[Natural Resources Secretary belies Electrical Authority claims and confirms charges made by the Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco]

[Scroll down for English translation.]

Guayanilla — En expresiones vertidas a la prensa por el Secretario del DRNA Javier Vélez Arocho donde justifica el “acuerdo” entre Windmar y su agencia por el que le condonan las serias violaciones ambientales en Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro y Punta Verraco en Guayanilla, al proponente del proyecto Windmar, Víctor González Barahona a cambio de recibir unos terrenos en el lugar propuesto, desmiente al director ejecutivo de la AEE Jorge Rodríguez. Durante la inauguración del Gasoducto del Sur en Peñuelas y a preguntas de la prensa en el sentido del anuncio que ya habían firmado el “contrato” entre Windmar y la AEE, y que la oposición a este proyecto señala que Windmar no tiene los permisos para su construcción el Sr. Rodríguez reaccionó diciendo, “el Proyecto Windmar va, no le quepa duda a nadie, Windmar tiene todos los permisos habidos y por haber”. (30 de junio de 2008)

El pasado domingo 3 de agosto en un artículo publicado en rotativo de la Capital, Vélez Arocho indica y cito, “Vélez Arocho precisó que, entre los permisos que todavía le faltan a Windmar, se encuentran el del estudio hidrológico-hidráulico y el de movimiento de corteza terrestre, que podría tomar entre 90 y 120 días. El de mitigación que tampoco había sido obtenido, quedaría cubierto por el acuerdo con el DRNA, aclaró Vélez Arocho”. (3 de agosto de 2008)

Esta información la esta brindando el Sr. Rodríguez desde principios del 2008. Las expresiones del Sr. Jorge Rodríguez tratando de justificar la firma de dicho contrato brindando información fuera de contexto, tergiversada y manipulada no hacen honor a la verdad. La Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco ha venido denunciando que el Proyecto Windmar no tiene los permisos. Emplazamos al Sr. Jorge Rodríguez a que hable con la verdad, que no engañe al pueblo, ¿Por qué la insistencia y lo apresurado del anuncio de la firma del contrato?

Martes 12 de agosto de 2008

José F. Sáez Cintron
Portavoz Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
787 601-3175
jsaezcintron@yahoo.com
www.coalicionventanasverraco.org

Guayanilla — Comments obtained by the press by the Secretary of the DRNA [Department of Natural and Environmental Resources] Javier Vélez Arocho justifying the “agreement” between Windmar and his agency — in which he condoned the serious environmental violations in Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro, and Punta Verraco in Guayanilla — to the proponent — in exchange for receiving some land in the proposed site — of the Windmar project Victor Gonzalez Barahona bely statements by AEE [Electrical Energy Authority] executive director Jorge Rodriguez.

Earlier this year, during the inauguration of the Gasoducto del Sur in Peñuelas, Sr. Rodriguez responded to questions from the press about the announcement that the “contract” between Windmar and AEE was already signed and that the opposition to this project claims that Windmar does not have permits for construction, saying, “The Windmar project is moving ahead, nobody should doubt it, Windmar has all the permits it needs.” (June 30, 2008)

Last Sunday, however, August 3, an article printed in la Capital stated, “[DRNA Secretary] Vélez Arocho explained that among the permits still lacking at Windmar, there are hydrological/hydraulic and seismological studies, which could take between 90 and 120 days. The mitigation that has yet to be obtained would be covered by the agreement with the DRNA, clarified Vélez Arocho.” (August 3, 2008)

This information has been available to Sr. Rodriguez since early 2008. The statements of Sr. Jorge Rodriguez attempting to justify signing the contract took information out of context, misrepresented, and manipulated it without respect for the truth. The Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco has been criticizing the fact that the Windmar project does not have permits. We demand that Sr. Jorge Rodriguez state the truth, not mislead people: Why the insistence on and the hasty announcement of the signed contract?

Guayanilla, PR – El anunciado acuerdo entre la administración del Departamento de Recursos Naturales (DRNA) y la empresa Windmar, para indultar los daños y delitos que ésta cometió en Punta Verraco, Cerro Toro y Punta Ventanas tras adelantar parte del proyecto industrial, a cambio de la titularidad del 83% de estos, confirma la veracidad de las denuncias de ciudadanos de Guayanilla y ambientalistas de todo el país. La parte querellante no fue consultada para esos fines, por lo que sus derechos se ven afectados. Se pierde la confianza en la agencia pues su función operacional cede ante los intereses económicos de algunos poderosos.

Más aún, el acuerdo revela un esquema de fraude por altos funcionarios del DRNA para no referir el caso al Departamento de Justicia y evitar que sea procesado criminalmente. Estos funcionarios ocultaron información a la Junta de Calidad Ambiental (JCA), al United States Fish and Wildlife Service y a la Junta de Planificación para inducirlas a endosar permisos y una Declaración de Impacto Ambiental (DIA) deficiente e incompleta. En el “endoso” emitido el 1ro de febrero de 2007 por parte del subsecretario del DRNA a la JCA como parte del proceso de evaluación de la DIA, éste omite brindar información sobre los daños por acciones de desmonte previos a la aprobación de permisos para construir en el lugar. Esta omisión representa uno de los elementos claves del fraude.

Aunque el secretario del DRNA expresó en el 2006 su intención de referir el caso al Departamento de Justicia ante la gravedad de los delitos, hasta el momento el caso aún no ha sido referido. En aquel momento, tras intervenir y detener las obras, los vigilantes del DRNA describieron los daños como “una de las peores violaciones ambientales que se ha visto” y aseveraron que “este caso, si no es el más violento, está entre ellos”.

Según informes del DRNA, Windmar destruyó yacimientos arqueológicos, hábitat crítico esencial, miles de árboles de bosque seco, causó desmonte y remoción de la corteza terrestre en zona cársica, construyó vías y accesos sin autorización, rellenó un humedal y una quebrada intermitente, impactando especies varias amenazadas o en peligro de extinción. Los artículos 240 y 243 del Código Penal (Ley 149 de 2004), tipifican estos daños como estrago y contaminación ambiental agravada, delitos graves que conllevan reclusión. Al negociar penalidades por intercambios de titularidad, la administración del DRNA pretende otorgar impunidad al inversionista y favorecer sus intereses.

La administración del DRNA no se percata de que si efectúa el acuerdo en contra de las recomendaciones de su propio personal científico, será cómplice de los graves daños ambientales ocasionados y abrirá las puertas para que Windmar continúe destruyendo Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro y Punta Verraco, por lo que ambos podrían ser procesables criminalmente.

# # #

23 de julio de 2008

Contacto:
José Sáez Cintrón, Portavoz — Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
787 601-3175, jsaezcintron@yahoo.com
http://www.coalicionventanasverraco.org

Referencias:
http://coalicionventanasverraco.org/node/357
http://coalicionventanasverraco.org/node/420
http://coalicionventanasverraco.org/node/562
http://www.drna.gobierno.pr/oficinas/asesoras/legales/documentos/Presentacion%20Delitos%20Ambientales.ppt

CWW has compiled comprehensive evidence, volumes of empirical data and a paper trail of proof that public officials, developers and their agents and leaseholders have acted collectively to defraud NYS. With this AG announcement of an active investigation, claims and allegations of the industrial wind fraud and wrongdoing will finally be scrutinized by the highest level of law enforcement.

A special thanks goes to District Attorney Derek Champagne of Franklin County who profiles the very best traits of public service and enforcement of the rule of law. New York State has heard the outrage of thousands of exploited residents and scores of courageous community organizations. The diligent efforts, research, and documentation of scores of ordinary people finally bears fruit. Now this evidence will hopefully serve as the basis and proof of illegal conduct. All New Yorkers deserve judicial accountability for corruption and predatory developers.

The penalties of anti-trust transgressions are severe. As the legal system works its way through the inquiry, CWW is confident that the evidence will justify grand juries, indictments, trials and convictions.

Cohocton Wind Watch supports the advancement of rational and economically beneficial alternative energy technology. First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power projects are not able to fulfill those standards. Industrial Wind developers want the public to believe their venture generates meaningful “Green Electricity”. The use of NYSERDA public funds by wind developers places an obligation on them to prove that ample prevailing wind patterns exist at their project sites. Wind developers refuse to release the data from test towers. The implication is clear: Much of the New York State has insufficient wind for these industrial turbines to become a reliable electric generating source.

More important, both companies and their dozens of corporate variants engage in a scheme of deception and duplicity. Remember the lesson of Enron’s lies and criminal activity, which led to disastrous consequences for utility ratepayers. The Industrial Wind Swindle will be exposed in court.

Even though the facts tell a different story, people who stand to profit from industrial wind turbines continue to insist there is no problem with the noise and other troubles associated with living too close to a machine that is 40 stories tall with spinning blades that span wider than a Boeing 747. They tell us there is no proof that living 1000 feet from an industrial wind turbine is bad for you in any way. There is plenty of proof.

We’re reminded of the recent assertion of the tanning bed industry that there is no connection between tanning bed use and skin cancer despite the growing medical evidence that indeed there is big trouble. Even The U.S. government’s National Cancer institute states “Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.”

Yet even now, even with the knowledge that they are hurting people, the tanning bed salesmen and the owners of tanning salons continue to insist that tanning beds are safe.

We’re told living 1000 feet from industrial wind turbines is safe, too. Even with the known noise issues, known trouble with shadow flicker and other troubles, we’re still being told it’s is safe by the well-paid wind developers and by the land owners who will profit by hosting the turbines.

They say it’s safe and there are no problems, but people who are actually living in the shadows of these turbines right now have a different story for us. Last month two residents from the town of Byron, Fond Du Lac county drove all the way to Evansville to testify at the public hearing about what it’s been like to live amid the turbines that went on line in their area just this last March. They came because they said they didn’t want anyone else to have to live with what has happened to their families, their homes, and their communities.

Money talks and talks and talks.

Facts are facts.

At the last public hearing in the town of Union some of these facts were presented in the following testimony. We thank the un-paid citizen who did this research and took the time to bring it to the rest of us and make it part of the public record.

In spite of what you may have been told, the same noise concerns in reference to wind turbine siting exist throughout the world, even Germany and Denmark. If you’ve heard the saying- where there’s smoke there’s fire, you might have to believe that -if there are common noise issues concerning wind turbines worldwide, there must be some truth in what people are saying.

After hundreds of hours of reading hundreds of reports from scientists, audiologists, doctors and physicists I’ve come to a conclusion. The so called new technology we’ve been hearing about has not reduced the noise.

The second international “Wind Turbine Noise Conference 2007” was held in France in September. Quote: “The conference aims to bring together the latest information on noise and vibration from wind turbines to give an unbiased framework from which future developments can be accessed”. The conference is chaired by Geoff Levanthall. I’ll just touch on a few of last year’s accepted papers.

“Noise Pollution From Wind Turbines- Living with amplitude modulation, lower frequency emissions and sleep deprivation”, by Julian Davis and Jane Davis a registered nurse. This paper was written by a family in the UK who kept a diary about their life 3060 feet from the nearest wind turbine. The paper describes the nature of the noise with its pulsating character, the vibrations felt by the body and it’s intrusiveness, as well as the impact of the noise on them physically and psychologically. Most serious is the sleep deprivation and the ensuing adverse effects, and the inability to pursue or sustain normal family and social functions. Eventually after 7 months of sleeping at friends houses, they abandoned their home.

Another accepted paper, “Wind Farm Noise Regulations in the Eastern United States”, by Soysal and Soysal Department of Physics and Engineering, Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD. Conclusions; Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and it creates a different type of nuisance compared to usual urban, industrial or commercial noise. The interaction of the blades with air turbulences around the towers creates low frequency and infrasound components which modulate the broadband noise which create fluctuations of sound level. The low frequency fluctuations of the noise is described as “swishing” or “whooshing” sound, creating an additional disturbance due to the periodic and rhythmic characteristic”.

“Auralization and Assessments of Annoyance from Wind Turbines”, by Soren Vase Legarth, DELTA, Denmark. “The development of wind turbines moves toward maximizing the produced power by increasing size. In general- larger often means louder- and that gives rise to concern for people living near places for new wind turbine projects. Therefore focus also is kept on minimizing the emitted sound to make wind turbines more acceptable for the people living near them. Two primary attributes related to annoyance in wind turbine sounds are tonal components and the swishing sound from the rotating blades. The annoyance should be the key parameter when deciding where to build any new wind turbine park. Earlier studies have addressed this issue and identified perceptive attributes of the wind turbine sound that contributes to the overall annoyance.

“Uncloaking the Nature of Wind Turbines Using the Science of Meteorology”, William K.G. Palmer, Canada. Conclusions: To prevent noise excesses from wind turbines being a constant irritant, calculation of the sound power levels for a wind turbine must consider the wind shear changes from day to night and from season from season. Wind turbine proponents must recognize that evidence does not support the widely made, but inaccurate claim that as turbine output goes up ambient noise caused by ground level winds prevents annoyance.

People’s testimonies in the US and all over the world in many cases living 1/2 mile or more from a wind turbine have reported that their family’s lives have been turned upside down. These people were surprised by the reality of not just the loudness by sound decibel levels but also the content of the noise from a wind turbine. They were led to believe the same thing you’ve been led to believe that, quote: “thanks to improvements in technology, noise is no longer the issue it was”. While a dBA limit is part of the sound limit for a setback from a residence, it’s only a guideline and necessary for regulatory purposes. A one size fits all average noise limit with a built in allowance for masking has everything to do with a certification test and quantity siting and nothing to do with Public Health and Safety. Recent studies have proven that the “tallness” of the modern wind turbines presents a new set of issues. Trust the cumulative reports of the French Academy of Medicine, the UK Noise Association, Dr. Amanda Harry, Frey and Hadden, G.P. van den Berg, Pedersen and Waye, Dr. Soysal, Rick James and George Kamperman who have actual data from operating windfarms, including the Fond du Lac project and who have studied the effects on people living with wind turbines. Please respect their findings and support setbacks of at least 1/2 mile or more [e.g., 2 km, as recommended by Dr. Nina Pierpont in her upcoming study Wind Turbine Syndrome -- Ed.].

Event Description: Oral Arguments: Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines & F. Steven Lathrop v. EFSEC, et al. (Whether the court had jurisdiction to review a petition certified from Thurston Co. Superior Ct. regarding application for energy facility site cert.)

Runtime: 64 min

To whet your appetite and perhaps inspire wind-power proponents to respond, I will give you a glimpse from the most complete response (answering all the reader-inspired questions) we have received to date.

The response is from Eric Rosenbloom, a science editor and writer living in Vermont. Rosenbloom has been studying large-scale wind energy for four years and since 2006 has been president of National Wind Watch. He also maintains his own Web site, featuring the essay “A Problem With Wind Power,” at www.aweo.org.

Here are a few of the 13 questions with Rosenbloom’s responses:

• What are the criteria used to distinguish between small, medium and large-scale windfarms?

No windfarm is small, because by definition it is made up of 350 to 500-foot high machines, whether three or 300 of them.

Individual turbines are classed by their use as well as by size: to supply a single home or farm (small), a cluster of homes (medium), or the grid (large).

• Is there an average or “ball park” figure when it comes to measuring how much land is required for a windfarm?

Most industry sources, including the AWEA [American Wind Energy Association] assume 60 acres per installed, or rated, megawatt.

• Is there a problem to be addressed regarding what many people describe as the intermittent (only works when the wind blows) nature of wind power?

Yes. That is the primary problem. (The second technical problem is the huge machinery and space required to extract meaningful amounts of the kinetic energy from wind.)

• Is this problem being addressed? How?

In Denmark, most of the wind production is exported to Sweden, where it pumps hydro. Even without pumped hydro capability, hydro generation can be easily switched on and off in response to fluctuating wind production. Newer natural gas plants (as well as diesel plants) can also switch on and off quickly, but at a cost of increased fuel consumption and extra wear and tear. Other thermal plants are more likely to simply be switched to spinning standby, continuing to burn fuel but not generating electricity, because it takes too long to heat them back up again.

Any storage system introduces another layer of inefficiency, further reducing the amount of electricity derived from the wind as well as adding to wind’s own environmental footprint.

• What impact will wind power have on greenhouse emissions? On other forms of pollution?

None. None.

• Some local governments have been prompted to come up with ordinances regarding the siting of wind turbines. Are these types of ordinances needed? If so, what should their primary focus be?

They are needed to protect communities from heedless development driven by state and federal support. As in Wisconsin, local ordinances should primarily address health and safety issues to ensure adequate setbacks and noise limits. Furthermore, as is the purpose of zoning, they should protect the rural character and wild lands of a community, including expectations of quiet and unimpeded views.

The original 13 questions can be found at www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/04_08/04_30_08/out_naturalist.html

– The Naturalist’s Corner, By Don Hendershot

June 11, 2008

smokymountainnews.com

Click here to listen to or download the MP3 file (18 MB).

Click here for videos of the testimony. Or watch them in the viewer below. There a total of 18, ranging in length from 2 to 5 minutes. Click here for partial transcripts by Rock County Tax-Payers for a Better Renewable Energy Plan.

www.igsz.eu/WEK/WK1.htm

Hiermit teilen wir Ihnen mit, dass eine Volksinitiative gegen die Massen-Bebauung mit Windrädern im Bundesland Brandenburg stattfindet.

Es beteiligen sich zur Zeit 16 Vereine und Initiativen im Land Brandenburg an dieser Volksinitiative.

Wir fordern:

- 1.500 m Mindest-Abstand zur Wohnbebauung
- Keine Anlagen in Naturschutzgebiete
- 10.000 m Abstand der Wind-Gebiete untereinander

20.000 Unterschriften sind notwendig. Dann muss sich der Landtag Brandenburg damit beschäftigen.

Wenn keine Regelung zum Schutz der Bevölkerung durch den Landtag beschlossen wird:

80.000 Unterschriften für einen Gesetzestext, der dann für die Landes- Regierung verbindlich ist.

Die Verleumdung gegen die Volksinitiatve durch die Windlobby und der windkraftfreundlichen Medien ist beträchtlich.

Informationen zur Schall- und Infraschall-Problematik können Sie bei George Kamperman/Wisconsin erhalten.

Wir möchten Sie bitten, diese Information und unsere Internet- Adresse zu veröffentlichen.

mit freundl. Grüßen

Wolfgang Neumann
Brandenburger Str. 49
14778 Golzow
[BRD]
Tel. 033835/41450
Fax. 033835/41458
Funk 0170/7448540
Email WNeumannBueroGMM@aol.com

Links:
www.volksinitiativewindrad.de
www.gegenwind-nauener-platte.de
www.pro-spreewald.de
www.rettet-die-uckermark.de
www.gegenwind-ruethnick.de
www.pro-glindow.de
www.gallun-online.de
www.bi-dretzen.de
www.windmuellers-land.de
www.gegenwind-sh.de
www.gegenwind-neuendorf.de
wilfriedheck.tripod.com.
www.kraemer-dieter.de
www.windkraftgegner.de
www.windradunfälle.de
www.gaertner-online.de
www.ninapierpont.com

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We hereby announce a popular initiative against the massive building of wind turbines in the state of Brandenburg.

There are currently 16 organizations and initiatives in the state of Brandenburg involved in this popular initiative.

We demand:

– 1,500 meters [4,921 feet] minimum distance to residential buildings
– No installations in conservation areas
– 10,000 m [6.2 miles] distance between wind facilities

20,000 signatures are needed. Then the state of Brandenburg must act on it.

If the state parliament does not enact these rules to protect the population, then 80,000 signatures on a legal petition will bind require them.

Slander by the wind lobby and industry-friendly media against this popular initiatve is considerable.

Information about the noise and infrasound problem can be obtained from George Kamperman, Wisconsin [USA].