a detailed condemnation of the CIA torture program, as well as the participation of physicians in these practices. Section 6 specifically details the physical harm and health consequences of forced sleep deprivation and interruption. It also delineates the criminal consequences for anyone who knowingly engages in it. Here it is pointed out that “the U.S. State Department has condemned Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey for using sleep deprivation as a form of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

In case anyone is inclined to minimize sleep deprivation as mere annoyance, as the wind industry and its advocates would have you believe; Leave No Marks goes on to note that:

Even sleep restriction of four hours per night for less than a week can result in physical harm, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, altered glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. Sleep deprivation can impair immune function and result in increased risk of infectious diseases. Further, chronic pain syndromes are associated with alterations in sleep continuity and sleep patterns.

Many of those who are routinely awakened by nearby industrial turbines would consider themselves lucky to get even four consecutive hours of uninterrupted sleep on a regular basis. This paper notes that U.S. federal courts have found that sleep deprivation is also a violation of the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Perhaps it is time for groups like Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights First and indeed the medical profession generally, to turn their intention toward the ongoing torture and cruelty perpetrated by the wind industry. Surely, such acts are criminal whether they are committed by governments or private industry.

Dr. William Hallstein, treating psychiatrist from Falmouth USA, made it abundantly clear that the impacts of the turbines are indeed tantamount to torture in his letter to the Falmouth Town Board of Health. It is telling that Justice Muse from the Falmouth Superior Court issued an injunction in December 2013 to prevent “irreparable harm to physical and psychological health” by turning the turbines off at night. The turbines at Falmouth (USA) remain turned off, over a year later.

Perhaps it’s time to face our own complicity and involvement in these fundamental violations of both civil and human rights, as well.

The wind industry cannot hide behind a claim of ignorance about the devastating impact of wind turbine noise on human health. N.D. Kelley and other NASA scientists from the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) have published papers that ascribe the direct causation of human disturbance to wind turbine noise. This group published numerous papers on this subject between 1982 and 1985 based on sound research and clear evidence. Then, in 1987, this research was presented directly to the wind industry at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Conference in San Francisco. In short, the wind industry has continued to site its industrial scale power and noise generators near residential neighborhoods for more than thirty years, knowing full well that it was inflicting cruelty and suffering on those living near them. The silence of public officials, the media, and the public indicates wind turbine torture may be allowed to continue for decades to come.

There can be no doubt that wind turbines cause chronic sleep deprivation, and no doubt that sleep deprivation is torture. The scientific evidence that turbines do cause sleeplessness is already prolific and continues to grow. Moreover, the most comprehensive literature reviews on this question reveal that there is virtually no independent evidence to controvert this conclusion. Perhaps the most damning evidence of all comes from the public record of heath complaints from people around the world. According to the noted epidemiologist Carl V. Phillips, “There is overwhelming evidence that large electricity-generating wind turbines (hereafter: turbines) cause serious health problems in a nontrivial fraction of residents living near them.” Among these public health reports from turbine neighbors, sleep deprivation and disruption are by far the most common.

Taken together, the science and the public record of adverse health reports offer clear and compelling evidence that wind turbines are instruments of torture. Therefore, anyone who advocates for, or participates in, the siting of wind turbines near people is inflicting torture on them. Anyone who contributes to, or endorses, unsafe government noise pollution regulations, or who allows them to continue unabated when turbines are clearly causing sleep deprivation and other forms of human misery, or who ignores community complaints, or obstructs the accurate measurement of infrasound and low frequency noise inside homes is complicit with torture. And, anyone who knowingly conducts spurious turbine noise mitigations, or who permits or helps to perpetuate levels of infrasound and low frequency noise emissions above the thresholds established by Dr. Neil Kelley, and confirmed most recently by Steven Cooper’s research at Cape Bridgewater in Australia, must be held accountable for inflicting, or helping to perpetuate torture by prolonged sleep deprivation. Those who do so are guilty of criminal violation of both civil and human rights on an industrial scale.

This is why the global wind industry has strategically and systematically sought to silence wind turbine hosts and neighbors with property buy-outs and non-disclosure agreements. Undoubtedly, this is also why they and those who support them have publicly targeted acoustic engineers, health practitioners, and public health experts who have attempted to expose this truth in accordance with their canons of professional ethics. This industry subjects legitimate science to ridicule, its authors to character assassination, and its sleepless victims to blame and aspersions of mental defect. All of this is done to cloak conscious criminal cruelty in the name of unbridled greed.

In its determination to hide the ugly reality of industrial wind turbines, this industry uses money and the false promise of cheap energy to exert undue influence over public officials. It substitutes pseudo-science for legitimate science, spends untold millions on PR campaigns to drown out honest journalism, and sponsors fear-mongering in place of reasoned public discourse on renewable energy.

There may be no better evidence for this campaign of pubic deception than the so-called “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel” produced in January, 2012 by an unholy alliance between the wind industry and Massachusetts governor’s office. This document epitomizes the fraudulence, distortion, and misinformation that flourish when wind industry influence over government goes unchecked by public scrutiny and legal safeguards. The title notwithstanding, none of the authors of this so-called health study had any recognized expertise related to the health effects of wind turbines. None had ever given a physical examination to a turbine sufferer, and no turbine-related health complaints were investigated during the course of this study—despite the vocal and repeated pleas by effected residents to be examined as part of it. Although insufficient peer-review was one of the most salient criticism leveled against the legitimate studies reviewed; the Massachusetts study itself was not submitted to peer-review before its publication. For these and other reasons, it was deemed junk science by Dr. Raymond Hartmann, who is widely recognized for his expertise in analyzing scientific evidence, and exposing the junk science used by the Tobacco industry to defend its products.

The “Expert Panel” study was published by the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health. When such junk science such as this is published by the very agencies responsible for protecting the environment and public health, it gives them the ring of authority. It is as though the state has mandated to an unsuspecting public that the torture must continue. In Milgram’s experiment, when a subject refused to continue administering shocks, the authority figure would reassure them by saying something to the effect that no permanent tissue damage will be caused. In that context, the statement was quite true because no real shock was actually being given. But in the case of wind turbines, government sanctioned torture is very real and does real damage to health and safety—and that damage may indeed be permanent. As the epigraph from Leave No Marks reminds us, “The absence of physical evidence should not be construed to suggest that torture did not occur, since such acts of violence against persons frequently leave no marks or permanent scars.”

For those who are willing to face their own conscience, there may be a glimmer of hope in Stanley Milgram’s otherwise bleak findings. In some of his later experiments, Milgram tried to determine how conformity would affect the obedience of the experimental subjects. He found that when at least two others in the room refused to comply with authority, only about 10% of the experimental subjects were willing to continue torturing. For those who have the courage to defy authority, it seems that disobedience can be contagious, and raising your voice loudly, publicly, and repeatedly against indiscriminant torture and injustice can truly make a difference.
Friends against wind

Nightmare (1962) Jerry wakes up

Sanity returning to the UK! Are our politicians smart enough to follow their lead?

New curbs can block ‘health risk’ wind farms

Government grants new powers for critics to stop the building of turbines.

  • Critics of huge wind farms have been handed power to block developments
  • Energy Secretary Amber Rudd has promised to strip her department of its power to force through large wind-farm projects against local opposition
  • Move comes amid new health warnings for those living close to turbines

 Energy Secretary Amber Rudd promised to strip her department of its power to force through wind-farms against local opposition. The move comes amid new health warnings for those living near turbines.

By Glen Owen and Brendan Carlin for The Mail on Sunday

Critics of huge wind farms received a boost last night after the Government gave them new powers to block the developments.

The move, by Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, comes amid new health warnings for those living close to turbines.

Ms Rudd has promised to strip her department of its power to force through large wind-farm projects against local opposition.

She is also expected to crack down on Government subsidies for the onshore farms.

Under current rules, the Energy Secretary can have the final say on giant wind farms of 50 megawatts and over.

But Ms Rudd will today pledge to lay down that power. It means farms will in future be treated in the same way as a planning application for a home extension – a matter to be decided purely by the local council.

The action was backed by anti-wind-farm campaigner Tory MP Chris Heaton-Harris, who has presented Ministers with a report warning that sleep deprivation, migraines and hearing problems could be just some of the effects of living within a mile of a wind farm.

Windweasels Still Trying To Deny the Harm They are Causing!

Wind-farm workers suffer poor sleep, international studies find

Environment Editor
Sydney
Turbines ‘terrible for shut-eye’

Two studies have linked sleep disturbance of wind-farm workers to low-frequency noise and infra­sound from wind turbines. Source: Supplied

Two international studies have linked sleep disturbance and health effects of wind-farm workers to low-frequency noise and infra­sound from wind turbines.

A study of 45 people in three groups by Tehran University ­researchers said: “Despite all the good benefits of wind turbines … this technology has health risks for all those exposed to its sound.”

The study paper said it was the first to examine the effect of wind turbine noise on sleep disorders in workers who are closer to turbines and exposed to higher levels of noise. The Manjil wind farm was examined because it had more staff and turbines than other farms in Iran.

“The results showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between age, workers’ experience, equivalent sound level, and the level of sleep disorder,” the paper said.

The paper, published in next month’s Fluctuation and Noise Letters journal, said more research was needed to confirm the results.

In another study, researchers at Ibaraki University in Japan measured the brainwaves of 15 wind-farm workers listening to recordings of low-frequency and infrasound from wind turbines.

In a paper published in the International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, the researchers said brain function measured by EEG tests showed the turbine sounds were “considered to be an annoyance to the technicians who work in close proximity to a modern large-scale wind turbine”.

Brain measurements showed test subjects could not stay relaxed after hearing the sound stimulus at the frequency band of 20 hertz. Brainwaves indicating a “strain state” were noted.

Possible health effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound is controversial worldwide.

Clean Energy Council policy director Russell Marsh said Australia’s leading health research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, had held several reviews of the relationship between wind turbines and health and found “no consistent evidence” wind farms caused adverse health effects in humans.

“Leading national organisations such as the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Association of Acoustical Consultants have said there is not enough infrasound produced by wind farms to have a negative ­effect on humans living near wind farms,” he said.

Australia already had some of the strictest regulations for wind farms, and the council believed further research would reinforce that wind energy was one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy generation.

Turkish Court has the Decency to Protect Residents from Wind Turbine Noise!

Turkish Court Shuts Down 50 Turbines: Yaylaköy Residents Delighted at 1st Chance to Sleep in Years

turk1

****

One of the myths pedalled by Australia’s self-appointed wind farm noise, sleep and health ‘expert’ (a former tobacco advertising guru) is that the known and obvious adverse health impacts from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are a cooked-up “phenomenon”, exclusive to the English speaking world. Trouble with that little tale is that’s been scotched by the Danes:

Vestas’ Danish Victims Lay Out the FACTS

Denmark Calls Halt to More Wind Farm Harm

And the Germans:

German Medicos Demand Moratorium on New Wind Farms

And the Tawainese:

Winning Taiwanese Hearts and Minds?

And, now the Turks. As this article lays out – in terms so simple, that even tobacco advertising gurus should be capable of understanding them.

50 operating wind turbines stopped by the court!
BurGün
18 May 2015

turk2

****

The Administrative Court in Ankara has ruled that fifty operating wind turbines in Karaburun be stopped. The locals of Yaylaköy, Karaburun are delighted with the court decision. It is 20 days since the wind turbines stopped working.

From the beginning of the struggle to protect their village from the adverse affects from the Wind Power Plants that are spreading all over the peninsula, the local people have finally received good news.

The Administrative Court, ruled in April that even if fifty wind turbines are already operating, the activities have to be halted since the environmental damage is irreversible. First an EIA report will have to be issued. The wind turbine company’s request to continue to run their turbines meanwhile, was also denied by the court.

‘THE FIRST DECISION’

The lawyer Cem Altiparmak said the decision would be a first in the country. Mr. Altiparmak states that there are very few court cases related to renewable energy.

In this area the law is insufficient, there are no precedents, so we have to live it to get experience. “A number of license revocation proceedings have started in our country. Our court ruling is one of the first and will have an impact on up-coming cases.

What has happened?

İzmir Governorship Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urban Development, had issued a “EIA Not Required” to install 166 MW in the Karaburun Peninsula.

8 years later when EMRA issued a new license for another 50 turbines to the same company leaning on the same “EIA Not Required” document, the residents of Yaylaköy and the environmental movement Karaburun City Council sued EMRA – The Energy Market Regulatory Authority.

The court ruled that this is against the law and if allowed to operate the damages will irreversible therefore all operations have to be stopped until an EIA investigation has been performed.

The court decision has given hope to the local people as well as other people in Cesme, Bodrum, Datca and Urla where wind turbines projects are being planned without any public consultation. All these projects have been issued with an EIA Not Required”.

Hopefully this Wind turbine project will not be able to operate again and for the first time in years the people in Yaylaköy are able to sleep comfortably and we will continue to work for that, says one man from the village.
BurGün

turk3

Open Submission by Carmen Krogh, regarding the ERT for Niagara Region Wind Corp.

By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
May 25, 2015
To Whom It May Concern
Re: ERT Case No. 14-096 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL IN THE
MATTER OF an appeal by Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc and Renewable
Energy Approval No. 4353- 9HMP2R issued by the Director, Ministry of the
Environment, on November 6, 2014 to Niagara Region Wind Corporation.
This Commentary is public and may be shared.
I declare no potential conflicts of interest and have received no financial support with respect
to the research and authorship of this Commentary.
1. ERT Case No. 14-096 states the onus on the Appellant:
[8] Pursuant to s. 145.2.1 of the EPA, the onus is on the Appellant to establish that
engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human
health and/or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural
environment. (Page 4)
2. The ERT dismissed the Appeal:
[9] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to meet
either the Health Test or the Environmental Test and has not established the necessary
elements of a s. 7 Charter violation and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (Page 4)
3. Ms. Shellie Correia, mother of Joey, testified during this ERT and provided a letter from
her son’s specialist, a Behavioral Pediatrician.
Joey has been under the specialist care for 8 years and is diagnosed with a “Sensory
Processing Disorder”.
Excessive, uncontrollable noise can lead to sensory overload and Joey’s specialist noted
that Joey “is exceptionally more vulnerable”.
With respect to his condition, the specialist states “Wind turbines concern me, given my
strong knowledge of neurobiology.”

4. Other members of the community testified regarding their concerns associated with
children being exposed to IWTs while at home, at school (or both), or while visiting.
5. Ms Correia provided additional citations such as Joey’s Individual Education Plan in
support of his risk factors and that of children in general. See the Appendix below.
6. Ms Correia has advised Premier Wynne, Energy Minister Chiarelli, the Approval Holder
and the project manager, and many others in an effort to protect her son and other
children from harm.
7. Several 3 MWatt IWTs will be in close proximity, with one of the turbines 550 metres
from the family home.
8. Joey and other children will have to travel past transmission lines while attending school
and for other purposes.
9. In its Decision, the ERT states:
[119] In response to Ms. Correia’s concerns about the impact of noise on her son who
has “developmental issues, including ADHD, anxiety and serious processing issues
(mainly, but not exclusively aural)”, Dr. McCunney said that he is unaware of any
scientific literature that suggests that wind turbine noise would adversely affect the
health of a child with these developmental disorders. (Page 28)
10. Dr. Robert McCunney testified on behalf of the Approval Holder. His qualification states:
[95] On agreement of the parties, Dr. McCunney was qualified by the Tribunal as a
medical doctor specializing in occupational and environmental medicine with
particular expertise in the health implications of noise exposure. He provided expert
opinion evidence on behalf of the Approval Holder. (Page 21)
11. Based on this qualification, indications are that Dr. McCunney was not appearing as a
Behavioral Pediatrician, specializing in assessment and care of children with
developmental and mental health problems.
12. Regarding noise in general, the World Health Organization has identified the fetus,
babies, children and youth including those with pre-existing medical conditions and
special needs as a vulnerable population group.
World Health Organization, Children and Noise, Children’s Health and the
Environment, WHO Training Package for the Health Sector, http://www.who.int/ceh

Commentary ERT Case No. 14-096
By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, May 25, 2015
Any errors or omissions are unintended.
13.
Another WHO reference relating to children states:
Noise is an underestimated threat that can cause a number of short- and long-term
health problems, such as for example sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, poorer
work and school performance, hearing impairment, etc.
World Health Organization Noise Facts and Figures
health/noise/facts-and-figures
14.
Stansfeld and Matheson (2003) state:
It is likely that children represent a group which is particularly vulnerable to the non-
auditory health effects of noise. They have less cognitive capacity to understand and
anticipate stressors and lack well-developed coping strategies. Moreover, in view of
the fact that children are still developing both physically and cognitively, there is a
possible risk that exposure to an environmental stressor such as noise may have
irreversible negative consequences for this group…
Stephen A Stansfeld and Mark P Matheson (2003), Noise pollution: non-auditory
effects on health, British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68: 243–257 DOI:
10.1093/bmb/ldg033
Additional citations on children’s risk factors from exposure to noise in general are available.
Conclusion
Research indicates the fetus, babies, children and youth including those with pre-existing
medical conditions and special needs are a vulnerable population group to the effects of noise
exposure in general.
The specialist who has diagnosed and treats Joey states:
I, as a “normal brain” (or typical brain) individual would not want this risk to my
mental health (or my children’s) in my neighbourhood. The placement of these
devices must be thoughtful and, of course, “first, do no harm.”
And that:
In a developed society like Canada, we must advocate and protect the most vulnerable
members. Joey, and all our children deserve our thoughtful and ethical best.
Commentary ERT Case No. 14-096
By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, May 25, 2015
Any errors or omissions are unintended
4
The World Health Organization comments it is not necessary to wait for full scientific proof
before taking action:
…where there is a reasonable possibility that public health will be damaged, action
should be taken to protect public health without awaiting full scientific proof.
World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, WHO (1999).
The Policy Interpretation Network on Children’s Health and Environment comments on the
precautionary principle:
Policies that may protect children’s health or may minimise irreversible health effects
should be implemented, and policies or measures should be applied based on the
precautionary principle, in accordance with the Declaration of the WHO Fourth
Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest in 2004.
Report WP7 Summary PINCHE policy recommendations Policy Interpretation
Network on Children’s Health and Environment (PINCHE) Policy Interpretation
Network on Children’s Health and Environment QLK4-2002-02395
The Council of Canadian Academies Panel states in its assessment of IWT noise:
…that there is a paucity of research on sensitive populations, such as children and
infants and people affected by clinical conditions that may lead to an increased
sensitivity to sound.
Council of Canadian Academies (2015) Understanding the Evidence: Wind Turbine
Noise, The Expert Panel on Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health, Executive
Summary, Page xvii.
This raises the question whether Appellants and concerned families will be expected to wait
until children-based research demonstrates that “engaging in the Renewable Energy Project
in accordance with the Renewable Energy Approval “will cause serious harm to human
health” (“Health Test”).
If so, are there any potential legal-ethical concerns?
Respectfully,
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
Ontario, Canada
Commentary ERT Case No. 14-096
By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, May 25, 2015
Any errors or omissions are unintended
5
Appendix: documents provided to the ERT
1.Open Submission on Risk of Harm to Children May 15/2013
2 Open submission on Risk of Harm to Children Dec 27/2012
3 Letter from Carmen Krogh, requesting help from PM Harper and Peter Mckay Re: UN
Rights of the Child.
4 Arline L. Bronzaft, Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential health Effects on Children.
5 Welfare of Children at Risk, Due to Wind Turbines, Parents Reporting.
6 Joey Correia’s Individual Education Plan
7 Letter from Dr. Calvert, Joey’s Specialist, Regarding Sensory Processing Issues.
8 Information about Auditory Processing Disorder – From Website, KidsHealth from
Nemours
8a Letter from Retired Special Education teacher, Susan Smith, Re: Children & Wind turbines
8b Letter from School Superintendent, William C. Mulvaney
9 Brett Horner’s Open letter to health Canada, (Discontinue Ongoing Experiments)
10 Dr. Sarah Laurie’s Concerns Re: Health Canada Study
11 Ways to Improve Future Health Studies – Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group.
12 “Critique on Infrasound Study”, by Jerry Punch
13 Dr. Maria Alves-Pereira on Vibro-Acoustic Disease
14 Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine – Industrial Wind Turbines, and Health Effects.
15 Summary of 21 Peer-Reviewed Articles on Adverse Health Effects, on IWT’s.
16 Mothers Against Wind Turbines…Call for a Moratorium.
17 Open Letter/Press Release from N.A.P.A.W.
18 Victim’s Statement’s, from Wind Victims Ontario
19 Letter to PM Harper and Peter McKay, Minister of Justice
20 Letter to Dr. Murray, and Dr. Weiss.
21 Letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne, May 6
22 Letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne, Apr. 18
23 Letter to Steve Klose, M.O.E.
24 Letter to Ombudsman, Andre Marin
25 Attempts to Speak with NRWC.
26 Speeches Read at Local and Regional Councils, to Appeal for Help

Governments that Refuse to Protect Citizens, Should be Charged With Negligence!

German doctors push to halt building of wind turbines

The “parliament” of Germany’s medical profession has called on its leaders to support a halt to further wind farm developments near housing until more research has been undertaken into the possible health impacts of low-frequency noise from wind turbines.

German doctors want more research into the health effects of wind turbines. Source: AP

By Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, Sydney

The issue was debated at the German Medical Assembly in Frankfurt on Friday and transferred to the executive board of the German Medical Association.

Association policy adviser Adrian Alexander Jakel confirmed a motion calling for ­research had been forwarded to the board “for further action”.

Germany is considered a world leader in adopting renewable ener­gy and the minutes of the Medical Assembly meeting said that, with the phase-out of nuclear power, more wind energy would be used in future. But it said the entir­e life cycle of renewable technologies, from the initial raw mater­ial supply to disposal and the planning and risk considerations, should be considered in advance.

The Medical Assembly motion said this required “scientifically sound findings of potential health effects, and a deliberate balance between benefit and validity to be able to make conscious weightings between the benefits and of the disadvantages and risks”.

“In particular regarding emissions in the low frequency and infra­sound range there are no reliab­le independent studies that investigate field measurement methodology suitable for this sound field below the threshold of hearing,” they said.

The assembly called for the federal government to close the gaps in knowledge about the health effec­ts of infrasound and low-frequenc­y sound from wind turbines through scientific research.

It said research should clarify open questions concerning meas­urement methods and, where approp­riate, adjust regulations to “allow the expansion and the operation of wind turbines wisely, carefully, with integrated expertise, sustainability and overall societal responsibility”.

It said the health effects of infra­sound (below 20 Hz) and low-frequency sound (below 100 Hz) in relation to emissions from wind turbines were “still open questions’’, as were “the effects of noise below the hearing threshold or lower frequencies with increasing exposure duration”. The assembly said the erection of more turbines close to settlements should be stopped until there was reliable data to exclude a safety hazard.

Open Letter from Carmen Krogh, Re: Health Canada Presentation at Wind Turbine Noise Conferences

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada

pm@pm.gc.ca

The Honourable Rona Ambrose

Minister of Health, Health Canada

minister_ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca

M.P. Ben Lobb

Chair

House of Commons Standing Committee on Health

ben.lobb.a2@parl.gc.ca

May 14, 2015

Dear Prime Minister Harper, Hon. Minister of Health, and MP Ben Lobb,

Re: Open Letter: Health Canada Presentation at Wind Turbine Noise Conferences

The purpose of this letter is that in the interests of openness and transparency, any additional results of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results be publicly disclosed.

Attached is a copy of the schedule relating to David Michaud, Principal Investigator of the Health Canada Study’s presentation entitled Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results.[1]

The presentation took place Tuesday, April 21, 2015 during a Wind Turbine Noise Conference held in Scotland.[2] 

I am aware that David Michaud will be presenting this paper during the Acoustical Society of America meeting scheduled Thursday, May 21, 2015.[3]

The paper being presented informs new information.

In addition, I am aware a copy of the paper was available during a recent Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal.[4]

To ensure openness and transparency I respectfully urged on two occasions that the Health Canada plenary session, the Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results be publicly disclosed prior to its presentation.[5],[6]

Typically, Conference registrants receive a copy; however with respect to public disclosure, I have searched Health Canada’s and other websites and am unable to locate a link to the paper presented. It is possible the link is not easily located. If the paper and media release are available publicly, please direct me to the links and advise me of the date of the postings.

Based on previous participation in several Wind Turbine Noise Conferences[7],[8] the final papers disclose the contents of a presentation. Since the paper presented by David Michaud should have conformed to requirements for submitting the paper by January 31, 2015,[9] it is expected that members of the planning committee would have had the opportunity to be informed of its contents. I note that David Michaud is a member of the Scotland Conference planning committee.

The Health Canada Study is a 2.1 million dollar publicly funded study. An issue in Ontario and other venues is that those reporting adverse health effects have not been given the opportunity to participate on various initiatives such as the Health Canada Study team and the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) assessment. Affected neighbours, despite their appeals to the various government authorities feel they have been set aside and ignored. Industry and government is represented but not those affected.

To ensure openness and transparency I respectfully urge that the paper presented by Health Canada during the Conference be publicly disclosed.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Carmen Krogh, BScPharm

Cell 613 312 9663

Attachments

Open Letter_Health Canada transparency and disclosure May 14 2015.pdf

Tuesday.pdf

References

[1] Wind Turbine Noise (2015), Monday 20th April to Thursday 23rd, April 2015, Glasgow, Scotland http://windturbinenoise.eu/

[2] Michaud D, PLENARY, Health Effects and Annoyance ,Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results, Tuesday, April 21, 2015, http://windturbinenoise.eu/?page_id=973

[3] Acoustical Society of America, May 18 to 21, 2015, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, Spring 2015 Meeting

Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh Downtown Hotel, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

[4] Dingeldein v. Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, Case No. 15-011

[5] Correspondence to Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Minister of Health March 18, 2015

[6] Correspondence to Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Minister of Health April 4, 2015

[7] Trading off human health: Wind turbine noise and government policy Carmen ME Krogh, Joan Morris, Murray May, George Papadopoulos, Brett Horner, Paper presented at the Wind Turbine Noise conference 2013, August 28 to 30, Denver, Colorado, USA

[8] Carmen ME Krogh, Roy D Jeffery, Jeff Aramini, Brett Horner, Wind turbines can harm humans: a case study, Paper presented at Inter-noise 2012, New York City, NY

[9] Wind Turbine Noise 2015, Deadlines, Final Papers, January 31, 2015  http://windturbinenoise.eu/?page_id=363

Wendy-Heiger-Bernays PhD talks About Sleep Disruption, from Wind Turbine Noise.

Wendy Heiger-Bernays PhD- Falmouth Wind Turbine Sleep Disruption

Massachusetts

Wendy Heiger-Bernays PhD of Boston University School of Public Health explained that “it is possible that living too close to wind turbines can cause annoyance and sleep disruption, but we don’t have measurements that can show levels that disrupt sleep.”

She agreed that sleep disruption can bring on a whole host of adverse health impacts.”

http://www.safesetbacks.com/page4/styled-23/page82.html

MA DEP/DPH Expert-Falmouth Wind Turbines “are too close”

Falmouth, MA – Last Wednesday eight Falmouth wind turbine neighbors traveled to Waltham to hear three Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] / Department of Public Health [DPH] expert health panel members present their Wind Turbine Health Impact Study report.  That document, released only two weeks ago, caused great controversy not only in Falmouth but also across the Commonwealth. … [panel member] Wendy Heiger-Bernays PhD of Boston University School of Public Health explained that “it is possible that living too close to wind turbines can cause annoyance and sleep disruption, but we don’t have measurements that can show levels that disrupt sleep.” She agreed that sleep disruption can bring on a whole host of adverse health impacts.”

Dr. Heiger-Bernays is to be commended for her statements.  It is a step in the right direction and acknowledges what the neighbors in Falmouth know.  Sleep is being disturbed.  Yet there is much more to be acknowledged which has nothing to do with sleep deprivation.

It is unfortunate that the Expert Panel was unable to acknowledge in their report a most compelling fact presented in the case-study Bruce McPherson Study reports [1,2].  From [2],

“The investigators were surprised to experience the same adverse health symptoms described by neighbors living at this house and near other large industrial wind turbine sites.  The onset of adverse health effects was swift, within twenty minutes, and persisted for some time after leaving the study area.  …  This research revealed that persons without a pre-existing sleep deprivation condition, not tied to the location nor invested in the property, can experience within a few minutes the same debilitating health effects described and testified to by neighbors living near the wind turbines.  The debilitating health effects were judged to be visceral (proceeding from instinct, not intellect) and related to as yet unidentified discordant physical inputs or stimulation to the vestibular system.”

I understand that what the investigators experienced in their case-study may inadvertently fall into a branch of analysis called “time-series”.  Before they arrived at the study site, they felt fine.  Soon after they arrived at the study site they soon felt debilitated.  Later when they left the study site, they started to feel better.  When they returned to continue work their health worsened.  When the turbine stopped and they left, they started to feel better.  It took some time for them to regain full health (days to weeks).  The reports’ figures and tables illustrate the health changes experienced by the investigators with an unexpectedly clear correlation to wind turbine operations.

While the Bruce McPherson study was limited in time, the experiences of the two investigators will remain compelling.

The study confirms that large industrial wind turbines can produce real and adverse health impacts and suggests that this is due to acoustic pressure pulsations, not related to the audible frequency spectrum, by affecting the vestibular system especially at low ambient sound levels.  The study results emphasize the need for epidemiological and laboratory research by medical health professionals and acousticians concerned with public health and well-being.  This study underscores the need for more effective and precautionary setback distances for industrial wind turbines.  It is especially important to include a margin of safety sufficient to prevent inaudible low-frequency wind turbine noise from being detected by the human vestibular system.

Sincerely,
Rob Rand, Member INCE

1.  Peer-reviewed journal: Robert W. Rand, Stephen E. Ambrose, and Carmen M. E. Krogh, Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study. Published online before print August 22, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0270467611417849, The Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 22, 2011.

2.  Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand, The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse Health Effects Produced By Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed. December 14, 2011.

http://randacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Bruce-McPherson-ILFN-Study.pdf