Germany has Realized That Wind and Solar Are Not A Viable Solution!—Shale Gas is!

SHALE’S GLOBAL TOUR – Germany May Finally Be Ready to Frack

Berlin is preparing a new set of rules that will permit—with restrictions—the controversial hydraulic fracturing drilling technique. Fracking, as it’s more commonly called, allows drillers to profitably tap previously inaccessible reserves of oil and gas trapped in shale rock. Germany had imposed a de facto moratorium on fracking over the past two years, citing environmental concerns and pending new regulations, but it looks like Merkel’s coalition government is ready to get the shale ball rolling this summer. The FT reports:

Applications to carry out the controversial process for extracting the country’s estimated 2.3tn cubic metres shale gas reserves will be subject to an environmental impact assessment under new legislation to be discussed by the cabinet before the summer recess. […]

Details of the new regulations emerged in a letter from Sigmar Gabriel, German economy minister, to the head of the Bundestag’s budget committee. In the letter, Mr Gabriel wrote that permission to carry out fracking would be subject to approval from regional water authorities and that “further requirements for the fracking permit process are still being considered”.

Germany isn’t flush with gas by any means, but Russia’s meddling in Ukraine has made it clear to Berlin that it needs to exploit more of its domestic resources. Add to that the fact that German consumers already pay some of Europe’s highest electricity prices (as a result of the country’s ill-conceived Energiewende)and this decision makes even more sense.

Like every other country that has tried to replicate America’s success, Germany will still have to clear a number of hurdles as it races to catch up to the shale bandwagon. But fracking could help Berlin lower it’s dependence on the much browner coal, and in so doing become the green energy solution the country has been searching for.

Published on June 4, 2014 5:09 pm

Please Support “the Original Charter Challenge!”

United We Stand!!

Support The Original Charter Challenge legal case defending people’s rights not to be subjected to the untested effects of living too close to industrial wind turbines.

Mission

We are residents of rural Ontario who have tried our best for years to show our provincial government that living too close to industrial size wind turbines can make people sick and ruin the enjoyment of their family home.

All efforts have fallen on deaf ears as small independent groups were forced to raise money, hire lawyers and sound emission experts, all in an effort to oppose local wind projects at unwinnable environmental hearings.

The time has come to take the government policy to real court.

The Ministry of the Environment has played judge and jury with rural Ontarians’ lives for too long trapping those harmed in a circle of suffering with no remedy at law. It’s Ontario’s dirty secret and meets all criterion for social injustice.

All across Ontario there is a pent up anger as small groups watch their best efforts ignored. It’s time to fight as a big team with the right legal case that has the best shot at making a difference in real court. That’s The Original Charter of Rights case due in court within the next few months.

Sun Media showed us the untapped power we have raising $30,000 from us in 3 days for Downwind their hard hitting documentary going public June 4/14.

Let’s put fear into the eyes of the wind industry and our government by standing together and donating as one big team. Imagine what we could do in 60 days building on the momentum created by Sun Media who will support and help us reach our $300,000 goal! All other media outlets have ignored our pleas of help.

All our goal money donated will go to The Original Charter Challenge legal fund ensuring this case can be taken by Canada’s top human rights lawyer to the Supreme Court if needed.

United we stand. Don’t let the wind industry divide us.

A made in Ontario legal wedge driven into the wind scam will have ripple effects felt around the world.
Urban and rural Ontarians let’s lead this uprising!

Let’s show the world how a mad as hell unified crowd can raise funds to defend their charter rights in court where any win is a win for all.

We have all worked hard and raised money for our hometown projects and we’ve learned a lot about the David and Goliath struggle we are in.

Now it’s time to put our strength in numbers into action with the help of our partner Sun Media who will promote our fundraising efforts because we rose up and helped them and they believe in our cause.

Even if you can’t contribute we all can make noise, get our own copies of the documentary on disk to show our friends and get the word out.

The Original Charter Challenge fund raising campaign is being kick started by the release of Sun Media’s Downwind documentary on June 4, 2014.

Wind Turbines Destroy the Fabric of Rural Communities!

Wind Farms & “Community Division”: Tales

from Rye Park (NSW) & Northumberland (UK)

Money Wasted

Naked greed, institutional corruption and State-sanctioned corporate bullying and thuggery are part and parcel of the wind industry, wherever you go. We recount below a tale from Northumberland that could have been written anywhere giant fans have been slung up anywhere in the world.

In tales like these the phrase “community division” often appears. However, the term appears to suggest the rural communities concerned are equally divided – in the same way that 18 players line up against each other in the AFL. Nothing could be further from the truth. Communities set upon by wind industry goons divide roughly (and unequally) into three groups.

The first is the tiny minority who hope to profit directly: farmers in contracts with the developer paid to host the turbines; gullible local business people who (foolishly) believe that they’ll snaffle work surrounding the project (construction and engineering work is almost exclusively the preserve of large, well-oiled outfits like Transfield or Leighton – the fans are built in China, India or Denmark); the local volunteer firefighters (CFA/CFS) promised a brand-new fire-truck by the developer (never mind that the fire unit will be reserved to look after the developer’s fans ahead of local properties); and the local footy club, promised a little cash and brand-new footy jumpers (featuring the developer’s “stylish” logo, of course).

The second group is by far and away the majority and includes those whose lives will be the all worse for the short-sighted greed of the few mentioned above. This group obviously includes the many who will end up as neighbours, whose homes will become sonic torture traps: hard-working people who will be driven mad by shadow flicker and the incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise, night after merciless night. As part of the so-called “green” energy “bargain”, the value of their properties will be smashed, if it were even possible to find a buyer for their (soon to be uninhabitable) homes (see our post here).

A pretty fair example of the division outlined above was given a week or so ago at a “community consultation” held by Epuron – an outfit hoping to develop what it calls the “Rye Park” wind farm (north of Yass and east of Boorowa, NSW).

Epuron sent a “pretty young thing” equipped with not much more than a Marketing Degree and the developer’s “spin sheet”. This young lass found herself way out of her depth, as locals grilled her on the wild and unsubstantiated claims she made about her bosses planned giant fans. You know, the usual stuff about “powering” 100,000 homes; reducing CO2 emissions; creating thousands of wonderful “green” jobs; and, best of all, lowering retail power prices. Locals hammered her on all of these classic furphies: in trying to defend the indefensible, she didn’t get off to a great start – it quickly became evident that she had no idea what a Renewable Energy Certificate was, let alone the cost impact of RECs on retail power prices or the (critical) benefit of that subsidy to her employer. Oops!

On a show of hands, the 32 present “divided” as follows: 23 locals, firmly against; and 9 in favour – 4 of whom were employed by Epuron, 2 were contracted as turbine hosts and 3 were “unknowns” (check out this video of the count).

And that brings us to the third group. Quite often a few “unknowns” turn up at “community consultations” to voice their loving support for giant fans. These aren’t “locals” and, even if they live in the vicinity, will never actually live anywhere near that (or any other) wind farm. They’re pretty easy to spot: beards are essential, as are socks and sandals. They turn up to the meeting, rant about the mortal perils of “climate change” and disappear into the ether, never to be seen again. Think Dave Clarke of delusional “ramblings” fame. You know, the type that says having a couple of hundred giant fans speared into YOUR backyard is a sacrifice that THEY’RE willing to make.

Take out rent seekers (like the developer and hopeful turbine hosts) – and rent-a-crowd ideologues – and the “division” in communities set upon by plans for giant fans soon disappears.

Remember, that it’s only ever been about the money.

Chop the fat pile of taxpayer and power consumer subsidies directed to wind power outfits and “community division” will soon resolve. The developers will disappear in a heartbeat; the prospective hosts will go back to doing what they were doing before they entered contracts they neither read nor understood; and the locals will return to the peaceful and untroubled lives they deserve.

Here’s The Daily Mail on how mountains of pointless subsidies fuel the utterly rotten and corrupt wind industry; and sustains its parasites.

Dirty tricks, greed and a ruined idyll that proves the wind turbine plague ISN’T over after all: ROBERT HARDMAN on the stormy issue of green subsidies
The Daily Mail
Robert Hardman
24 May 2014

The last time tempers were this high around here was almost exactly 500 years ago at the Battle of Flodden — the biggest Anglo-Scottish punch-up in history. And not much has changed in this stunning corner of Northumberland since then.

The big house is still Ford Castle, where James IV of Scotland spent his last night alive, carousing on the eve of battle. A couple of miles down the road is Etal Castle, where the English army celebrated victory.

Going back further still, there are 60 sites of prehistoric interest in a three-mile radius — including the Geordie answer to Stonehenge.

The views are much the same, across to the Cheviots, the Scottish borders and what is now Northumberland National Park.

But, this week, all that has changed. The diggers and pile drivers have just arrived, along with a lot of heavies in hi-viz jackets.

By Christmas, a great swathe of this ancient and enchanting border country, including the Holy Island of Lindisfarne, will be overshadowed by the Barmoor Wind Farm — six wind turbines, each 360ft tall and with a blade span the size of a Boeing 747.

Thought we’d heard the last of the onshore wind farm? Remember last year’s ministerial pledges to ‘roll back’ those barmy green subsidies for landowners and companies which desecrate the countryside?

As this week’s scenes in wildest Northumberland testify, it’s business as usual.

This racket, which already adds £3billion a year to all our fuel bills, is as lucrative as ever. The planning applications are pouring in, even though Britain has comfortably met its wind energy targets for 2020.

Oh for the days when the worst to fear was a wall of leylandii. It’s a story familiar to rural communities all over Britain. And, with just six turbines, Barmoor is actually at the smaller end of the wind farm spectrum.

But it’s important for several reasons. First, it shows that nowhere, however beautiful, is safe from the predations of developers masquerading as environmentalists.

Second, even the energy company now building these things acknowledges that ‘amazing’ tactics were used to ram through this development in the face of overwhelming local opposition.

Third, the bulldozers have started tearing up the soil here in the very week that Britain’s only overtly anti-wind farm party — UKIP — has made giant strides across the political landscape.

Down on the edge of Brackenside Farm, I find a building site, a digger and several men in hi-viz jackets scratching their chins. It’s the new site for EDF Energy’s Barmoor sub-station. A security guard becomes rather aggressive the moment we start taking photographs, even when I point to the public footpath sign next to me.

‘It’s a hard-hat area and it’s dangerous,’ he shouts.

Three EDF officials appear and say the same, though two must be in mortal danger for they are without hard hats, too.

Eventually, they concede that they have no powers to shut down a public right of way and choose not to engage in further conversation. We go about our business.

A mile further on, I meet another digger ripping up a field to create a new access road from the B6525 to the wind turbines. The sight of our cameras prompts two men to jump in to a van and race over the field to confront us as we stand on the public road.

‘Can I help?’ asks one, in tones presaging the answer ‘no’. He marches off when I explain I am from a newspaper.

As soon as I start exploring the background to this project, I begin to understand why these EDF contractors are so jumpy.

It has taken 11 years of legal battles, bad blood and festering anger to create a hideous eyesore which will, ultimately, generate just 12 megawatts — on a windy day.

That’s enough electricity to power a few villages in the right weather. Yet, as I shall explain, it will pay out a £50 million jackpot over 20 years.

The Barmoor saga began when wind farm developers Force 9 Energy and Catamount persuaded three local farmers to sign up to a deal, which was all sorted before the public had any inkling of what was going on.

The locals, as locals do, formed an action group called Save Our Unspoiled Landscape (SOUL) and produced a few leaflets.

To their astonishment, Force 9 hired a swanky London PR firm and then made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority arguing that the locals had exaggerated the threat from the turbines.

Quite why it was the ASA’s business to adjudicate on a planning dispute is anyone’s guess, but the judges ruled in favour of the developer.

Meanwhile, the action group bought a bright orange helium-filled blimp which they tethered at the proposed site to show people across the region just how visible the turbines would be.

Soon after it was raised aloft, its moorings were mysteriously cut and the local authorities spent several days warning North Sea air traffic to be aware of a large orange UFO with ‘NO!’ written on it.

The local council threw out the project after receiving more objections to this plan than any it could recall.

But, shortly before the 2010 election, the Labour government ruled in favour of the development on the grounds that ‘it involved proposals of major significance for the delivery of the government’s climate change programme’.

Job done, Force 9/Catamount started looking for a buyer and sold the project for an undisclosed sum (thought to be around £10million), via Duke Energy, to EDF Energy Renewables in March. And now work begins.

Politicians love to bang on about ‘vibrant communities’, but this one has just been torn in half. How can the footling energy output from a minor get-rich-quick scheme justify the long-term pain felt by so many?

People who wouldn’t get planning permission for a garage extension must now see their views desecrated and the value of their homes slashed in order to enrich a handful of their neighbours.

Based on the projected output of the plant, the highly respected think tank, the Renewable Energy Foundation, expects the wind plant (how can anyone call this thing a ‘farm’?) to receive a £1.15million annual subsidy on top of £1.4million a year for electricity generated over a 20-year contract.

How is it shared out? The terms are always confidential, but the going rate for a landowner in this situation is £10,000-£20,000 per turbine per year, plus a slice of the pie every time the site is resold.

The locals now realise that there is nothing more they can do.

Nick Maycock smiles grimly outside his comfortable guest house, the Friendly Hound, which overlooks the site. He doesn’t even want to contemplate the effect on his trade.

‘Those farmers have been offered a goldmine. How can they turn it down?’ he asks.

I find only one of the farmers today. Sandy Rievely will have two turbines on his land, but will only say he is not allowed to discuss it under the terms of the contract. So what do his neighbours think?

‘I’d prefer not to say,’ replies Dr John Ferguson, 73, a former GP whose retirement has been consumed by the 11-year battle to stop his cottage being dwarfed by these monstrosities.

‘Well, I will then,’ says his wife, Ann. ‘It’s just completely wrong that a handful of landowners can do this to all their neighbours. I avoid even talking to them now because I’ll lose my temper . . .’

Her voice cracks, the conversation halts and we all look awkwardly out of the kitchen window across the sheep and the fields to the distant treeline. In a matter of months, six giant fans on six masts many times the height of the trees, will look back at her.

Now is probably not the moment to remind Ann of the immortal words of the former Energy Secretary who inflicted much of this unhappiness on the countryside in the name of fluffy Polar bears and saving the planet. ‘It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area,’ declared Ed Miliband the last time Labour was in power, ‘like not wearing your seat belt.’

The very man who now attacks grasping energy bosses for fleecing the poor is none other than the Minister who thought it would be a wise and noble idea to make the rest of us pay dukes and developers an overall £200,000 annual bonus for every single skyscraper-sized windmill they planted in the middle of the countryside.

For these things really are the size of skyscrapers. Each one of the wind turbines going up by the Fergusons’ home near Flodden Field is going to be the height of a 30-storey office block — taller indeed than anything in, say, Edinburgh.

If they were buildings, they would automatically enter the list of Britain’s top 50 highest.

After more than a decade of sleepless nights and legal battles costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, the residents are well-used to the arguments: that they are simply Nimbys, that it is our duty as human beings to place the greater needs of the environment ahead of selfish local considerations.

They’ve heard all this stuff. And they know it’s tosh. These landowners and EDF wouldn’t be doing any of this if it wasn’t for the staggering inducements.

I go for a drive with local farmer Andrew Joicey, 58, whose elder brother runs the family estate covering 15,000 acres in this area, including mighty Ford Castle (now leased to the local council).

He points out that the estate was offered the usual big bucks to sign up for the scheme, but rejected it. And Andrew has devoted a large part of the past 11 years to fighting local wind farm proposals, seeing off three others — but not this one.

‘What is particularly galling is the way these things are just bought and sold without any regard for local feelings,’ he tells me.

Just this week, he had a long meeting with a senior EDF ‘director of construction’ as part of the company policy of ‘engaging’ with the community.

To his astonishment, the executive admitted that he had heard how the developers had persuaded local farm workers to sign meaningless contracts for a few hundred pounds (wind farm noise restrictions do not apply to people deemed to be ‘financially involved’). Force 9/Catamount was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The EDF executive also agreed that it was ‘incredible’ that the local action group had been reported to the ASA.

As for the Government’s claim that this 12 megawatt site was of ‘major significance’ to Britain’s climate change programme, he shook his head and admitted: ‘It doesn’t even feature.’

So there we have it. Lives and livelihoods are being blighted by a project which even the owners concede is of little consequence.

An EDF spokesman points out that it will give £60,000-a-year to community schemes as a gesture of goodwill.

But it’s a gesture which impresses no one, any more than the latest Tory promise, four weeks ago, to cut wind subsidies after the next election.

For these locals are already having to fund yet another legal battle to stop yet another wind project. In January, a government inspector approved a scheme to put a turbine in front of Northumberland’s ancient Duddo Stone Circle.

Next month, they are taking the Government and the farmer concerned to the High Court in a bid to overturn the decision.

As UKIP — with its clear anti-wind farm agenda — toasts its council successes and looks forward to tomorrow’s Euro election results, there is a clear message here for the eco-zealots in all the main parties.

But is anyone listening?
The Daily Mail

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

 

The Government is Knowingly Harming Residents that Live Near Wind Turbines!

Wind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects, June 2014

 

What Was Known in the 1980’s About Wind Turbine IFLN and Turbulence

 

Constructively addressing the current conundrum about precisely what is causing the reported symptoms, sensations, sleep disruption and deteriorating mental and physical health of residents living near industrial wind turbines around the world, and trying to prevent such damage to health in future, has not been helped by ignoring important research findings of the past, particularly those of Dr Neil Kelley and his co researchers, and other NASA researchers during the 1980’s. 1,2,3

For those who are not aware, Dr Kelley and his co researchers at the Solar Energy Research Institute (“SERI”) identified in 1985 that the cause of the symptoms euphemistically called “annoyance” for the residents living near a single downwind-bladed turbine was impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) from that wind turbine, which then resonated within some building structures. 4 The effects were consistently reported to be worst in small rooms facing the noise source. 5 Sensitisation or “conditioning” was also acknowledged 6 – in simple terms people did not habituate to the sound energy but became sensitised to it. What was also clearly established was that perception of the sound energy was well below the audibility thresholds for hearing in the infrasound range. 7

Subsequent laboratory experiments using volunteers working for SERI (rather than wind turbine noise sensitised residents) reproduced the sound energy and the variable effects on those exposed. 8 In other words, direct causation of the reported “annoyance” effects from the impulsive reproduced sound energy identical to “wind turbine noise” was clearly established. This research was presented to the international wind industry at the American Wind Energy Association Windpower conference in 1987, sponsored by the US Department of Energy. 9

Subsequent NASA research in Hawaii by Shepherd and Hubbard in 1989 showed that modern upwind-bladed wind turbines could also generate higher than expected infrasound and low frequency noise, especially when the inflow air was turbulent. 10 This occurs when wind developers site wind turbines too close together. More recent work by Laratro et al 11 has confirmed that tip vortices have only just broken down at 7 rotor diameters (using free stream speed of 10m/s), providing empirical support for a minimum of 7 rotor diameter separation distance.

Despite the scientific acoustic knowledge from the 1980’s that infrasound and low frequency noise could be generated by both downwind-bladed and upwind-bladed wind turbines, and that these frequencies could directly cause symptoms including sleep disturbance, the global wind industry, and noise pollution regulatory authorities have not measured the full acoustic spectrum, and in particular have ensured that accurate measurement of both infrasound and low frequency noise inside homes is not included in wind turbine noise pollution regulations. It is clear that these regulations, developed with wind industry assistance, have favoured the expansion of the wind industry, at the expense of public health. 12

The following photo shows the wake turbulence generated by wind turbines, from a maritime wind development in the Atlantic called Horns Rev. 13 The turbulence extends to a significant distance many kilometres away, and increases significantly when subsequent turbines are downwind and receive the turbulent inflow of air. These are the precise conditions which Shepherd and Hubbard 14 demonstrated in 1989 markedly increase the generation of ILFN from upwind-bladed wind turbines.

Acousticians

Acousticians as a profession are far more knowledgeable about the range of symptoms and sensations directly caused by exposure to infrasound, low frequency noise, audible noise, and vibration than most health professionals, with the exception of some occupational physicians 15,16 and some ear nose and throat specialists. 17,18,19,20 These symptoms are commonly called “annoyance”.

Rural Health Practitioners

Rural health practitioners 21,22,23,24,25,26,27.28,29 have been at the forefront of trying to raise the alarm with health authorities and their colleagues about the severity of the impacts and clinical consequences they are seeing, particularly over the last ten years. So far, those concerns have not resulted in any multidisciplinary concurrent acoustic and health research, despite the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry’s recommendation for research “as a priority” in June 2011. 30

Flawed Literature Reviews, Studies, Research Proposals and Reports

Some of these and their critiques are available on our website, 31 and include:

• AWEA CANWEA 2009 Literature Review by Colby et al 32

• Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s 2010 “Rapid Review” 33

• Health Canada Study, proposed 2012, and currently underway 34

• the Victorian Department of Health, April 2013.35

• the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency’s Waterloo Wind Development acoustic survey 36,

• the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council’s commissioned Systematic Literature Review released in 2014 37

• the Australian Medical Association position paper, March 2014 38

The only explanation for these flawed studies/reports/position statements is that the issuers/authors wished to promote and protect the wind industry, at the expense of the health of the rural neighbours to these wind projects. These rural residents are sometimes openly referred to as “collateral damage” or “policy roadkill” by wind developers and some of the public servants who promote the business interests of the wind industry.

Others Who Deny the Existence and Severity of the Adverse Health Effects

There are others who continue to deny or ignore the existing peer reviewed published evidence of consistent distress and harm to health from wind turbine noise, recently catalogued by Drs Lynn and Dr Arra from the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Ontario, whose literature review has now been peer reviewed and published. 39

In Australia, the most outspoken “denier” of harm to health from exposure to wind turbine noise is a sociologist and public health Professor 40 at Sydney University, whose PhD examined aspects of cigarette advertising. Professor Simon Chapman recently assisted VESTAS with the launch of their “Act on Facts” campaign. 41

Professor Chapman has been invoking the “nocebo” hypothesis for some time prior to conducting his own research, 42, 43 but more recently he has cited new research from New Zealand by PhD candidate, Fiona Crichton 44 to support his frequent assertions that scaremongering is itself causing the symptoms.

Crichton et al’s research used unrepresentative frequencies, exposure levels and durations unrelated to the varying impulsive characteristics of wind turbine noise. Exposure duration was only 10 minutes during the day, with subjects who were fit young adults. Crichton’s research has been strongly criticised by experts in audiology 45 and acoustics. 46

In contrast, rural residents are exposed to wind turbine noise day and night when the wind is blowing, for up to 25 years, and are reporting their sleep is regularly and repeatedly disturbed in addition to a range of other effects which directly correlate with exposure to operating wind turbines. Rural residents are often not young, and may have chronic pre-existing physical and mental illnesses, which make them more vulnerable to the adverse consequences of chronic sleep disturbance and stress.

No Research Evidence for Nocebo Effect in Wind Turbine Neighbours

Inconveniently for Crichton and Chapman, whilst there is no doubt that a nocebo effect exists in the general research literature, there is no such evidence of a “nocebo effect” collected directly from wind turbine affected residents in the peer reviewed research, nor is it consistent with the clinical, acoustic and psychoacoustic findings of health practitioners and researchers from the UK, 47 Australia,48 Scandinavia,49 the United States,50 Canada,51 & New Zealand. 52 Interestingly, the “nocebo effect” is never used by Chapman with respect to identical symptoms occurring in residents exposed to and affected by ILFN from coal mining or gas fired power stations.

The final word on the nocebo nonsense currently being peddled by some is from Dr Michael Nissenbaum, who had this to say about non physicians invoking the use of a diagnosis of “the nocebo effect” in his final response to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry in November, 2012. 53

… suggesting a diagnosis of ‘nocebo’ without investigating, ‘boots on the ground’, for more plausible, better understood, or more logical causes of a medical condition would normally constitute medical malpractice in most Western-based medical systems, including Australia. Individuals who are not physicians are not limited by this professional mandate or even necessarily this conceptual framework.

Sleep Deprivation and Physiological and Psychological Stress

There is extensive clinical experience and a body of peer reviewed research evidence, which supports clinical concerns about the adverse health consequences of both chronic sleep deprivation, and chronic stress, regardless of the specific cause of that sleep deprivation or stress. 54,55,56,57 Dr William Hallstein, a psychiatrist from Falmouth, USA stated the following in a recent letter to the Falmouth Board of Health 58:

In the world of medicine illnesses of all varieties are destabilized by fatigue secondary to inadequate sleep. Diabetic blood sugars become labile, cardiac rhythms become irregular, migraines erupt and increase in intensity, tissue healing is retarded, and so forth, across the entire field of physical medicine. Psychiatric problems intensify and people decompensate. Mood disorders become more extreme and psychotic disorders more severe.”

Those who are young and fit report taking longer to be adversely impacted by exposure to wind turbine noise, unless they have underlying physical and mental health conditions or acknowledged risk factors such as a history of migraines, inner ear pathology or motion sickness, which make them more vulnerable or susceptible.

Dr Hallstein goes on to state the following 59:

People with no previously identified psychiatric illness are destabilized by sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation experiments have repeatedly been terminated because test subjects become psychotic; they begin to hallucinate auditory and visual phenomena. They develop paranoid delusions. This all happens in the “normal” brain. Sleep deprivation has been used as an effective means of torture and a technique for extracting confessions.”

There are many clinical clues and some animal and human research which strongly suggest that disturbance of the vestibular sensory system, and the consequent sleep disturbance and physiological stress are integrally related and that the direct causal link is sound and vibration energy, whether it is frequencies above 200 Hz, or frequencies in the infrasound or low frequency noise spectra below 200 Hz. This research, 60,61,62,63 together with the clinical and research evidence of Vibro Acoustic Disease 64.65 resulting from chronic exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise, can no longer be ignored.

Behaviour of Acousticians

It is long overdue for all acousticians to act according to their professional codes of ethics 66, 67 and to put the interests of the health and safety of the community first, and to work collegiately with health professionals who are trained in accurate diagnosis of specific clinical conditions. To date, acousticians working as paid consultants with the noise polluting industries have unfortunately all too often chosen to ignore the reported adverse impacts and “shoot the messengers” namely the concerned health practitioners, fellow acousticians or other researchers. That approach will not solve the current problems with respect to wind turbine siting and noise pollution regulation, or the serious damage to health being caused by other sources of infrasound and low frequency noise.

The Kelley research from nearly 30 years ago established a baseline of operating parameters to help prevent annoyance and consequent deterioration in health from chronic exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise,68 yet these parameters have never been implemented.

The ethical responsibilities of these members of the various acoustical societies who have assisted with writing the noise guidelines for government are clear – it is a primary responsibility of acousticians to protect the health of the public. 69 The ethical responsibilities of the medical profession similarly would appear to have been neglected in the case of wind turbine noise.

The health of rural residents has clearly not been protected, and nor has this been the priority of public officials, both elected and public servants who are responsible for public health, noise pollution regulation, planning or siting of wind turbines.

Concerns are being raised internationally about breaches of human rights, resulting from both breaches of professional ethics and statutory duties of care. 70

Abuses of Human Rights

Australia is a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture. 71

Sleep deprivation is acknowledged as a method of torture. 72 Sensory bombardment from noise and light have also been used as methods of torture, documented in the report by Physicians for Human Rights called “Leave No Marks”. 73

Australia ratified the treaty of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in December 1990, which the UN adopted in 1989, and therefore Australian governments have a responsibility to ensure that all children in Australia have the rights set out in the Convention. 74 In Australia some children and their families have been unable to continue to live in their homes because of serious adverse health impacts, which have affected children’s health, and affected their schooling. Others report their children’s sleep and health is regularly adversely affected.

It would therefore appear that serious breaches of human rights and breaches of a number of UNConventions are occurring as a result of this systemic regulatory failure on the part of State and Federal responsible authorities, whose wind turbine noise guidelines and planning regulations and guidelines are clearly not protecting the health of the public, including WHO acknowledged vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. 75

The Victorian Government was first warned of serious adverse health effects resulting from exposure to wind turbine noise in 2004 by Dr David Iser. 76

Justice Muse in Falmouth USA issued an injunction in December 2013 to prevent two wind turbines from operating overnight, in order to prevent “irreparable harm to physical and psychological health” of residents in Falmouth USA. 77

The lack of effective action at all levels of government in Australia to prevent the ongoing irreparable harm to physical and psychological health to Australian rural residents is unacceptable, and must be urgently addressed.

There is no reason that similar injunctions to prevent wind turbines from operating overnight could not be immediately imposed and enforced at those wind developments where noise nuisance and adverse health effects are occurring. Daytime exposure limits to infrasound and low frequency noise according to the Kelley 1985 criteria could be immediately implemented. 78 Turbine separation distances could and should be immediately mandated at a minimum of 7 rotor diameters, in order to prevent future avoidable planning disasters.

The harm to human health is serious, and preventable.

We know enough now, to act immediately, to prevent further irreparable and serious harm to physical and psychological health at existing wind developments.

Waubra Foundation 1st June, 2014

References:

1. Kelley, N et al, 1985 “Acoustic Noise associated with Mod 1 Turbine; its source, impact and control” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/kelley-et-al-1985-acoustic-noise-associated-with-mod-1-wind-turbine/

2. Kelley, N 1987 “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/1987-problem-with-low-frequency-noise-from-wind-turbines-scientifically-identified/

3. Hubbard, H 1982 “Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception” (1982) 19:2 Noise Control Engineering Journal 49 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hubbard-h-1982-noise-induced-house-vibrations-human-perception/

4. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit

5. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit

6. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit p 190

7. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit

8. Kelley, N1987 op cit

9. Kelley, N 1987 op cit

10. Shepherd, K & Hubbard H “Noise Radiation Characteristics – Westinghouse WWG 0600 Wind Turbine Generator” NASA Langley Research Centre, 1989 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/shepherd-k-hubbard-h-noise-radiation-characteristics-westinghouse-wwg-0600-wind-turbine-generator/

11. Laratro, A et al “A discussion of wind turbine interaction and stall contributions to wind turbine noise” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 127 (2014) 1–10. https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/a-discussion-of-wind-turbine-interaction-and-stall-contributions-to-wind-farm-noise/

12. Cox, R, Unwin, D & Sherwin, T “Wind Turbine Noise Impact Assessment – Where ETSU is Silent” July, 2012 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/cox-unwin-sherwin-where-etsu-silent-wind-turbine-noise/ and Turnbull, C & Turner J “Recent Developments in Wind Farm Noise in Australia” presented at the Denver Conference in 2013 discusses how ETSU 97 from the UK was the basis for the SA EPA Wind farm Noise Guidelines in Australia http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/turnbull-c-turner-j-recent-developments-wind-farm-noise-australia/

13. Horns Rev – further details about the meteorological conditions when that photo was taken are here, by S Emeis, from the Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, Institute of Karlsruhe, August 2010: http://www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Magazin_37/07.pdf

14. Shepherd, K & Hubbard, H op cit

15. Johansson, Dr Mauri 2013 Open Letter “Big Wind Turbines, Health and Disease, a Danish Perspective” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/big-wind-turbines-health-disease-danish-perspective/

16. Hopkins, Dr Gary, Letter to the Australian Medical Association March 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-gary-d-hopkins-letter-re-amas-wind-farms-health-statement/

17. Black, Dr Owen 2009 Statement to Planning Hearing, Illinois, http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-owen-f-black-md-neuro-otologist-re-wind-turbine-syndrome/

18. Farboud, R. Crunkhorn and A. Trinidade, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: Fact or Fiction” (2013) Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-syndrome-fact-or-fiction-farboud-et-al/

19. Enbom & Enbom, Review article in a Swedish Medical Journal, and letter to the Australian Medical Association, March 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/enbom-h-infrasound-from-wind-turbines-can-trigger-migraine-and-related-symptoms/

20. Bernier, Dr Linda http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/40-doctors-sign-wind-turbine-syndrome-petition-quebec/

21. Harry, Dr A http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-amanda-harry-groundbreaking-survey-sick-residents/

22. Iser, Dr D http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-david-iser-2004-conducts-first-survey-patients-living-near-wind-project/

23. Pierpont, Dr N http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-nina-pierpont-submission-australian-senate-inquiry/

24. McMurtry, Dr R http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/mcmurtry-evidence-known-adverse-health-effects-industrial-wind-turbines/

25. Reider, Dr S http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-sandy-reider-testimony-calls-for-moratorium-wind-farms/ and letter to the Australian Medical Association http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/reider-dr-sandy-md-rural-primary-care-physician-questions-ama-statement/

26. Tibbetts, Dr J letter to AMA, March 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/tibbetts-dr-jay-j-md-appalled-at-ama-statement/

27. Mitric-Andjic, Dr A submission to the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into wind turbine noise: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/rural-gp-forced-abandon-her-home-speaks-out/

28. Spring, Dr Wayne submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into wind turbine noise: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/sleep-physician-dr-wayne-j-spring-calls-for-noise-assessment/

Cut off the Subsidies, and the Wind Weasels Scurry! Great!

Britain’s uncertain renewables policy puts off investors

Decision to bring forward cap on solar power projects and mixed

signals on renewables support sees the UK slip down EY’s ranking

Uncertainty about Government support for renewable energy has meant the UK has become less attractive to investors

Uncertainty about Government support for renewable energy has meant the UK has become less attractive to investors Photo: ALAMY

The UK has slipped down the rankings of global destinations for investors in renewable energy because of policy uncertainty leading into next year’s election, according to EY.

The conflicting signals over the future of support for renewables beyond the 2015 election and the proposed cap on solar power projects eligible for support being brought in earlier than planned has meant the attractiveness of UK’s renewables market has fallen back to the levels last seen in November 2012. EY’s Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index now rates the UK behind the US, China, Germany, Japan and Canada.

“The UK has slipped to sixth place for the first time in more than a year. Policy tinkering and conflicting signals once again become too much for investors and developers to handle”, Ben Warren, EY’s Environmental Finance leader said on the UK’s position in the index said.

The Government has said that subsidies, which have driven the spread of large solar farms across Britain, are to be scrapped under plans to stop the panels blighting the countryside. Energy companies that build solar farms currently qualify for generous consumer-funded subsidies through the so-called ‘Renewable Obligation’ (RO) scheme, and had expected to keep doing so until 2017.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced last month that it planned to shut the RO to new large solar farms two years early, from April next year. Mr Warren said the proposals had “taken the shine off the UK’s otherwise booming solar market”.

The decision follows an admission by ministers that far more projects have been built than expected, leading to a rising subsidy bill for consumers and increasing local opposition. Greg Barker, the energy minister, said in April that solar farms must not become “the new onshore wind” and proposed solar panels installed on factory rooftops instead.

Prime Minister David Cameron wants to go into the next election pledging to “rid” the countryside of onshore wind farms and cut subsidies that would reduce the number of planned wind farms and could encourage developers to start “dismantling” turbines built, in recent years.

A report by the Renewable Energy Foundation has shown that Britain has already approved enough renewable energy projects to hit its EU targets, rendering all 1,000 projects still in the planning system surplus to requirements.

The UK’s 15% target for 2020 covers all energy, including heating and fuels – and in practice is expected to require at least 30% of electricity to come from renewable sources.

“As ever with the renewables sector, more damaging than the outcome of any review itself, is the uncertainty it creates and the trust it erodes. This last quarter has been no exception, with little done to foster sympathy from the renewable energy sector, which appears to be continuously caught in the firing line” Mr Warren said.

“The recent carbon tax freeze, an energy market competition probe and Conservative Party plans to scrap onshore wind subsidies post 2015 are weighing heavily on the sector’s ability to assess the long-term outlook,” he added.

Tim Hudak is the Obvious Best Choice for Ontario’s Premier!

 

Shellie Correia

“the original Mothers Against Wind Turbines TM”,
thank Tim Hudak, for a Job Well Done!
    We went to the CBC, on Front St., in Toronto, to support the Conservative Party, and Tim Hudak, at the
Leader’s Debate. and also to attend the party afterward.  When Tim came into the room, after the debate, the
crowd went crazy!  I congratulated Tim, and told him that he had done a wonderful job this evening, and that
were very proud!  Tim’s wife, Deb, was beaming, and looked radiant.  What an awesome couple!
Tim Hudak made the other two lack-luster candidates, look like blithering fools.  He really nailed this debate!!!
He answered questions, while they tried their best, to avoid them. He had clear, logical answers, while they
made ridiculous statements about what they were going to do with money that we, the taxpayers, do not have.
Tim nailed this debate….hands down!  I am thrilled with his accomplishments!
     While Tim talked about improving our kid’s math and science grades, Horwath said she would give them breakfast.
Tim wants our kids to thrive and succeed, while Horwath, wants them to be dependent upon government handouts.
Tim Hudak was the only one, that would even discuss the wind turbine fiasco, the others didn’t dare even speak of
that scam!  Tim Hudak has a serious plan for repairing the damage that was done, by the Liberal party, (enabled by the NDP!)
     Wynne was a complete bomb.  She looked terrified in the beginning, Saying she was sorry for the gas plants,
repeatedly, but we already know, that she is sorry, only that they got caught!   She then became defensive, and angry,
finishing off by pleading with her ever-outstretched arms, and offering to spend more of our money on Toronto’s infrastructure
The ratio for infrastructure, was half for the GTA, and half for the rest of the entire province…..none of which she has any way
to pay for, other than sinking us even further into debt!
All in all, it was an incredible evening.  We thanked our hosts, at Boston Pizza, for the wonderful food, drinks, and service,
shook hands with the other jubilant Conservative supporters, from all over the province, and we felt very satisfied with the outcome
of the Leader’s Debate!  I believe it was quite obvious to all, that Tim Hudak, is by far, the Best Choice for Ontario’s next Premier!

 

The Faux-Green Energy Fiasco is Coming to Light! Wake up People!!

Ontario, Canada: A Mirror of America’s Economic Future Mortgaged To Falsified Climate Science

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

clip_image002If Obama’s policies on energy and environment were truly original they would be worth consideration, but they are not. He dismisses claims that

The economy will lose millions of jobs and billions in growth. He said, “Let’s face it, that’s what [critics] always say,” and “every time … the warnings of the cynics have been wrong.

Wrong! They failed disastrously everywhere and every time they were applied. Figure 1 above shows a poster from Britain, one of several European nations on the path
Obama pursues.

Ironically, Maurice Strong, architect of the false claims of human produced CO2 causing catastrophic global warming/ climate change, provided a classic example.

Obama and other world leaders are basing their policies on the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the climate science agency created by Maurice Strong through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and presented to the world in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Figure 2 shows a simple flow chart of the structures created to control the political and scientific sectors to achieve a political agenda.


clip_image004

Figure 2

Strong chaired the Rio 92 conference and in the same year was appointed to Ontario Hydro. He became Chair and was given free rein by Bob Rae, socialist Premier of the Province. He set about applying the philosophy and policies enshrined in the UNEP program. These were designed to demonize CO2 as the byproduct of fossil fuel driven industries and nations. It was speculated by Strong in his comments to Elaine Dewar cited in The Cloak of Green (1995). He suggested,

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

 

Dewar asked why he didn’t enter politics to implement his plan. He essentially said you can’t do anything as a politician, but knew a political vehicle was required. He knew that convincing individual governments was almost impossible, as Kyoto negotiations proved. His experience told him the United Nations (UN) was his vehicle.

Dewar wrote that he liked the UN because:

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

Dewar concluded:

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

 

Strong had similar powers and objectives as Chairman of Ontario Hydro and became the architect of that Provinces problems. A 1997 article titled “Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future” says,

Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. It concludes, The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.

This applied to his UN role, but also to his Ontario Hydro role.

Under the guise of claiming Ontario’s debt was a result of expensive nuclear power plants he set about implementing an anti-fossil fuel agenda. One commentator referencing a later scandal involving Strong called “Hydrogate says,

Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.

Sounds good, but it was a path to inadequate supply. Key is the phrase he, pushed for sustainable development. In Strong’s, keynote speech at the Rio Earth Summit he said:

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.

 

He’d already created mechanisms to eliminate fossil fuels and bring about reduction and destruction of western economies. Ontario was his personal application and they were a disaster.

Despite evidence of the failures, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki became involved and urged Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty to continue Strong’s disastrous policies. Suzuki was forced to resign from his own Foundation because his political activities violated his tax situation. As one commentator noted,

The McGuinty government has a major electrical power problem, one created by its decision to use the power system as a political policy tool. This policy has resulted in the doubling of rates in Ontario to a level higher than in most U.S. states. Ontarios former industrial advantage has disappeared, while the government has been pretending that nothing is wrong.

Because of these energy policies Ontario’s economy continued to decline. The real impact of the decline is offset by the great Canadian socialist policy of equalization. So-called “have” provinces with thriving economies pay money through the Federal government to “have not” provinces. It was Ontario’s destiny as equalization covered political failures

If this continues  this is not hyperbole, this is a fact  Ontario will become a have notprovince in confederation. And it will be Premier (Dalton) McGuintys legacy that he in two terms took Ontario from being the strongest economic province in the federation to a have not province.

Replacing nuclear and fossil fuel energies with alternate energies drives up the costs and creates a multitude of other problems. A US Senate report notes,

Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power. Wind and solarcapacity factor or availability to supply power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas or coal.

 

Changes in Ontario illustrate the problems. Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per 2.6 square kilometers. With average wind speeds of 24 kph it needs 8,500 turbines covering 2590 square kilometers to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal fired plants. Besides the land, (5,180 km2) you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for back up. Strong’s policies eliminate the back up, so you either have dramatically increased costs, inadequate power or both.

Source: Steve Hunter

In 2008 Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that the

notion of no coal . . . is an illusion, and he favored a cap-and-trade system. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, Its just that it will bankrupt them because theyre going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas thats being emitted.

clip_image006

It’s only valid if science supports the claim that CO2, because of human production, is causing warming or climate change. It doesn’t, so there is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels.

Focus on CO2 and the assumption an increase causes temperature increase are built into the computer models. William Kinninmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre explains,

… current climate modeling is essentially to answer one question: how will increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (generated from human activity) change earths temperature and other climatological statistics?”…It is heroic to assume that such a view is sufficient basis on which to predict future climate.

Indian Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said

science is politics in climate change; climate science is politics and we are being led by our noses by Western (climate) scientists who have less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda.

He should add that western politicians like Obama are promoting energy policies based on falsified political science and alternative energies that don’t work. Ontario, under the control of the grandmaster Maurice Strong, tried and they’ve already failed. It is unadulterated evidence that pursuing them still is purely political. As always the people will pay the price as they have in many jurisdiction beyond OntarioAn appropriate quote to explain such blind behavior comes from former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev; “Politicians are the same every all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. Figure 1 cartoons the alternative energy bridge to nowhere in the UK.

I once said the Kyoto Protocol was a political solution to a non-existent climate problem. Obama’s energy policy is more of the same. It is more inexcusable because it failed everywhere it was tried, including by Maurice Strong, the father of the deception that global warming and climate change are a man made problem.

UK is Waking Up to the Fact, that the Wind Fiasco is a Threat to Energy Security!

Renewable Energy Poses Security Risk, New Paper Warns

Sign_of_RiskLondon, 2 June: A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that intermittent wind and solar energy pose a serious energy security risk and threaten to undermine the reliability of UK electricity generation.

Many people – including ministers, officials and journalists – believe that renewable energy enhances Britain’s energy security by reducing the dependency on fossil fuel imports. The ongoing crisis over the Ukraine and Crimea between Russia and the West has given much attention to this argument. 

Written by Philipp Mueller, the paper (UK Energy Security: Myth and Reality) concludes that domestic and global fossil fuel reserves are growing in abundance while open energy markets, despite the conflict in the Ukraine, are enhancing Britain’s energy security significantly.

In contrast, the ability of the grid to absorb intermittent renewable energy becomes increasingly more hazardous with scale.

Germany provides a warning example of its growing green energy insecurity. Last December, both wind and solar power came to an almost complete halt for more than a week. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still while one million photovoltaic systems failed to generate energy due to a lack of sunshine. For a whole week, conventional power plants had to provide almost all of Germany’s electricity supply.
Germans woke up to the fact that it was the complete failure of renewable energy to deliver that undermined the stability and security of Germany’s electricity system.

“Open energy markets are a much better way to ensure energy security than intermittent generation systems like wind and solar. It would be a huge risk in itself for Britain to go down the same route as Germany and destabilise what is still a reliable UK electricity grid,” said Philipp Mueller.
Full paper (PDF)

Living Too Close to a Wind Turbine, is Bad for Your Health!

Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment

Summary

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in wind turbine generated electricity in Canada. As of November 2012, Canada’s installed capacity was 5.9 Gigawatts, providing 2.3 percent of Canada’s current electricity demands. The wind energy industry has set a vision that by 2025 wind energy will supply 20% of Canada’s electricity demands. Some public concern has been expressed about the potential health impacts of wind turbine sound (WTSFootnote i). The health effects reported by individuals living in communities in close proximity to wind turbine installations are poorly understood due to limited scientific research in this area. This is coupled with the many challenges faced in measuring and modeling WTS, including low frequencies, which represent knowledge gaps in this area. The continued success and viability of wind turbine energy in Canada, and around the world, will rely upon a thorough understanding of the potential health impacts and community concerns.

Health Canada is collaborating with Statistics Canada on an epidemiological study to evaluate measurable health endpoints in people living in 8-12 communities at distances up to 10km from wind turbine installations. Measured endpoints include an automated blood pressure/heart rate assessment, hair cortisol concentrations and sleep actimetry. The seven days of sleep measurement data will be analyzed in relation to synchronized wind turbine operational data, providing the strength of a repeated measures design that incorporates objectively determined health outcome measures.

Read full report at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2013/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php

Footnote i: An important distinction is made between the physical characterization of acoustical energy as "sound" and the subjective evaluation of sound as "noise" when it is subjectively evaluated as unwanted.

Posted on the Health Canada website, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2013/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php