Resource Library Category: Maine (32 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Letter to Riga Township Planning Commission
On request of interested parties in Riga Township, I am writing to provide important information about siting wind turbines to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. I am a Member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering with over thirty years of experience in acoustics including many years working in industrial power generation noise control. I have conducted independent studies of wind turbine noise including actual field measurements of operating wind turbines in the State of Maine over the last year, where significant community reaction has occurred near wind turbine facilities equipped with smaller wind turbines than proposed for the Riga Township.
I understand that there have been suggestions of using a wind turbine noise limit of 45 dBA at a distance of 1300 feet or so in Riga Township. Experience in New England has proven that these noise levels at these distances for wind turbines sited in rural areas are associated with significant adverse community reactions, widespread complaints, appeals to stop the noise, and legal action. When siting large industrial wind turbines in quiet rural areas, lower maximum noise levels and farther distances are recommended to prevent adverse community reaction and protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
This letter presents a discussion of community reactions to noise, guidelines for appropriate maximum permissible noise limits in rural areas, measured noise levels versus distance and observed community responses. I appreciate your consideration of this letter and believe you will find this information useful in your determinations of how to protect the health and welfare of Riga Township.
Download original document: “Letter to Riga Township Planning Commission”
Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report
Source: Nissenbaum, Michael; Aramini, Jeff; and Hanning, Chris
INTRODUCTION
Guidelines and regulations for the siting of industrial wind turbines (IWT) close to human habitation are generally predicated on the need to protect the sleep of the residents. The recommended setback distances and “safe” external noise levels make the assumptions that IWT noise can be regarded as similar to other forms of environmental noise (traffic, rail and aircraft) and is masked by ambient noise. There has been no in dependent verification that these assumptions are justified and that the safeguards are sufficient to protect sleep.
Anecdotal complaints of annoyance and health effects from IWT noise have grown in number in recent years, not least because turbine size has increased and they have been placed closer to population centers. The predominant symptom of health complaints is sleep disturbance (Frey & Hadden 2007; Pierpont 2009; van den Berg et al. 2008; WindVOICe 2010). The consequences of sleep disturbance and the contribution of environmental noise are well documented (WHO 2009).
Complaints of adverse health effects were made shortly after IWT installations at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine, USA, began operating. A preliminary survey at Mars Hill, comparing those living within 1,400 m with a control group living 3,000-6,000 m away showed that sleep disturbance was the main health effect (Nissenbaum 2011, submitted for publication). A further study was therefore carried out at both Mars Hill and Vinalhaven using validated questionnaires and comparing those living within 1.5 km of the turbines with a control group living 3,500-6,000 m away.
METHODS
General study design
A questionnaire was offered to all residents meeting inclusion criteria living within 1.5 km of an IWT and to a random sample of residents meeting inclusion criteria living 3 to 7 km from an IWT between March and July of 2010. The protocol was reviewed and approved by IRB Services, Aurora, Ontario, Canada.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire comprised validated instruments relating to mental and physical health (SF-36v2) (QualityMetric Inc.), sleep disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (Buysse et al. 1989) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) (Johns 1991), in addition to headache functional inquiry questions and a series of attitudinal questions relating specifically to changes with exposure to IWT noise. Only the results from the validated instruments are presented here.
Participant selection
The Mars Hill site is a linear arrangement of 28 General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines, sited on a ridgeline. The Vinalhaven site is a cluster of three similar turbines, sited on a flat tree covered island. All residents living within 1.5 km of an IWT at each site were identified via tax maps, and approached either door to door or via telephone and asked to participate in the study. Homes were visited up to three times or until contact was made. Those below the age of 18 or with a diagnosed cognitive disorder were excluded. A random sample of households in a similar socioeconomic area 3 to 7 km away from IWTs at each site was chosen to participate in the study as a control group. Households were approached door-to-door until a similar number of participants were enrolled.
Data handling and validation
Questionnaire results were coded and entered into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 2007). The distance from each participant’s residence to the nearest IWT was measured using satellite maps. SF36-V2 responses were processed using QualityMetric Health OutcomesTM Scoring Software 3.0 to generate Mental (MCS) and Physical (PCS) Component Scores. Missing values were verified and outliers were individually assessed. Data quality of the SF36-V2 responses was determined using QualityMetric Health OutcomesTM Scoring Software 3.0. All SF36-V2 data quality indicators (completeness, response range, consistency, estimable scale scores, internal consistency, discriminant validity, and reliable scales) exceeded parameter norms.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed using SAS 9.22. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effect of the main independent variable of interest (distance to nearest IWT) on the various outcome measures.
Significance of binomial outcomes was assessed using either the GENMOD procedure with binomial distribution and logit link; or when cell frequencies were small (<5), Fisher’s Exact Test. When assessing significance between variables with a simple score as the outcome (eg. 1-5), the exact Wilcoxson Score (Rank Sums) test was employed using the NPAR1WAY procedure. Significance of continuous outcome variables was assessed using the GENMOD procedure with normal distribution. When using the GENMOD procedure, age, gender and site were forced into the model as fixed effects. The potential effect of household clustering on statistical significance was accommodated by using the REPEATED statement.
Independent variables assessed included the following: Site (Mars Hill, Vinalhaven); Distance to IWT (both as a categorical and continuous variable); Age (continuous variable); Gender (categorical variable). Significance of Site as an effect modifier was assessed by fitting an interaction term (Site*distance).
Dependent variables assessed include the following: Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), SF36-v2 Mental Component Score (MCS), SF36-v2 Physical Component Score (PCS).
For the purpose of interpreting statistical significance, the following were used: P-value < 0.05 = Significant; P-value 0.1 – 0.05 = Moderately significant; P-value > 0.1 = Not significant
Effect of Site on outcome parameters
The effect of Site was assessed by fitting Site (Mars Hill vs Vinalhaven) as a fixed effect, and as an interaction term with the main independent variable of interest (distance). Among all outcomes investigated, Site, and Site*Distance were not significant.
RESULTS
Study participants
33 and 32 adults were identified as living within 1,500 m of the nearest IWT at the Mars Hill (mean. 805 m, range 390-1,400) and Vinalhaven sites (mean 771 m range 375-1,000) respectively. 23 and 15 adults at the Mars Hill and Vinalhaven sites respectively completed questionnaires. Recruitment of control group participants continued to approximately the same number as study group participants, 25 and 16 for Mars Hill and Vinalhaven respectively.
There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to household size, age, or gender (Table 1).
Table 1
Sleep quality and health
The study group had worse sleep as evidenced by significantly higher mean PSQI and ESS scores and a greater number with PSQI >5 (Table 2). More subjects in the study group had ESS scores >10 but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.1313).
The study group had worse mental health as evidenced by significantly higher mean mental component score of the SF36. There was no difference in the physical component scores.
Table 2
ESS, PSQI and SF36 scores were modeled against distance from the nearest IWT using the equation: Score = ln(distance) + gender + age + site [controlled for household clustering] and are shown in Figures 1-3. In all cases, there was a clear and significant relationship with the effect diminishing with increasing distance from the IWT.
Figure 1: Modeled Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) vs Distance (mean and 95 % confidence limits), p-value=0.0198
Figure 2: Modeled Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) vs Distance (mean and 95 % confidence limits), p-value=0.0331
Figure 3: Modeled SF36 Mental Component Score (MCS) vs Distance (mean and 95 % confidence limits), p-value=0.0014
DISCUSSION
This study, which is the first controlled study of the effects of IWT noise on sleep and health, shows that those living within 1.4 km of IWT have suffered sleep disruption which is sufficiently severe as to affect their daytime functioning and mental health. Both the ESS and PSQI are averaged measures, i.e. they ask the subject to assess their daytime sleepiness and sleep quality respectively, over a period of several weeks leading up to the present. For the ESS to increase, sleep must have been shortened or fragmented to a sufficient degree on sufficient nights for normal compensatory mechanisms to have been overcome. The effects of sleep loss and daytime sleepiness on cognitive function, accident rate and mental health are well established (WHO 2009) and it must be concluded that at least some of the residents living near the Vinalhaven and Mars Hill IWT installations have suffered serious harm to their sleep and health.
The significant relationship between the symptoms and distance from the IWTs, the subjects’ report that their symptoms followed the start of IWT operations, the congruence of the symptoms reported here with previous research and reports and the clear mechanism is strong evidence that IWT noise is the cause of the observed effects.
IWT noise has an impulsive character and is several times more annoying than other sources of noise for the same sound pressure level (Pedersen & Persson Waye 2004). It can prevent the onset of sleep and the return to sleep after a spontaneous or induced awakening. Road, rail and aircraft noise causes arousals, brief lightening of sleep which are not recalled. While not proven, it is highly likely that IWT noise will cause arousals which may prove to be the major mechanism for sleep disruption. It is possible that the low frequency and infrasound components of IWT noise might contribute to the sleep disruption and health effects by other mechanisms but this remains to be determined and further research is needed.
Attitudes to IWT and visual impact have been shown to be factors in annoyance to IWT noise (Pedersen et al. 2009) but have not been demonstrated for sleep disturbance. Most respondents in the present study welcomed the IWT installations as offering economic benefits. The visual impact of IWT decreases with distance, as does the noise impact making separation of these factors impossible.
We conclude that IWT noise at these two sites disrupts the sleep and adversely affects the health of those living nearby. The current ordinances determining setback are inadequate to protect the residents and setbacks of less than 1.5 km must be regarded as unsafe. Further research is needed to determine a safe setback distance and to investigate the mechanisms of causation.
- Michael Nissenbaum MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, mnissenbaum/att.net
- Jeff Aramini PhD, Intelligent Health Solutions Inc., Fergus, Ontario, Canada, jeff.aramini/gmail.com
- Chris Hanning MD, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK, chrisdhanning/tiscali.co.uk
10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN) 2011, London, UK
REFERENCES
Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Monk TH et al. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI): A new instrument for psychiatric research and practice. Psychiatry Res 28: 193-213.
Frey BJ, Hadden PJ (2007). Noise radiation from wind turbines installed near homes: effects on health. www.windnoisehealthhumanrights.com
Johns MW (1991). A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 14: 540–545. Nissenbaum M. (2011). Health effects of industrial wind turbines – a preliminary study. Submitted for publication.
Pedersen E, Persson Waye K (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 116: 3460–3470.
Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R et al. (2009). Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am 126: 634-643.
Pierpont N (2009). Wind turbine syndrome. A report on a natural experiment. Santa Fe, NM: K-selected books.
van den Berg GP, Pedersen E, Bouma J et al. (2008). Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20. Specific Support Action Project no. 044628. Final report. http://docs.wind-watch.org/wfp-final-1.pdf
WHO (2009). Night noise guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
WindVOICe (Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities). 2010. A self-reporting survey: adverse health effects with industrial wind turbine complexes and the need for vigilance. July 2010. http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Ontario%20Health%20Survey%20Abstract%20Results%20and%20Responses.pdf
False Promise of Mountaintop Industrial Wind
Source: Carter, Jonathan
Mountaintop Industrial Wind Power Is Not Green
I have been advocating for wind power for decades. I never thought I would see the day when I would be opposing wind power development. However, the current frantic rush to install industrial wind on every viable mountaintop is both shortsighted and ecologically damaging. All one has to do is look at the impact of the Kibby TransCanada industrial wind operation in the remote Boundary Mountains of western Maine. This is nothing more than industrial wind mountaintop removal. It is being driven by dollars and cents, not ecological sense. To call mountaintop wind operations “farms” is nothing more than PR. Farms suggest a positive relationship with the land. The industrial wind operations are nothing less than massive electrical generating facilities that destroy the quality of place and pose serious health problems for both humans and wildlife.
When John Baldacci announced the formation of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power, I thought, “good idea John”. Never in my wildest dreams did I think this task force would submitted to the legislature an Expedited Wind Permitting Law which fast tracks industrial wind development in an area covering two thirds of the state. This bill was passed by the legislature in fifteen days with little to no public involvement or debate. The fact is that the Expedited Wind Law was to a large extent written by the wind developers whose primary interest is green money not green energy.
This law gives the go ahead for potentially 360 miles of industrial wind turbines on Maine mountaintops. This would result in the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads. It would require the clearcutting of over 50,000 acres of carbon sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads need to support 400 to 500 foot turbines.
In addition to the destruction of habitat, these massive wind machines, which individually moving at over 180 miles an hour sweep an acre of space, broadcast high volume sounds which have literally driven people in Maine from their homes. It is not only audible sounds which cause a problem to people and wildlife, but probably more damaging are low frequency sound waves that are emitted from these industrial power plants. It is well documented that the low frequency sounds and shadow flicker, which can travel miles from the turbines, pose serious health risks. The neurological health problems have been labeled as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). People experiencing WTS can exhibit elevated heart rates, memory problems, visual blurring, nausea, sleep disturbance, and chronic headaches.
The proposal by Independence Wind for the Highland Mountains is a perfect example of how the new Expedited Wind Law will open the doors for wind developers to destroy the essence of a rural community by turning the mountains of Maine into something more analogous to Portland Jetport. The Highland Mts are right next to the Bigelow Preserve. This development would undermine the wildness character of hundreds of miles of the Appalachian Trail. The whole Bigelow Range would be confronted with, upfront in your face, a string of 49 turbines with their noise, shadow flicker, and flashing red lights. The Kibby industrial wind facility to the north and west of the Highland Mts. has already reduced the value of remote real estate and destroyed the tranquility of many camp owners who now view “Portland Jetport ever night”. If you like to hike, hunt, or fish, do you honestly think your experience is going to be enhanced by the high decibel sounds, the shadow flicker, and flashing red lights of turbines? North Carolina has put a moratorium on mountaintop turbines because they recognized that turbines would degrade the mountains, which define their state and are a major economic driver in the form of tourism and outdoor recreation. What has Maine done? It has passed an Expedited Law that will fast track industrial wind mountaintop removal.
In defiance of the Migratory Bird Protection Act, turbines routinely kill birds and bats The Highland Mts area is home to many Bald Eagles, the rare Bicknell Thrush, and the threatened Canada Lynx. While we certainly know that turbines kill bats and birds and that a string of turbines is going to destroy habitat, little research has been done on the impacts of low frequency sound on wildlife. We know it causes WTS in humans, but what does it do to wildlife – does it impact reproduction, fertility rates, feeding behavior etc? It would be prudent to find the answers before rather than regret the outcome later.
Some environmentalists have been drawn into believing that if you are not for covering the mountains of Maine with wind turbines, then you are acting against the unfolding disaster of climate change. This is a false dichotomy. Global warming is a catastrophic crisis, but the solution is not to destroy the pristine character of the Maine Mountains. The industrial wind mountaintop frenzy sweeping across Maine is not tied to shutting down an oil or coal power plant. It is simply feeding our gluttonous consumption of more and more energy. It makes no sense to destroy our mountaintops to feed this appetite.
There are better alternatives – the first being CONSERVATION. It is no secret that if the federal subsidies (as much as 60% of cost) being poured into industrial wind were invested instead into efficiency and conservation projects, the reductions in carbon emissions would dwarf those potentially created by mountaintop industrial wind. It would also create thousands of more jobs for local communities. If these funds were used for forest restoration the reductions per dollar expended would be even greater.
Maine, a state with one of the highest renewable energy portfolios, already produces more than enough energy. In fact, we export energy. It has been estimated that Maine and the rest of New England will have excess capacity for the next fifteen to twenty years. It is clear that the right choice for Maine is offshore. This is where the best winds are, where turbines can be placed out of sight, and, in general, where the least amount of environmental damage will occur. Norway is already pursuing offshore with great success. In addition, residential and community based wind projects hold a lot of promise. At a local or community scale turbines are much smaller, emit a lot less sound, have reduced shadow flicker, do not require flashing red lights, are less damaging to migratory birds, and, if placed properly, will not destroy fragile habitat.
It is time to take a step back from industrial wind power mountaintop removal and to develop an energy policy that is not simply driven by the huge profits to be made from federal subsidies. If we allow this mountaintop wind gold rush to continue, after the rush has played out Mainers will be left with the tailings of a despoiled landscape and the magic of the mountains gone forever.
The False Promise of Mountaintop Industrial Wind
The developers of mountaintop industrial wind are touting many promised benefits – from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased dependence on fossil fuels, to a huge economic renaissance. These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance. In recent months as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers which unfortunately have been accepted without question by many in the media. As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly renewable energy including wind. However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops with as many as 1800 four hundred foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification “ is so disingenuous. The truth is that only about 1% of our electricity is generated by oil. In Maine almost all of our oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2700 MW of mountaintop wind will not reduce our oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters like the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter intuitive, this also is a false promise. There has never been a coal or oil fired power plant closed down due to wind generation. Indeed, in Europe and China where wind power has become a significant source of electric energy, greenhouse gases have actually increased significantly. It is simply not true that mountaintop wind will reduce greenhouse gases. Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain back up power or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon emitting power plants. In China this has meant a new coal fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduced power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn on and off oil and coal power plants in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases. This situation is analogous to driving in stop and go traffic – fuel consumption increases and greater amounts of pollution are emitted. If the technology was available to store wind energy, the problem of intermittency could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is decades away.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon sequestering forests due to massive clearcutting on ridgelines and the construction of roads and power lines. If the 1800 turbines were constructed as much as 50,000 acres of carbon sequestering forest would have to be clearcut. In addition, the turbines require electricity to run which does not come from the turbines, but must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines. Each turbine also requires as much as 200 gallons of oil lubricant which must be changed on a regular basis. One study done in Colorado actually determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10%.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way in a cost- benefit analysis mountaintop industrial wind comes out as a good economic option. The cost of wind generation is 2-3 times more expensive than conventional power – and this does not include the added cost of CMP’s 1.4 billion dollar “ bogus upgrade” which is necessary to hook up the industrial wind. Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued. It is ironic that our tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind which will ultimately raise our electric rates. Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local/state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete about one permanent job for each 12 turbine is created – so 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs! While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed. What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40% within a two mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants – noise and visual pollution! State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but this will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars .This is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. They realized that mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by their pristine mountains.
In the end, the only folks who will benefit are the developers who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam concocted by a few mountain slayers and profiteers.
Anybody who takes the time to seriously study mountaintop wind will come to understand its exorbitant cost and its negative environmental impact. A thorough and objective review of current literature could only lead one to the conclusion that mountaintop industrial wind is a disaster and should be abandoned. It would be far better to target the investment of our 5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop toward conservation through efficiency and weatherization. This approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases, and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities – things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
Jonathan Carter, Director, Forest Ecology Network
fen@207me.com
www.forestecologynetwork.org
Rollins Wind Project – May 1, 2011
Source: Blake, Brad
