Wind Industry Denies Health Problems Cause by Wind Turbines, to Avoid Being Held Accountable!

Sunday Express 24th August, 2014

I’m abandoning my home over wind turbine illness

Credit: Paula Murray

A Pensioner is abandoning her Scottish dream home after more than a quarter of a century because wind turbines are making her life a “living hell”.

Kay Siddell, 69, and her husband John, 64, moved to their rural retreat at Old Dailly, near Girvan, Ayrshire, in 1988 to enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside.

They saved for years to renovate their home, but after a 53 turbine wind farm, Hadyard Hill, was built, the pair put everything on hold.

For the past eight years they have tried to come to terms with the noise and visual impact, but now, with Mrs Siddell’s health failing and further turbines planned, they have finally decided to move away.

Remarkably, Mrs Siddell and her retired Army sergeant spouse plan to abandon the steading and a sizeable parcel of land in a bid to prevent any more wind farms being built.

The pensioner said: “The turbines are forcing us out. We don’t want to sell our property – which comes with 10 acres of land – because we object to wind farms and want to make sure the operators cannot buy this land for more turbines.

“So rather than trying to sell our home we are just abandoning it in a bid to make sure at least that small area remains turbine free.”

The mother – of – one said there was an application to extend Hadyard Hill by another 55 turbines and planning permission to construct another 20 within the vicinity of their property.

She said: “That would bring the number to well over 100.

“We already have the TV and radio on at all times to try and block out the noise. There’s the obvious noise you hear and the flicker which comes in, especially in the winter because of the low sun, and that’s terribly disturbing.

“Then there’s the noise you can’t hear which is infrasound.

“Within two weeks of the turbines being switched on in 2006 our cats refused to go out and eat or drink – eventually we had to put them down. I think it was because of the sensation or noise they got from the wind farm which we couldn’t feel or hear.”

Mrs Siddell, who used to work for the Ministry of Defence, is adamant the turbines are damaging her health – adding to the growing number of cases since the issue was first exposed by the Scottish Sunday Express.

She is even willing to have a biopsy to prove her internal organs have been damaged by low-frequency noise.

She said” “Air stewards and people working on ships develop a hardening in their internal organs related to the vibration brought on by infrasound.

“I would like to have a biopsy to test if I have any signs of this vibroacoustic disease. If the evidence is there the only reason it would be there is the wind farm, as I’ve never worked on board planes and I am no cruise goer.

What’s magical with this marker is that it could not be anything but infrasound damage.

“It could explain my stress levels which are causing other physiological problems.”

Using the money they saved for the planned renovation, the Siddells are now packing up their belongings and moving to England to be near their son.

The first removal load was due to leave their home last week, and the rest will follow soon.

Mrs Siddell said: “We were here long before any turbines went up. We always knew that because of our remote location, the day would come we would have to move out. However the day came much sooner than we expected because of the wind farm.”

Wind farm operators and trade groups insist there are no proven links between turbines and ill health.

Credit: Paula Murray, Sunday Express, Scotland

People of Oklahoma to Fight the Wind Industry….In Courts of Law!!!

Oklahomans Launch Pre-Emptive Legal Action to Prevent Wind Farm Construction

For most non-Okies, their appreciation of the glories of life on the great prairies of Oklahoma comes from Gordon Macrae (as Curly) – bathed in “a bright golden haze on the meadow” and crooning from a fine looking mount about what was clearly a very “beautiful morning”.

While Curly waxed lyrically about seeing stratospheric corn, his profound sensory enjoyment included being able to hear nature at its untrammelled best, in a place where “all the sounds of the earth are like music”.

Well, they used to be.

Oklahoma hasn’t escaped America’s great wind power fraud: turbines have sprung up like mushrooms all over the, once tranquil, State. And, like everywhere else, the locals are fighting back.

Not content to let wind power outfits turn their beautiful mornings into sonic torture events, a group of Oklahomans have just launched court action, seeking an injunction to prevent 300 giant fans from being speared into their peaceful patch of prairie paradise.

The action, filed by 6 plaintiffs, is being pursued in “nuisance”: the common law right attached to property to be able to enjoy it free from any unreasonable interference from the activities of neighbours, which includes unreasonable interference from noise – particularly where the noise in question interferes with sleep (see our post here).

The plaintiffs’ claim (available here) sets out the nature of their action as:

This action seeks to enjoin Defendants from creating a nuisance that will cause unreasonable inconvenience, interference, annoyance, adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of each Plaintiff and class member’s property.

Where the plaintiffs say they are seeking to “enjoin Defendants” they mean that they are asking the court for an injunction preventing the developers from constructing the turbines proposed.

The plaintiffs face the prospect of being left with properties that are worth a fraction of what they would be without turbines as neighbours – and ending up with homes that are uninhabitable due to incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here). So, their planning authorities having failed them, it’s off to court.

Here’s a run down on the plaintiffs’ action from the Oklahoma Wind Action Association.

Oklahoma citizens file class action lawsuit against wind energy companies
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

Seeking reasonable placement of wind farms to protect health of nearby residents.

Citizens of Canadian and Kingfisher counties filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma today to prohibit the placement of wind turbines that will harm residents.

After exhausting all local and state legislative and government resources, members of the lawsuit are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring wind turbines be placed a safe distance from their homes.

There are multiple wind farms planned for Kingfisher and Canadian counties consisting of more than 300 industrial wind turbines. From plaintiff Julie Harris’ land, there are 47 turbines targeted near her home with the closest planned less than one-half mile from her property. The turbines are almost 500 feet tall, equivalent to approximately five-eighths (5/8) the size of Devon Tower in downtown Oklahoma City, Okla.

“Despite working tirelessly with local officials and the wind company to request a reasonable setback of wind turbines from our property, our only recourse now is litigation,” said Terra Walker, a plaintiff and property owner in Okarche, Okla. “There are real health concerns when turbines are placed too close to homes. This is about requiring safe setbacks to protect the health and safety of our families.”

The plaintiffs are concerned about health impacts and interference in the use and enjoyment of their land. In the complaint, the plaintiffs note that wind turbines emit infra and low frequency sounds that are inaudible to the human ear, but have a long history of causing adverse effects to the human body and mind, including sleep loss, increased stress and cardiac issues. The plaintiffs are also concerned about how noise and shadow flicker emitted from rotating blades deteriorates the ability — in both children and adults — to properly think, remember, or concentrate.

“The wind farms located next to our house have ruined our health and property,” said Tammy and Rick Huffstutlar, living outside of Calumet, Okla. and in the middle of the Canadian Hills Wind Farm.

The Huffstutlars live adjacent to wind turbines and experience significant shadow flicker, noise and disruptions in air pressure, resulting in a worsening heart condition, severe headaches, and lack of sleep.

“Industrial wind energy in Oklahoma is unregulated, allowing companies to build wind farms wherever they can make deals with landowners without any required notice to those impacted,” said Brent Robinson, Oklahoma Wind Action Association (OWAA) president. “Research shows a negative impact to health for people within three miles of a turbine. Therefore, we believe a three-mile setback from property lines is necessary to protect our families.”

OWAA, along with other Oklahoma organizations such as Oklahoma Property Rights Association and Wind Waste, are combining forces to advocate for sensible laws to protect people and oversee future development in Oklahoma. The non-profit associations are concerned about the long-term impact this unregulated industry will have on property owners, and are fighting for oversight to ensure turbines are appropriately placed, operated safely, well-maintained and there is adequate funding to remove abandoned wind farms.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Terra Walker, Cheyenne Ward, Julie Harris, Janelle Grellner, Elise Kochenower, Karri Parson, Cindy Shelley, and Oklahoma Wind Action Association. The defendants are APEX Wind Construction, LLC, APEX Clean Energy, Inc., APEX Clean Energy Holdings, LLC, Kingfisher Wind, LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings, LLC, Campbell Creek Wind, LLC, and Campbell Creek Wind Transmission, LLC.

Oklahoma Wind Action Association was founded in February 2014 to protect its members from negative affects of industrial wind turbines. The organization serves more than 150 citizens in Canadian and Kingfisher counties.
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

Curly & Laurey

People of Oklahoma to Fight the Wind Industry….In Courts of Law!!!

Oklahomans Launch Pre-Emptive Legal Action to Prevent Wind Farm Construction

For most non-Okies, their appreciation of the glories of life on the great prairies of Oklahoma comes from Gordon Macrae (as Curly) – bathed in “a bright golden haze on the meadow” and crooning from a fine looking mount about what was clearly a very “beautiful morning”.

While Curly waxed lyrically about seeing stratospheric corn, his profound sensory enjoyment included being able to hear nature at its untrammelled best, in a place where “all the sounds of the earth are like music”.

Well, they used to be.

Oklahoma hasn’t escaped America’s great wind power fraud: turbines have sprung up like mushrooms all over the, once tranquil, State. And, like everywhere else, the locals are fighting back.

Not content to let wind power outfits turn their beautiful mornings into sonic torture events, a group of Oklahomans have just launched court action, seeking an injunction to prevent 300 giant fans from being speared into their peaceful patch of prairie paradise.

The action, filed by 6 plaintiffs, is being pursued in “nuisance”: the common law right attached to property to be able to enjoy it free from any unreasonable interference from the activities of neighbours, which includes unreasonable interference from noise – particularly where the noise in question interferes with sleep (see our post here).

The plaintiffs’ claim (available here) sets out the nature of their action as:

This action seeks to enjoin Defendants from creating a nuisance that will cause unreasonable inconvenience, interference, annoyance, adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of each Plaintiff and class member’s property.

Where the plaintiffs say they are seeking to “enjoin Defendants” they mean that they are asking the court for an injunction preventing the developers from constructing the turbines proposed.

The plaintiffs face the prospect of being left with properties that are worth a fraction of what they would be without turbines as neighbours – and ending up with homes that are uninhabitable due to incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here). So, their planning authorities having failed them, it’s off to court.

Here’s a run down on the plaintiffs’ action from the Oklahoma Wind Action Association.

Oklahoma citizens file class action lawsuit against wind energy companies
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

Seeking reasonable placement of wind farms to protect health of nearby residents.

Citizens of Canadian and Kingfisher counties filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma today to prohibit the placement of wind turbines that will harm residents.

After exhausting all local and state legislative and government resources, members of the lawsuit are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring wind turbines be placed a safe distance from their homes.

There are multiple wind farms planned for Kingfisher and Canadian counties consisting of more than 300 industrial wind turbines. From plaintiff Julie Harris’ land, there are 47 turbines targeted near her home with the closest planned less than one-half mile from her property. The turbines are almost 500 feet tall, equivalent to approximately five-eighths (5/8) the size of Devon Tower in downtown Oklahoma City, Okla.

“Despite working tirelessly with local officials and the wind company to request a reasonable setback of wind turbines from our property, our only recourse now is litigation,” said Terra Walker, a plaintiff and property owner in Okarche, Okla. “There are real health concerns when turbines are placed too close to homes. This is about requiring safe setbacks to protect the health and safety of our families.”

The plaintiffs are concerned about health impacts and interference in the use and enjoyment of their land. In the complaint, the plaintiffs note that wind turbines emit infra and low frequency sounds that are inaudible to the human ear, but have a long history of causing adverse effects to the human body and mind, including sleep loss, increased stress and cardiac issues. The plaintiffs are also concerned about how noise and shadow flicker emitted from rotating blades deteriorates the ability — in both children and adults — to properly think, remember, or concentrate.

“The wind farms located next to our house have ruined our health and property,” said Tammy and Rick Huffstutlar, living outside of Calumet, Okla. and in the middle of the Canadian Hills Wind Farm.

The Huffstutlars live adjacent to wind turbines and experience significant shadow flicker, noise and disruptions in air pressure, resulting in a worsening heart condition, severe headaches, and lack of sleep.

“Industrial wind energy in Oklahoma is unregulated, allowing companies to build wind farms wherever they can make deals with landowners without any required notice to those impacted,” said Brent Robinson, Oklahoma Wind Action Association (OWAA) president. “Research shows a negative impact to health for people within three miles of a turbine. Therefore, we believe a three-mile setback from property lines is necessary to protect our families.”

OWAA, along with other Oklahoma organizations such as Oklahoma Property Rights Association and Wind Waste, are combining forces to advocate for sensible laws to protect people and oversee future development in Oklahoma. The non-profit associations are concerned about the long-term impact this unregulated industry will have on property owners, and are fighting for oversight to ensure turbines are appropriately placed, operated safely, well-maintained and there is adequate funding to remove abandoned wind farms.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Terra Walker, Cheyenne Ward, Julie Harris, Janelle Grellner, Elise Kochenower, Karri Parson, Cindy Shelley, and Oklahoma Wind Action Association. The defendants are APEX Wind Construction, LLC, APEX Clean Energy, Inc., APEX Clean Energy Holdings, LLC, Kingfisher Wind, LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings, LLC, Campbell Creek Wind, LLC, and Campbell Creek Wind Transmission, LLC.

Oklahoma Wind Action Association was founded in February 2014 to protect its members from negative affects of industrial wind turbines. The organization serves more than 150 citizens in Canadian and Kingfisher counties.
Oklahoma Wind Action Association
27 August 2014

Curly & Laurey

Windweasels Swarming US Market, After Europeans Started to “Wise Up”, and say NO!

Big Wind’s latest deceitful ad campaign

Siemens_big_wind_TV_adFacing trouble abroad, Siemens ads seek to tap into US taxpayers and wind welfare system

Guest essay by Mary Kay Barton

If you watch much mainstream TV, you’ve probably seen Siemens’ new multi-million-dollaradvertising blitz  to sell the American public on industrial wind. Why the sudden ad onslaught? Watch the video below.

The wind business abroad has taken a huge hit of late. European countries have begun slashing renewable mandates, due to the ever-broadening realization that renewables cost far more than industrial wind proponents have led people to believe: economically, environmentally, technically, and civilly.

Siemens’ energy business took a €48m hit in the second quarter due to a bearings issue with onshore turbines, and a €23m charge due to ongoing offshore grid issues in Germany – on top of subsidy and feed-in tariff cutbacks, recent articles have pointed out.

As Siemens’ tax-sheltering market dries up in Europe, its U.S. marketing efforts are clearly geared toward increasing its income and profits via wind’s tax sheltering schemes in the United States. The company stands to make millions, so Siemens ad campaign is obviously part of an overall pitch to persuade Congress to extend the hefty wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), more accurately called“Pork-To-Cronies.” As Warren Buffett recently admitted, “We get tax credits if we build lots of wind farms.  That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Taxpayers and ratepayers, beware!

President Obama often says he intends to “close corporate loopholes,” but his PTC and other policies continue funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to his wealthy corporate insiders and campaign contributors – while we continue to rack up unconscionable debt for our children and grandchildren.

Increasing public awareness of the wind energy scam has led to increased opposition to extendingany more corporate welfare to Big Wind via the PTC and energy investment tax credit (ITC). Enter another bureaucratic end-run around once clear statutory language by this Administration.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the increasingly politicized IRS recently relaxed the definition of “commence construction” to the point where the definition bears no resemblance to the actual words.  During a hearing by the House Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements subcommittee last October, Curtis G. Wilson of the IRS admitted that developers can now game the system to the point where projects built years in the future could still meet the eligibility requirement for “commence” now.

U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers are doomed when, instead of allowing the markets to work, crony-corruptocrats are picking the winners and losers in the energy marketplace, using such nefarious tactics.

Sadly, most people don’t even know the difference between energy and power. This reality has built the framework for the biggest swindle ever perpetrated on citizens worldwide.  Many have bought into the alarmist argument that “we have to do something” to stop “dangerous manmade global warming.” Enter the wind industry sales department, primed to capitalize on public fears and alarmist hype.

Siemens also needs to convince the 80% of U.S. citizens who live in suburbia that industrial wind factories are “environment-friendly,” and everyone loves them. Thus, as usual for these disingenuous ad campaigns, a sprawling wind facility is pictured among green fields, with no homes anywhere to be seen, no birds are being slaughtered, while a happy Iowa leaseholder smiles and says she loves wind.

A drive out Route 20A in Wyoming County, western New York State, however, tells a far different story. The western side of Wyoming County – which used to be some of the most beautiful countryside in New York State, has been industrialized with 308 giant, 430-foot-tall towers, and their 11-ton, bird-chopping blades spinning overhead, only hundreds of feet from peoples’ homes and roadways. There’s no doubt that Siemens won’t be showing you this reality in any of their TV ads!

Unfortunately for the residents of Orangeville in Wyoming County, greed at the top in Washington, DC determined their fate. The sole reason Invenergy went ahead with its plan to build its 58-turbine project was that, in the early morning hours of January 1, 2013, the PTC was added as pork for companies sucking at the wind welfare teat.

Ever appreciative of the handouts, Invenergy owner Ukrainian Michael Polsky rewarded President Obama by holding a $35,000 a plate fundraiser at his Chicago mansion. Mr. Obama is so committed to Big Wind that he’s even legalized 30-year eagle kill permits just for the wind industry. Anyone else harming an eagle, or even possessing a single bald eagle feather, is penalized with an iron fist.

There you have it – corporate cronyism in all its glory, with bird murder as its crowning achievement.

Word of impending lawsuits lingers in Orangeville. It remains to be seen if disenchanted leaseholders will end up suing Big Wind, as others have. In the meantime, we’re hoping we don’t have any 11-ton blade breaks that throw shrapnel for thousands of feet, or any airplanes crashing into wind turbines during fog, as occurred in South Dakota earlier this year, killing all four on board. (I’ll bet you won’t be seeing any of these facts in Siemens’ ads, either.)

Our elected officials need energy literacy. Even a small dose would help.

What’s most frustrating, when attempting any kind of correspondence regarding these energy issues with many elected officials, is the kind of response I received from Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)when I wrote him a letter about ending the Wind PTC. Senator Schumer never even mentioned the PTC in his response. Instead, he rambled on about the need to “reduce foreign oil imports,” and increase “efficiency” – neither of which has a thing to do with wind-generated electricity.

Mr. Schumer recently feigned alarm following complaints by citizens about soaring electric rates – demanding answers about it, while simultaneously supporting yet another Wind PTC extension (plus other rate-increasing “renewable” projects). Senator Schumer’s hypocrisy is outrageous, and unacceptable.

Perhaps it’s time for U.S. ratepayers and taxpayers to demand that their elected officials first pass an energy literacy exam, before they pass such cost-exorbitant, “green” boondoggles on to consumers.

Congress is on vacation through Labor Day, which makes this the perfect time to approach your senators and representatives while they’re home.  Attend town hall meetings and in-district fundraisers. Remind your representatives that we put them in office, and that we can also vote them out!

Since energy plays a pivotal role in our national economy – impacting the cost of absolutely everything else – candidates should have “energy” listed on their “issues” webpage.

Good candidates will support an All of the Sensibleenergy policy, as opposed to the “All of the Above” energy policy which President Obama has been pushing on behalf of the “green” movement.“Sensible” alternative energy options are those that are backed up by scientific and economic proof that they provide net societal benefits. Industrial wind fails this test miserably!

For more information, refer friends and elected officials to Robert Bryce’s excellent book, Power Hungry: The myths of “green” energy and the real fuels of the future.

Continue to call and write their offices, and encourage them to oppose any extension of the PTC and ITC! Write letters to your local newspapers, copy their district offices, and post information on their social media pages (e.g., Face Book & Twitter).

We must demand accountability from elected officials, or vote them out! Reliable, affordable energy is what has made America great. We need to keep it that way.

Mary Kay Barton is a retired health educator, New York State small business owner, Cornell-certified Master Gardener, and is a tireless advocate for scientifically sound, affordable, and reliable electricity for all Americans.

The Real Truth Behind the Global Warming/Climate Change Agenda!

It’s about the money, not the climate

  • Who wants to be a millionaire

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), the Irish poet and dramatist, wrote “Pray don’t talk to me about the weather. Whenever people talk to me about the weather, I always feel quite certain that they mean something else.”

These days, when some world leader or politician speaks of the climate—the weather is what is happening right now wherever you are—they are not talking about sunshine or rain. They are talking about a devilishly obscene way of raising money by claiming that it is humans that are threatening the climate with everything they do, from turning on the lights to driving anywhere.

That’s why “global warming” was invented in the late 1980s as an immense threat to the Earth and to mankind. Never mind that Earth has routinely passed through warmer and cooler cycles for billions of years; much of which occurred before mankind emerged. And never mind that the Earth has been a distinct cooling cycle for the past seventeen years and likely to stay in it for a while. If the history of ice ages is any guide, we could literally be on the cusp of a new one.

If, however, a government can tax the use of energy, it stands to make a lot of money. That is why carbon taxes have been introduced in some nations and why the nearly useless “clean energy” options of wind and solar have been introduced even though they both require the backup of traditional coal, natural gas and nuclear energy plants because they cannot produce electricity if the wind isn’t blowing and the sun is obscured by clouds.

Taxing energy use means taxing “greenhouse gas” emissions; primarily carbon dioxide (C02) so that every ton of it added to the atmosphere by a power plant and any other commercial activity becomes a source of income for the nation. The Australians went through this and rapidly discovered it drove up their cost of electricity and negatively affected their economy so much that they rid themselves of a prime minister and the tax within the past year.

Fortunately, every effort to introduce a carbon tax has been defeated by the U.S. Congress, but that it has shelled out billions for

Rep. Henry Waxman

“climate research” over the years. That doesn’t mean, however, that 41 demented Democrats in the House of Representatives haven’t gotten together in a “Safe Climate Caucus” led by Rep. Henry A. Waxman. The Washington Post reported that when it was launched in February 2013, the members promised to talk every day on the House floor about “the urgent need to address climate change.”

Check out the caucus and, if your Representative is a member, vote to replace him or her with someone less idiotic.

When you hear the President or a member of Congress talk about the climate, they are really talking about the scheme to generate revenue from it through taxation or to raise money from those who will personally benefit from any scheme related to the climate such as “clean energy.”

The need of governments to frighten their citizens about the climate in order to raise money is international in scope. A United States that has a $17 trillion debt is a prime example, much of it due to a government grown so large it wastes taxpayer’s money in the millions with every passing day whether it is sunny or rainy, warm or cold.

In late July, Reuters reported that Christine Lagarde, the chair of theInternational Monetary Fund, (IMF) opined in her new book that “energy taxes in much of the world are far below what they should be to reflect the harmful environmental and health impact of fossil fuels use.”

Please pay no attention to the billions of dollars that coal, oil and natural gas already generate for the nations in which they are found. Nations such as India and China are building coal-fired plants as fast as possible to provide the electricity every modern nation needs to expand its economy, provide more employment, and improve their citizen’s lives in every way imaginable.

“For the first time,” Reuters reported, “the IMF laid out exactly what it views as appropriate taxes on coal, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel in 156 countries to factor in the fuel’s overall costs, which include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion and traffic accidents.” The problem with this is that the costs cited are bogus.

Christine Lagarde

“Nations,” said Lagarde, “are now working on a United Nations deal for late 2015 to rein in greenhouse gas emissions that have hit repeated highs this century, but progress has been slow as nations fret about the impact any measures may have on economic growth.” As in bad impacts!

Ignore the claims that carbon dioxide affects the climate. Its role is so small it can barely be measured because CO2 represents 380 parts per million. When our primate ancestors began to climb down out of the trees, CO2 levels were about 1,000 parts per million. More CO2 means more crops, healthy growing forests, and all the other benefits that every form of vegetation provides. The breath we humans exhale contains about 4% of CO2.

The fact is that the United States and other nations are being run by politicians who are incapable of reducing spending or borrowing more in order to spend more. Venezuela just defaulted again on the payment of bonds it issued to raise money. They did this in 2001 and one must wonder why any financial institution purchases them.

There are eleven other nations whose credit ratings are flirting with big trouble. They include Greece, Ukraine, Pakistan, Cypress, and in the Americas Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Belize. Borrowing by such nations is very expensive. A U.S. Treasury Note pays an annual coupon of just 2.5%, but the yields on 10-year bonds issue by Greece reached 29% in early 2012, just before it defaulted.

Adding to problems in the U.S. is the Obama agenda being acted upon by the Environmental Protection Agency whose “war on coal” has shuttered several hundred plants that produce the electricity needed to maintain the economy. In coal producing states this is playing havoc and it is driving up the cost of electricity in others.

The growth of oil and natural gas production in the U.S. is almost entirely on privately owned land as opposed to that controlled by the government. Supporting the attack on energy are the multi-million dollar environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club.

The world has not warmed since the nineties and many factors influence the climate other than CO2, the Sun, the oceans, clouds, and volcanic activity. Nothing any government does, here and worldwide, has any meaningful impact on it, but if nations can demonize the use of energy and tax the CO2 it produces, they can generate more money to spend and waste.

The lies that governments, the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund tell about the climate are about the money they can extract from citizens who must be kept frightened enough to pay taxes on their use of energy.

 

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/22/its-about-the-money-not-the-climate/#sthash.2UXTRUgG.dpuf

Residents of Slovenia Looking for Protection from Wind Turbines!

Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise

Mr Diego Loredan, Chairman,
Ms Katarina Dea Zetko,

Civil Initiative for the Protection of Seno žeška Brda

I have been asked by Ms Katarina Dea Zetko to write to you, concerning the proposals to site large industrial wind turbines, 130 metres high, sited as close as 800 metres to homes in rural Slovenia. You are welcome to use this letter to educate others, and to make it publicly available.

In my opinion, based on my first hand knowledge of what has happened to wind turbine neighbours in Australia and elsewhere internationally, this is a recklessly irresponsible and dangerous plan and will inevitably result in serious adverse health effects for citizens of Slovenia who are neighbours of such turbines, out to significant distances. This is happening around the world, and I know of no reason why Slovenian citizens will not have the same adverse health impacts being reported internationally.

Breaches of UN Convention Against Torture

Decisions made by public officials to approve such an unsafe development, or to allow a development to continue to operate in spite of directly causing adverse health consequences such as sleep deprivation and “sensory bombardment from noise”, could be held to be breaches of the UN Convention Against Torture. Both “sleep deprivation” and “sensory bombardment from noise” have been acknowledged as methods of torture by the Physicians for Human Rights. TheUN Committee Against Torture has also specifically acknowledged that sleep deprivation is used as a method of torture.

The Committee against Torture (CAT) has noted that sleep deprivation used for prolonged periods constitutes a breach of the CAT, and is primarily used to break down the will of the detainee. Sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory and cognitive functioning, decreased short term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression.”

Consequently, behaviour by public officials including specifically elected politicians and public servants in Slovenia, such as approving such a dangerous development, or allowing a wind development to continue to operate, whilst knowing that the turbines are causing adverse health effects from sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment with noise could be held to be a breaches of the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, which I note Slovenia is a signatory to. Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture states:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Background

By way of background, I am the CEO of the Waubra Foundation, which is a not for profit charity, established in Australia in 2010, to advocate for independent multidisciplinary research to investigate the reported health problems being reported by people exposed to infrasound and low frequency noise. Sources of that environmental noise include machinery used in coal mining, turbines used in gas fired power stations, compressors used in refrigeration units and field compressors used in extraction and transportation of gas, as well as industrial horizontal bladed wind turbines. I have worked full time, pro bono for the Foundation since July 2010.

My previous occupation and professional training was in rural general practice, where I worked as a medical practitioner in rural and remote environments in Australia.

I have been accepted to give expert evidence in legal tribunals on this subject in both my own country, Australia, and Canada, and have given evidence at multiple parliamentary inquiries in Australia. I have been involved in facilitating multidisciplinary research and acoustic data collection in Australia, and have been actively collaborating with concerned health practitioners, researchers and acousticians internationally for four years.

What Distance Is Safe?

We don’t know.

The necessary research has not yet been done. Unlike most other products, where prior product safety is established, the wind industry has never been required to show there are no adverse health effects. It will become evident, below, that in fact the wind industry are well aware of the serious health problems their products directly cause, and indeed that they have known for thirty years.

Clinically, we know the impacts of chronic sleep deprivation and chronic stress increase over time with cumulative exposure. These effects from exposure to excessive environmental noise especially at night are very well known, and have been the subject of numerous reports from the World Health Organisation.

We also know that serious adverse health effects including chronic severe sleep deprivation are being reported by residents living up to 10km away from 37 VESTAS V 90 wind turbines (approximately 130 metres from tower base to blade tip) located along a ridge top in Australia, at Waterloo Wind Development. At that location, I am personally aware of the occupants of five households who have either permanently left their homes, or are forced to leave regularly in order to regain their health, some under the instruction of their treating health professionals, who have included local general practitioners (family physicians) or cardiologist. The turbines have been operating almost four years.

We also know that as wind turbines become more powerful power generators (taller towers and longer blades) that their sound energy shifts down to lower frequencies, below 200 Hz. As Danish Professor Henrik Moller pointed out in his paper in 2011, this will predictably cause more “annoyance” symptoms for the neighbours. Therefore a larger buffer distance will be required, if larger wind turbines are used, in order to protect people’s physical and mental health and sleep.

We also know that when wind turbines are sited too close together, with insufficient inter turbine separation distances, that this will increase the generation of infrasound and low frequency noise from upwind bladed wind turbines, and will therefore additionally increase the adverse health effects from “annoyance” symptoms, including repetitive sleep disturbance, which are directly caused by the infrasound and low frequency noise.

The recommended inter turbine spacing separation distance to minimize the generation of turbulence, accepted by acousticians based on aeronautical engineering knowledge has historically been 5 – 8 rotor diameters. The three sites in Australia where population noise impact surveys have been conducted have all had almost all inter turbine separation distances significantly less than the recommended 5 – 8 rotor diameters. Those surveys are at Waterloo 15 (by Mrs Mary Morris), at Macarthur 16 (by Mrs Anne Schafer) and at Cullerin Range (by Mrs Patina Schneider). This may partly explain the number of reports of sleep disturbance from the operating wind turbines, and the distance of impact.

This distance of 10km for reported acoustic impacts is consistent with my knowledge of the acoustic impact zone, from individual residents reports to me, which resulted in our Explicit Cautionary Notice in June 2011 with a ten km suggested buffer zone between wind turbines and homes. Since then, residents who have become sensitized to these frequencies have reported they are noticing impacts out to 17 – 20 km and in some instances even further, particularly at night, when they are downwind, when there is heavy cloud cover, or very cold air and a temperature inversion effect, and where there are multiple wind turbines. These are all acoustic and weather factors long known to acousticians to facilitate sound energy propagation. The residents’ reports are consistent with this knowledge, yet most of the residents (who are generally farmers) have no backgound knowledge in acoustics – they simply report what they experience and the wind and weather conditions at the time.

I note that one of the acoustic consulting firms environmental assessment for a recent wind project proposal in Australia has acknowledged a distance of 10km from cumulative impacts. Marshall Day Acoustics in their report for RATCH re the Mt Emerald wind development have recently referred to 10km in the context of cumulative impacts from other wind developments, and they are now specifically referencing infrasound and low frequency noise. In section 5.6 they stated in their section “review of cumulative impact” (my emphasis in red):

Separate wind farm developments that are in close proximity to each other have the potential to impact on the same receiver. It is therefore necessary to assess any potential cumulative noise impact on receivers, where such circumstances exist

We understand that there are no other wind farm developments currently planned or operating within 10km of the proposed MEWF. On this basis, cumulative impacts of noise from more than one operating wind farm are not considered further.”

The existence of adverse health effects including repetitive sleep disturbance out to 10km has therefore been specifically confirmed with three population impact surveys conducted in Australia at the Cullerin Range, Waterloo and Macarthur wind developments, which were all presented as evidence in the Cherry Tree legal case in Victoria in October 2013. In that case, the two tribunal members specifically acknowledged the existence of adverse health effects including sleep deprivation in their comments, despite eventually approving the development, “because it was government policy”. In their orders in April 2013, they stated:

116 There is evidence before the Tribunal that a number of people living close to wind farms suffer deleterious health effects. The evidence is both direct and anecdotal. There is a uniformity of description of these effects across a number of wind farms, both in south east Australia and North America. Residents complain of suffering sleep disturbance, feelings of anxiety upon awakening, headaches, pressure at the base of the neck and in the head and ears, nausea and loss of balance.

117 In some cases the impacts have been of such gravity that residents have been forced to abandon their homes.

118 On the basis of this evidence it is clear that some residents who live in close proximity to a wind farm experience the symptoms described, and that the experience is not simply imagined.”

The 2012 Waterloo survey by Mrs Morris submitted to the Cherry Tree Tribunal hearing was accepted as the only Australian research included in the recent National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) 2014 Systematic Literature Review. The other surveys, conducted in an identical manner by Schneider and Schafer for the Cherry Tree case were not completed in time for the NHMRC nominated cut off date for inclusion in its review (September, 2012), although that rule was inconsistently applied in the final NHMRC Literature review document.

Whilst there are serious concerns about the NHMRC 2014 Literature Review, with respect to the misclassification and exclusion of relevant studies, the 2014 NHMRC systematic literature review did concede that there is research evidence of sleep disturbance / deprivation, “annoyance” symptoms and poorer quality of life in wind turbine neighbours.

Conflict of interest issues concerning a number of members of the NHMRC literature review panel have been identified, and remain unresolved. It would appear these conflicts of interest have indeed had an impact on some of the decisions made by that panel, particularly with respect to directing that certain research should not be considered by the literature review authors.

These conflicts of interest are a serious matter, and were exposed in Parliament by two Federal Senators; Senator John Madigan and Senator Chris Back, who are both directly well aware of the adverse health effects experienced by wind turbine neighbours in Australia.

Other supportive relevant evidence, professional opinions and affidavits used in legal proceedings relating to the distance of impact issue are listed in Appendix 1, at the end of this letter.

Knowledge of Direct Causation Of “annoyance” Symptoms FromILFN in the 1980s

Dr Neil Kelley’s research funded by the US Government in the 1980’s, performed in collaboration with multiple research universities and institutes including two separate branches of NASA and aeronautical faculties established a direct causal relationship between wind turbine generated impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise and what were called “annoyance” symptoms, which included repetitive sleep disturbance and body vibrations.

The direct causal relationship between these frequencies and annoyance symptoms was later confirmed in a laboratory study, which Dr Neil Kelley reported to the American Wind Energy Association conference in 1987. This research resulted in a significant change to the design of horizontal axis wind turbines from downwind bladed to upwind bladed, in order to prevent or minimize the generation of these frequencies, because of their known, established, adverse health effects.

Subsequent research by NASA researchers Shepherd and Hubbard in 1989 established that the new upwind bladed wind turbines could also generate surprisingly elevated levels of infrasound and low frequency noise, when the incoming air was turbulent. Turbulent air is inevitable when wind turbines are sited too close together, hence the critical importance of ensuring sufficient inter turbine separation distances of at least 5–8 rotor diameters, mentioned previously.

However, as you know, from experiences already reported by neighbours to turbines in Slovenia, a single smaller wind turbine can cause the generation of infrasound and low frequency noise, particularly as the blade passes the tower, so one turbine can be enough to cause serious health problems for neighbours who become sensitized to the lower frequency sound energy, if it is sited too close.

Are “Annoyance” Symptoms The Same As “Wind Turbine Syndrome”?

I am aware that Dr Nina Pierpont has already written to you on this subject and confirmed that in her opinion, “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, long denied by the wind industry and some of its vocal supporters in Public Health to exist, has the same symptoms as “annoyance” symptoms, which were reported by Dr Neil Kelley’s research participants, and which have been long known to acousticians working particularly in the area of low frequency noise.

These symptoms were listed by Dr Pierpont in her study and the executive summary, and include sleep deprivation, along with a variety of other disabling symptoms such as severe nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, body vibrations, anxiety symptoms, and numerous other symptoms documented consistently by the various researchers and medical practitioners who have treated these people, which also include physiological stress symptoms.

There are an increasing number of health and acoustics professionals and researchers with direct knowledge of the severity of the reported health problems who are also using the phrase “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to describe the symptoms. These include most recently Dr Colette Bonner, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Ireland, and Dr Steven Rauch, Harvard Medical School Professor, and Director of the Massachussets Eye and Ear “Clinical Balance and Vestibular Centre”. Dr Rauch was recently reported in an article as follows:

Dr Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTSsuffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test of either condition but “nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim.”

I note that British Acoustician Dr Geoffrey Leventhall who consults extensively for the wind industry, has acknowledged that these symptoms of “annoyance” caused by exposure to environmental noise, are identical to the symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” and further, that the symptoms have been known to him for years. This view is reinforced by the contents of the Literature Review written by Dr Leventhall for the UK Government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in 2003.

I have heard Dr Leventhall acknowledge this specific point that the “annoyance” symptoms are identical to “wind turbine syndrome” symptoms in a presentation he gave, via video link, to a workshop run by the National Health and Medical Research Council, in June 2011 in Canberra. The link to the presentation and powerpoint presentation are available on the National Health and Medical Research Council’s website.

So, to summarise, the key points so far:

1. There is agreement amongst the leading Acoustician used by the wind industry, and a growing number of medical practitioners, including senior government medical practitioners and leading clinicians that “Wind Turbine Syndrome” symptoms exist, and are caused by wind turbine acoustic emissions, and that they include sleep disturbance.

2. There is research from 30 years ago which established a direct causal relationship between acoustic emissions in the infrasound and low frequency noise range and “annoyance” symptoms including sleep disturbance.

3. Sleep disturbance, if prolonged, will lead to chronic sleep deprivation.

4. The clinical consequences of sleep deprivation are well known, are deleterious for both mental and physical health, and have been well documented in the research literature including the WHO.

5. Sleep deprivation is acknowledged as a method of torture, which the UN Convention against Torture prohibits, under any circumstances, even in war, and the order of a superior cannot be used to excuse culpability for allowing it to occur, or to continue. Criminal sanctions apply.

Recent acoustic survey research by Australian independent acoustician Steven Cooper, commissioned by wind developer Pacific Hydro, and conducted in collaboration with three households at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria, has provided further confirmation of the work by Dr Neil Kelley. The preliminary results of this work are publicly available on Pacific Hydro’s website, and are explained in a recent media article by Australian journalist Graham Lloyd. In the case of one research participant, there was 100% accuracy with her predictions about whether or not the turbines were operating, based on her perceptions inside the home.

This resident is partially deaf, and like others, has become progressively more sensitized to the emissions, over the five years the turbines have been operating.

What About The Wind Industry Assertions About The “Nocebo Effect” Causing the Symptoms?

This recent Cape Bridgewater evidence from research commissioned by Pacific Hydro, conducted by Steven Cooper, and that of the US Research in the 1980’s led by Dr Neil Kelley (well known for thirty years to the global wind industry), are in direct contrast to the unproven assertions by the wind industry and some of its vocal supporters that a “nocebo effect” is responsible for the symptoms being reported by the residents. A nocebo effect can be summarized as the assertion that publicity about the symptoms is itself causing them.

As Australia’s National Health and Research Council’s recent Systematic Literature Review acknowledged, there is no research evidence (collected from the residents reporting the symptoms), to support a “nocebo effect” being responsible for the resident’s symptoms.

I further note Dr Michael Nissenbaum’s salutary warning that such a diagnosis of “nocebo effect” in the absence of a proper investigation to determine the cause of the reported symptoms, would lead to a charge of professional misconduct by the health practitioner making that diagnosis in most western medical systems. As Dr Nissenbaum also points out, non medical practitioners (such as some in public health who are proposing these theories) do not have such legal obligations to their patients.

The leading proponent of the nocebo effect hypothesis is a Professor of Public Health at Sydney University with a background in sociology and epidemiology, and an expert advisor to the Climate and Health Alliance. Professor Simon Chapman is not a health practitioner, and has no clinical training or legal responsibilities including a duty of care to patients.

Professor Chapman’s active role in assisting a wind turbine product manufacturer (VESTAS) launch a global denial of any adverse health effects from its products, when VESTAS own engineer Erik Sloth had stated otherwise ten years earlier and had specifically mentioned the need for research and safer buffer distances, gives cause for concern.

Can The Frequencies be Prevented From Entering Homes?

There is no known way of preventing large industrial upwind bladed horizontal axis wind turbines from generating these frequencies, because they are generated every time the turbine blades pass the tower. In other words, they are an inherent design constraint of horizontal axis wind turbines.

Steven Cooper’s work together with work by another Australian Acoustician Les Huson has also suggested that in some locations, vibration caused by the tower resonating in the wind, without the blades turning, is also generating frequencies in the infrasound and low frequency noise range. It is possible that these frequencies may themselves also be causing symptoms and sensations for some people, as they are being reported by some particularly sensitized people when the turbine blades are not turning but the frequencies are still present.

There is no known way currently to prevent these very low frequencies entering building structures and impacting adversely on humans.

The only way to prevent the symptoms including chronic sleep disturbance and consequent severe cumulative sleep deprivation from long term exposure is to ensure the wind turbines are sited far enough away from homes and workplaces, so people do not become progressively sensitized to the sound and vibration energy, and adversely impacted by it, especially with respect to their sleep.

The Problem of Increasing Sensitisation

Dr Leventhall and Dr Neil Kelley have both acknowledged historically that increasing sensitization is known to be a problem with prolonged exposure to ILFN. More recently, ENT specialist Dr Amir Farboud and his colleagues from the United Kingdom have also raised this issue, and speculated as to the possible mechanisms.

In other words, people “do not get used to” or habituate to the low frequency sound energy – rather they become more adversely affected with prolonged exposure, unless they can remove themselves from the environment, OR the noise source is turned off.

This fact adds strength to the call for adequate buffer distances, in order to protect the health of the community.

The wind industry itself acknowledged the need for adequate buffer distances in 2004, in aVESTAS presentation to the Australian Wind Energy Association, (later the Clean Energy Council). VESTAS engineer Erik Sloth conceded that the noise models used at that time were not accurate, and that there was a need for adequate buffer distances, and a need for more research.

Industrial wind turbines have increased significantly in size since this presentation was given, ten years ago. As previously stated, Professor Henrik Moller’s research clearly showed that as the power generating capacity of the wind turbines increase, so too does the proportion of sound energy in the low frequency and infrasonic range, and therefore it can be predicted there will be more “annoyance” symptoms for the neighbours.

Concluding remarks

All Slovenian public officials, including politicians and public servants, who are involved in approving these projects, and responsible for health and noise pollution regulation subsequently, need to be mindful of the obligations of Slovenia from the UN Convention Against Torture.

They need to ensure they are aware of the very latest research in this area, as well as historical research from thirty years ago, which clearly demonstrated a direct causal link between wind turbine generated impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise and serious adverse health effects, known as “annoyance”.

If this particular project is approved, with such large powerful wind turbines so close to homes, it is inevitable that some Slovenian residents will be seriously harmed, from the consequences of cumulative sleep disturbance and long term sleep deprivation alone. This is regardless of what other symptoms individual residents may develop because of individual pre existing vulnerabilities or risk factors, identified by Dr Pierpont’s research, and confirmed or acknowledged by others since including Dr Leventhall (namely extremes of age, migraines, motion sickness and existing inner ear pathology).

I am happy to provide further specific information on request.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Laurie,
Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, Flinders University, 1995

CEO, Waubra Foundation

See following pages for the list of attachments to this letter, and for the appendix.

Attachments (downloadable at the following links)

Waubra Foundation: Recent Summary of Adverse Health Effects, 1st June, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-noise-adverse-health-effects-june-2014/

Waubra Foundation: Open letter to NHMRC re flaws in 2014 Systematic Literature Review, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waubra-foundation-open-letter-nhmrc-re-systematic-literature–  review/
Waubra Foundation: Submission to the Australian Federal Government RET Review, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/renewable-energy-target-review-waubra-foundation-submission–  2014/

Explicit Cautionary Notice http://waubrafoundation.org.au/about/explicit-cautionary-notice/

Explicit Warning Notice http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/explicit-warning-notice/

Letter to AMA and recent literature review, Emeritus Professor Alun Evans, Epidemiologist, Ireland, 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evans-prof-emeritus-alun-dismiss-any-adverse-effects-absurd-view-mounting-evidence/

Letter to AMA by Swedish Otoneurologist Dr Hakan Enbomhttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/enbom-h-infrasound-from-wind-turbines-can-trigger-migraine-and-related-symptoms/

Letter to AMA from Danish Occupational Health Physician, Dr Mauri Johansson, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/johansson-dr-mauri-m-d-highly-alarming-position-paper-from-medical-association-ama /

Letter to AMA from Professor Robert McMurtry, Canada, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/prof-robert-mcmurtry-former-dean-medicine-writes-ama/

Letter to AMA from NZ scientist Dr Bruce Rapley, New Zealand. 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/rapley-b-letter-ama-audibility-and-effects-infrasound/

Article by Professor Salt and Professor Lichtenhan in the Winter Edition of Acoustics Today, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/salt-n-lichtenhan-j-t-how-does-wind-turbine-noise-affect-people/

Physicians for Human Rights, “Leave No Marks” 2007 with particular reference to pp 22 – 26 relating to the use of sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment with noise as methods of torture http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/leave-no-marks-report-2007.html

 Appendix 1 — Evidence for 10km acoustic impact zone from 2 – 3 MW turbines

Waubra Foundation’s Explicit Cautionary Notice, June 2011 first mentioned problems out to 10kmhttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/about/explicit-cautionary-notice/

Acoustic evidence of wind turbine noise extending out to 10km

NASA research from 1985 by William Willshire http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/nasa-long-range-down-wind-propagation-low-frequency-sound/

Professor Colin Hansen’s ongoing work relating to wind turbine noise out to 10km from Waterloo wind turbines is not yet published, however his opinion based on acoustic evidence was included in his letter to the Victorian Department of Health, regarding false and misleading statements about infrasound in their technical document issued in 2013http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/prof-colin-hansen-writes-victorian-dept-health-recent-wind-arms-health-doc/

Steven Cooper’s acoustic data from Waterloo wind development (8km)http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/are-wind-farms-too-close-communities/

Mr Les Huson’s expert evidence from the Cherry Tree case, relating to Macarthur, where he found that there was no attenuation of infrasound between 1.8km and 6.4 km from the nearest wind turbines, indicating that wind turbine generated infrasound will be travelling for very large distances (much greater than 10km) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/huson-l-expert-evidence-at-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/

The various population noise impact surveys done in Australia are here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/library/community-noise-impact-surveys/
Waterloo, South Australia – VESTAS V 90 (37 along a ridge)

Mrs Mary Morris’s 2012 survey conducted at Waterloo in South Australia. This survey was the only Australian research included in the 2014 NHMRC Systematic Literature Reviewhttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waterloo-wind-farm-survey-2012/

This 2012 survey by Mrs Morris was based on one conducted in 2011 by Frank Wang, an Adelaide University Masters student, but the population surveyed in Wang’s survey was only out to 5km http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evaluation-wind-farm-noise-policies-south-australia/

Mrs Morris then compiled this information in 2013 showing what happened when the turbines at Waterloo were off for a week http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/morris-m-waterloo-case-series-preliminary-report/

Cullerin Range, NSW, 2 MW Repower turbines, sited on a ridge

Mrs Schneider’s 2012 and 2013 population noise impact surveys show the extent of the sleep deprivation. Nothing has been done about the severe night time noise related sleep disturbance and adverse health impact for these NSW residents by any NSW government department, despite many complaints which are documented in the 2013 survey.

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/cullerin-range-wind-farm-survey-august-2012/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schneider-p-cullerin-range-wind-farm-survey-follow-up-july-august-2013/

Macarthur Wind Development, 140 3 MW V 112 VESTAS wind turbines, sited on flat land in Victoria

This survey was conducted only 6 months since the wind development commenced operating. Residents report being far more adversely impacted now, because of the predictable and known adverse cumulative health effects of chronic sleep deprivation and chronic stress.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/macarthur-wind-energy-facility-preliminary-survey/

Evidence from Macarthur Wind Development Residents and acoustician Mr Les Huson was heard during the Cherry Tree Court case before the Victorian Civil Administrative Appeal Tribunal in 2013. Links to affidavits from Macarthur residents relating to that court case are below:

Mrs Maria Linke (lives 5km away, with her husband and four children – sleep adverse affected immediately) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/linke-m-witness-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/

Mrs Jan Hetherington, widow, glass artist, working from her home 3km away from nearest wind turbine http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hetherington-j-witness-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-tribunal/

Mr Andrew Gardner, Farmer, home is 1.8km away from nearest wind turbinehttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/gardner-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/ (1.8km away)

Download the letter including footnotes and attachments→

Windweasels “Stack the Deck” for “Community Consultations”

NSW Planning Department Helps Wind Farm Developers Rig Community “Consultations”

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

As community hostility to wind farm plans erupts across the Southern Tablelands of NSW, wind power outfits have taken to sacking and stacking committees to ensure the “process” of “community consultation” is little more than high farce.

Spanish outfit, Union Fenosa didn’t like the prospect of having Tony Abbott’s key business adviser, Maurice Newman challenge its wild and fictional claims, so it did what any reasonable corporate citizen would do: it booted him off the committee at Crookwell (see our post here). What’s that you say about “shaping the debate”?

Now, EPYC – an outfit planning to spear 100 turbines into the heart of picture post-card Tarago – has adopted the same tactics: stacking the consultation committee with “friendlies” and preventing the appointment of anyone with any insight into the scope of the fraud. Here’s the Goulburn Post with a tale that sounds more like something from the old Soviet Bloc.

Windfarm group demands action
Goulburn Post
Louise Thrower
4 August 2014

OPPONENTS of a proposed wind farm near Tarago are calling on the state government to ‘do its job.’ Community consultative committees (CCCs) are mandatory under guidelines but are nothing more than a ‘fig leaf,’ says a residents’ group.

The Residents Against Jupiter Wind Farm (RAJWF) has not ruled out political action to press their point.

Last month the group met with a senior advisor to Planning Minister and Goulburn MP Pru Goward and a departmental official in Sydney.

Member and Tarago district resident Dr Michael Crawford said the government had the power to appoint CCCs but was abrogating its responsibility and letting wind farm companies decide the make-up.

“It’s not an even handed process but they want it to look as though it is by putting it in the guidelines,” Dr Crawford said.

“The Department is not doing its job to appoint community representatives and the independent chairperson and it doesn’t pull anyone up on it. We tried to get some real change.”

Instead, Dr Crawford said the Department gave him the “soft shoe shuffle.”

His comments follow Union Fenosa’s sacking of Maurice Newman from the Crookwell Three wind farm CCC. The move sparked outrage from NSW Landscape Guardians president Humphrey Price-Jones who called on Ms Goward and the Department to intervene.

Under existing draft guidelines, the director general signs off on CCC membership. But even Union Fenosa conceded that given the draft document, the state was leaving membership up to wind farm companies.

Tarago residents at least argue this is unacceptable.

“Nowhere in the guidelines is there any latitude for the wind farm developer to have a say about choosing community reps,” resident Jane Keaney stated in a letter to the editor.

“In fact, even without the guidelines, anyone with the faintest sense of fair play would recognise that allowing a developer of any sort to select the people who are going to be allowed to talk to the developer on behalf of the community, is anathema. How has the department come to tolerate this corruption of process?” The group has already asked Palerang and Goulburn Mulwaree Councils to help with election of its CCC.

In June, EPYC, which wants to build the 100 turbine wind farm southeast of Tarago, called for community representation.

In response, the group nominated seven people including Mr Crawford, who it wanted on the committee, with a further eight as alternative delegates. The Reverend Tom Frame supervised the election.

Dr Crawford said to date there has been no response from the company or the Department of Planning.

At the most recent Goulburn Mulwaree meeting, planning director Chris Stewart was appointed as Council’s representative.

While companies like Union Fenosa have defended their ability to appoint a wide cross section of views to the committees, others like Mr Price-Jones have branded them “wind farm propaganda” machines.

Dr Crawford said while all the Tarago nominees oppose the wind farm, he would welcome a variety of voices on the committee.

But he’s adamant that the state government needs to regain control.

“The government wants to paper the State with wind farms but the process is nothing more than a fig leaf,” he said.

“… At the meeting in Sydney I said they have to understand our timetable. There’s an election next year and if our members feel political action is required, we won’t sit on our hands.

It’s about government policy and the way to deal with it is through the political process.”

Ms Goward told the Post she had asked her department for a report on CCCs.

“We made it clear that we expect wind farm companies to genuinely consult with communities and the history is that they haven’t,” she said.

“We need to be sure CCCs are genuine, that they genuinely represent the community and can give unfettered advice.”

The company had not responded to requests for comment by the time of going to press.
Goulburn Post

STT is pleased to hear that Pru Goward has taken an interest in what can fairly be described as government gone rotten. The NSW Planning Department – like state planning departments around Australia – is infected with a pernicious brand of groupthink driven by the childish fantasy that wind power is a solution to “climate change” (previously known as “global warming” – until it became evident that it stopped getting warmer 17 years ago – see our post here).

Wedded to a delusion, woe betide anyone – like Maurice Newman or Dr Michael Crawford – who has the temerity to question their mantra. Hence the need to load these so-called “community consultation committees” with gullible “yes-men”.

Wind power – delivered at crazy, random intervals – requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources and, therefore, cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here and here and here andhere and here and here).

Wind power is not a substitute for conventional generation sources and – if CO2 is the problem – presents as a solution to nothing (see our post here).

Remember that the ONLY justification for the $billions in subsidies directed at wind power (see our post here) is CO2 emissions abatement in the electricity sector. It’s the central and endlessly repeated lie that wind power outfits routinely trot out in their planning applications. You know, the guff about “powering 100,000 homes” and abating millions of tonnes of CO2 (see our post here).

Well, STT hears that the industry is about to be put to proof on its CO2 abatement claims.

The wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in Australia’s electricity sector. To the contrary of wind industry claims, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see thisEuropean paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

Strip away that myth and the mandatory RET – upon which the entire wind industry depends – can be seen for what it is: the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

pru-goward

Wind is free? Not on your life! The Price we Pay is OUTRAGOUS!

“The Wind is Free” and other

          pork pies (lies)

In May of this year the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural

Resources launched the “Green Paper on Energy Policy in Ireland”. Many

of my readers probably have not read the Paper, and who could blame you? Some

of you might have battled though parts of it, some of you might have read the

executive summary. I dragged myself through the whole thing and the recurring

thought that flashed through my mind was “hot air, lots of it”. This thought was quite

appropriate as the document, although pretending to be a comprehensive renewable

energy policy, was little more than an homage to the wind farm.

Rather than go through the entire sordid document, I thought that over two days I

would look at two recurring themes in this Green paper about wind energy and show

them for what they are: calculated, but nevertheless blatant, lies.

.
Lie #:1 Wind energy is a “free and plentiful” form of energy

Let’s just get one thing straight from the outset: Any form of renewable energy

is not cheap, andmost certainly not free.

Renewable energy is far more expensive than energy from coal, for example,

which is very cheap but also very dirty. Coal is so cheap at the moment that the

ESB are actually buying more and more (American) coal for MoneyPoint, which

seems a bit daft when the poor consumer is payingmore and more for the electricity

coming from the wind farms. Somebody’s getting rich but it ain’t you or me.  This is not

something we are doing to save money. It is something we are doing to save the planet;

and because the EU (ruled by the wind industry) has a gun to our head. So when the

Minister talks about how the wind is free and doesn’t Ireland have a lot of it, that is a

blatant lie. If we accept that we need renewable energy, and that we are going to pay

though our noses for that renewable energy, does it not make sense to try and produce

more of the cheaper forms of renewable energy?

Wind is the most expensive form of renewable energy. It is also unreliable,

because the wind does not blow all the time, and sometimes it blows too hard and so

the turbine is shut down (before it catches fire), but you pay for it 24/7. Two other far

more reliable forms of energy also happen to be a lot cheaper: biomass and solar.

The cost of energy has become a life or death issue as more and more Irish families

experience fuel poverty –

many citizens simply cannot afford to light or heat their homes. That’s a huge problem,

especially in winter.  Here’s the price comparison:

Wind costs €135 per ton of carbon saved. There are very few jobs in the Irish wind

industry as the turbines and accessories are all built in other countries, and so the

technicians and maintenance crews come from other countries.  The only Irish jobs

would be short-term installation jobs – low skills, poorly paid.

Domestic Solar PV costs €100 per ton of carbon saved, and it would create loads

of  jobs as people would need solar panels fitted on their houses. I know you are going to say

that the sun and Ireland don’t really belong in the same sentence, but these things run on

daylight as opposed to sun, and they really do make a difference.The conversion of

MoneyPoint power station to biomass would cost €60 per ton of carbon saved. That

means it costs less than half the cost of wind! It also means that the huge carbon footprint

of MoneyPoint would rapidly diminish as it stops burning that dirty American coal. Finally,

there would be loads of good long-term jobs as the biomass industry in this country becomes

profitable and so can flourish.

To recap: Any renewable energy is expensive and we must pay for it. There is no such

thing as free green energy. There are three proven sources of renewable energy: wind, sun,

and biomass. Both sun and biomass are cheaper than wind and will create far more Irish

jobs. Finally, the sun and biomass do not need huge pylons

and wind farms, so no loss of tourism, local industries, agriculture and food production, and no

adverse effects on our health.

Now, is that a no-brainer or what?