Sign up for daily updates

Help keep this education resource going strong!

More information

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Issues/Locations

View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line
RSS

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Resource Documents: Noise (470 items)

RSSNoise

Also see NWW press release on noise

Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are 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.


Date added:  April 19, 2014
Massachusetts, NoisePrint storyE-mail story

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy

Author:  Ambrose, Stephen

Part 1

Acousticians have known for decades how to predict the community reaction to a new noise source. Wind turbine consultants have chosen not to predict the community reaction as they have previously done for other community noise sources. If they had, there would be far fewer wind turbine sites with neighbors complaining loudly about excessive noise and adverse health impacts.

In 1974, the USEPA published a methodology that can predict the community reaction to a new noise. A simple chart can be used that shows the community reactions (y-axis) versus noise level (x-axis). This chart was developed from 55 community noise case studies (black squares). The baseline noise levels include adjustments for the existing ambient, prior noise experience, and sound character. The predicted wind turbine noise level is plotted on the ‘x-axis’ and the predicted community reaction is determined by the highest reaction, indicated by the black squares. Here are some examples: 32 dBA no reaction and sporadic complaints, 37 dBA widespread complaints, 45 dBA strong appeals to stop noise and 54 dBA vigorous community action, the highest.

Predicted-Community-Reaction

The International Standards Organization (ISO) determined that 25 dBA represents a rural nighttime environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that noise below 30 dBA had no observed effect level (NOEL) and 40 dBA represented the lowest observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for noise sources that excluded wind turbines. Wind turbines produce strong low frequency energy that may reduce the WHO cautionary levels by 5 dB, thereby showing closer agreement with the 33 dBA recommendations.

Pederson & Waye (2004) research found that when wind turbine noise levels reached 35 dBA, 6% of the population was highly annoyed, and this rapidly increased to 25% at 40 dBA. Independent researchers recommend that noise levels should not exceed 33 dBA, which is near the upper limit for sporadic complaints, or a maximum increase of 5 dB, whichever is more stringent.

Part 2

People react in a predictable manner to changes in sound level and frequency content caused by a new noise source. Wind turbines are the cause for numerous complaints about excessive noise and adverse health effects. These complaints will continue to be a public health hazard as long as modern acoustic instruments are used without a person listening to identify the sound sources or by manipulating computer prediction models to provide acceptable results. Wind turbine predictions are based on meeting a specific noise level. Regulatory boards and agencies are not assessing noise levels consistent with how people hear.

The wind turbines at Falmouth Massachusetts clearly show why there are so many neighbors complaining. An effective way to evaluate a sound source is by comparing the ON operation to OFF. The graph below shows wind turbine ON fluctuates from 35 to 46 dBA and when OFF decreases to 27 dBA.

Community-reaction-wind-turbine-noise

Using the USEPA (1974) community noise assessment methodology adjusted for a quiet area, the predicted public reaction for wind turbine noise indicates widespread complaints and threats of legal action, as shown by the shaded box. Massachusetts DEP noise regulation limits the wind turbine ON maximum levels to no more than 10 dB above the ambient background (L90, exceeded 90% of the time) when OFF. The sound level increase is 19 dB for wind turbine operation.

Part 3

Sleep interruption and disturbance indicates the real potential for causing significant public harm from nearby wind turbines. A peer-reviewed research paper has investigated residents living near GE 1.5 MW wind turbines. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, Jeffrey Aramini and Christopher Hanning published “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health” in the peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal Noise & Health, September-October 2012 [LINK].

The study focused on sleep quality as defined by the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), daytime sleepiness by Epworth Sleepiness Score (ESS), and general health according to SF36 ver2; Mental Component Score (MSC) and Physical Component Score (PSC). Residents received questionnaires based on participant-inclusion criteria for individuals living within 1.5-km (4921-ft) of the nearest 1.5 MW wind turbine(s). Baseline random samples were collected from residents living 3 to 7 km (9840 to 22,965- ft) away. The study conclusion has a strong recommendation for a separation distance of 1.4-km (4593- ft) away from a 1.5 MW wind turbine. This would be especially true for wind turbines located in quiet environments.

An aerial photo shows the locations of Falmouth’s Wind 1, 2 and NOTUS turbines as red pins. The above sleep study-recommended separation distance of nearly 4600 ft is shown as red circles. The Falmouth Board of Health’s health study (June 11, 2012) confirms the sleep study’s conclusion for complaints inside the red circles with yellow pins inside.

Falmouth-4600-ft

Part 4

Wind turbine developers promote wind energy for financial benefit for communities when they are built on municipally-owned properties as in Falmouth, Kingston, Scituate and Fairhaven. In return, towns relax their bylaw restrictions to permit loud industrial-type noise sources on municipal land often near quiet residential areas. Town planners approve wind turbine development without performing proper reviews as required in the bylaws. Towns understand they can build a municipal project in any land use zone. However, these projects still need to comply with the zoning bylaws.

Zoning bylaws are enacted to control community development to minimize conflicts between abutting land uses. Industrial and commercial development often produces more traffic, noise, smoke, odors, etc. than residential use. Industrial and commercial facilities are limited to districts with large lots and setback distances. Residential district restrictions protect neighbors’ expectations for peace, tranquility and protection of public health and wellbeing.

Bylaws are implemented to provide guidance to town officials and regulatory boards. Public officials are required to perform their duties in a consistent manner. Boards review new developments for appropriate economics, engineering and environmental impacts. Decisions can become emotional when there are disputed considerations for public good versus public harm. Boards are required to enforce their bylaws and should not alter rules, grant waivers or create amendments to benefit a project under consideration.

Too many towns have adopted changes to encourage wind turbine development, changes which were later proven detrimental to public health, safety and wellbeing. Large wind turbines produce loud noise levels that travel thousands of feet and could not comply with existing town bylaw noise limits.

Download original document: “Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy”

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  April 13, 2014
Australia, Health, NoisePrint storyE-mail story

Response to NHMRC Systematic Review and Draft Information Statement concerning wind turbines and adverse health effects

Author:  Waubra Foundation

The NHMRC have not invited public comments on the Systematic Literature Review, however as this document forms the basis for the NHMRC Draft Information Statement, the Foundation has looked at the Systematic Literature Review document closely and found serious cause for concern. Those concerns are outlined below.

We note that the document has been peer reviewed, however no details have been provided about the identity or qualifications of the Canadian Peer Reviewers, in particular their expertise and knowledge in the field of environmental noise, clinical medicine, acoustics, or research in related areas, and possible conflicts of interest, both disclosed and undisclosed.

That may explain why these issues were not detected earlier. …

Concluding remarks

What the 2014 NHMRC Systematic Review has clearly done is acknowledge that sleep disturbance, annoyance and reduced quality of life are confirmed by the data which was allowed to be included in the systematic literature review.

The Review has also highlighted the lack of objective evidence containing both full spectrum acoustic measurements and concurrent objective physiological data including sleep (EEG), blood pressure, heart rate and biochemical markers of physiological stress, such as cortisol conducted inside the homes of people reporting the new symptoms. No such studies have ever been conducted.

This sort of research in the homes of people reporting the new sleep and health problems, as well as in the laboratory was recommended “as a priority” in June 2011 by the Senate Inquiry chaired by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert. The research is long overdue, and it is pleasing that the current Federal Coalition government have committed to ensure it is conducted.

However, with respect to the Systematic Literature Review document, because of the serious issues raised above about the decisions made by NHMRC Literature Review Panel Members and the Systematic Literature Team members to

there are unfortunate consequences for the integrity of the document, and for the professional reputations of all those involved in its production.

Any Draft Information Statement prepared by the NHMRC on the basis of this dangerously incomplete Systematic Literature Review will be similarly dangerously incomplete and misleading, and governments who rely on it will not be getting the most accurate and up to date independent scientific advice they need to properly protect the health of their citizens, which they have an obligation to do.

The consequences for the residents who are suffering so greatly resulting from systemic regulatory failure of wind turbine and other environmental noise pollution are predictable serious adverse health effects, chronic exhaustion, and home abandonment.

The current situation is a national and international disgrace, and it brings considerable shame on those health and acoustics professionals who are involved in hiding the truth from government, from colleagues, and from fellow citizens.

“New” studies since 28 September 2012

  • Mechanistic evidence (evidence of mechanisms)
  • Direct causation evidence – wind turbine noise
  • Parallel evidence (other noise sources)

Sarah Laurie
CEO, Waubra Foundation
11th April, 2014

Download original document: “Formal response of the Waubra Foundation to the NHMRC commissioned Systematic Review and the NHMRC’s Draft Information Statement concerning wind turbines and adverse health effects”

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  April 13, 2014
Australia, NoisePrint storyE-mail story

Comparison of wind turbine acoustic measurements and analysis, resident responses and wind farm power output during on-off testing at a South Australian wind farm

Author:  Morris, Mary

Summary: In this report, noise diary complaints recorded by local residents were compared with EPA measured low frequency and audible noise inside a home near the Waterloo wind farm, on the same evening as a deliberate shutdown of the turbines. Sleep disturbance, excessive noise and annoyance complaints coincide with measured elevated levels of low frequency noise (LFN) and audible noise inside the home. It can be seen that when the wind farm was turned off and then on again, “C” weighted, Unweighted and LAeq(LF) levels fell and rose around 10dB. This suggests that the wind farm is making a significant LFN contribution to local environment. The change in “A”weighted levels as a result of the shutdown was not significant, suggesting that “A” weighted levels do not accurately reflect the impact of the turbines on the residents.

Location and population description

The Waterloo wind development commenced operating in October 2010 and comprises 37 Vestas V90 wind turbines in a 17 km line along a North South ridge line in the Mt Lofty Ranges of South Australia.

The Waterloo area is home to a mixed farming community in the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council area in the Mid North of South Australia. A significant proportion of the population are long term farming families involved with Primary Production and related support industries. Retirees, pensioners, working families, tree changers, lifestyle block owners and weekenders also make up the local community as they are attracted by the amenity provided by the rural setting, hills and ranges, native fauna, creeks and natural vegetation of the local environment. Regional Development Australia stated in August 2010 that the population of the local Council area of Clare was “rising as a result of interest from retirees and people seeking a different pace of life.” (1)

There are approximately 75 houses within 5 km of the turbines and approximately 230 houses within 10 km. The township zone of Waterloo is comprised of 19 habitable houses and is located approximately 3.2 km West of the turbines.

Nature of complaints/impacts

Three township houses and one farmhouse (4.5 km west of the turbines) have been vacated because of effects attributed by residents to the wind farm – particularly sleep disturbance and physiological symptoms (pers comm).

One habitable house with 11 turbines within 2 km has remained vacant for more than 2 years since the death of the elderly owner. (2)

The Waterloo wind development has been the subject of a large number of complaints from residents up to 10 km from the turbines. The majority of complaints relate to NOISE, VIBRATION, SLEEP DEPRIVATION and HEALTH EFFECTS. In all, 4 Homes have been abandoned and many residents have to regularly “get away” in order to get adequate sleep and recover. (2)(3)(4)

EPA involvement

In April to June 2013, the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) conducted a 10 week study into wind farm noise at 6 homes near Waterloo wind farm. (5)(6)

The EPA study was instigated in response to ongoing noise, vibration, sleep disturbance and physiological symptom complaints, including home abandonments. Residents living up to 10 km away from the wind farm have complained about adverse impacts and cite the wind farm as the source of their disturbance. (2)(3)(4).

During the 10 week period, the EPA collected noise data at 6 sites between 1.3 and 8 km from the turbines. 28 households volunteered to keep noise diaries on forms supplied by the EPA, which the SA EPA then used to help them focus their analysis on specific events.

Only noise diary entries reporting audible noise and vibration were taken into consideration by the SA EPA as this was not intended to be a health study. (4)(5)

Residents’ reports of awakenings, poor sleep, symptoms and sensations have been disregarded by the EPA as indicators of noise emissions experienced by the residents.

As part of the study which commenced on 8 April 2013, the SA EPA conducted 6 shutdowns (on-off testing) on 1st and 30th May and 5th, 10th, 12th & 14th June to determine what contribution, if any, the wind farm was making to the local noise environment.

Turbines were turned off a for a period of around 50 minutes for each shutdown.

Acoustic measurements for before, during and after each shutdown are available in graphs found on the EPA’s website report. The majority of the EPA report of their Waterloo study is available as a pdf at the following link: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Report/Waterloo_wind_farm_report.pdf. (Note, at the time of writing, on this link, the shutdown dates are incorrect in the pdf – the last 4 shutdowns were in June, not May as listed in Table 1 of the pdf.)

Individual components of the EPA report, including weekly noise level graphs for each site and noise diary summaries are available as a series of separate webpages and can be downloaded at: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/noise/wind_farms/waterloo_wind_farm_environmental_noise_study

Comparison of residents noise diary entry complaints with EPA acoustic analysis

The author of this comparison has been provided with 17 of the 28 diaries by residents and has been able to compare the residents perceptions with the EPA’s acoustic analysis.

Looking at diary entries for both audible and inaudible events reveal that there is a significant impact from the wind farm on the residents and that events described by the residents coincide with times when the EPA’s measurements show elevated levels of Low Frequency Noise.

This comparison paper focuses on Shutdown 1, INSIDE the home at the EPA West site. Graphs and tables sourced from the EPA’s Waterloo reports have been used as a basis for the following comparisons and comments. These include:

“Inside West Week 4 Graph”
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Other/West_Graph_wk4.xls

“Audio record analysis for the West site: Tables 36 and 37” (event 31)
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Other/waterloo_app_f.pdf

Event 31 in Tables 36 and 37 corresponds to the period of time before, during and after Shutdown 1 on 1st May 2013.

All Waterloo turbines were shut-down for a 50 minute period from 20:10 to 21:00 Central Australian Standard Time (CAST). Noise diary entries obtained from 2 study participants: the West site resident (W) and a neighbour (N), have also been compared with the EPA report. (extracts appear in the following)

At this time of the day, the West residents are home and watching tv in the lounge room. The EPA’s single microphone is in a spare bedroom with the door and window shut. The West residence is approximately 2.5 km from nearest WTG.

At the Neighbour home, coinciding with the shutdown, it is bedtime for the 3 small children and the parents are watching tv. N is approximately 4 km from the turbines.

NOISE EVENT 31 starts 18:00 1st May 2013 – same evening as on-off testing

The SA EPA noise graph for Shutdown 1 INSIDE the WEST home (see Figure 1) shows that:

  1. When the turbines were switched off, the Unweighted, C-weighted and LAeq(LF) noise levels dropped approximately 10 dB.
  2. When the turbines resumed operation, these 3 noise levels rose to their pre-shutdown levels as wind conditions were similar to the pre-shutdown period.
  3. The change in the A-weighted level was not significant, confirming that A-weighted measurements may not be a good indicator of the sound energy levels which are disturbing the residents.

Morris-figs1-2

Comparison of noise diary entries with EPA Acoustic Analysis for evening of shutdown 1

At 21:35 SA time (22:05 on figure 2 wind farm performance graph),soon after turbines resume operation after the shutdown:

Morris-fig3
Morris-fig4

The EPA Record Analysis for this period shows:

EPA somehow concludes: no significant noise impact, wind farm is compliant, no review of the guidelines in warranted.

Morris-fig5
Morris-fig6

Conclusions

Shut down 1 at WEST showed that the EPA’s conclusion (that the wind farm does not create an adverse noise impact at this home) is not supported by their own data or by the residents diary entries.

“A” weighted values may not accurately reflect the impact of the turbines on the residents.

Operation of the wind farm contributed around 10dB of low frequency noise to the local environment.

Limiting compliance assessment to audible parameters does not satisfactorily address the significant impacts caused by LFN from wind turbines.

Consideration should be given to qualitative as well as quantitative assessment.

Acoustic analysis of INSIDE measurements, immediately before and after Shutdown 1, show values which exceed SA EPA noise guidelines.

The EPA could not hear wind farm noise (which was disturbing the residents) on their audio recordings, calling into question the merit of this methodology.

Noise limits recommended by DEFRA, the Danish authorities and Dr Norm Broner (60dB(C))
were exceeded on May 1st 2013.

References:
(1) Regional Development Australia. Regional Road Map = Yorke and North August 2010
(2) http://www.wind-watch.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Waterloo-Wind-Farm-Survey-graphs.pdf
(3) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Waterloo-Wind-Farm-Survey-April-2012-Select-Committee1.pdf
(4) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Waterloo-Case-Series-Preliminary-Report.pdf
(5) http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Report/Waterloo_wind_farm_report.pdf
(6) http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/noise/wind_farms/waterloo_wind_farm_environmental_noise_study

The author acknowledges the use of the SA EPA’s data in preparing this report.

M Morris   April 2014

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  April 9, 2014
Ireland, Noise, Regulations, SitingPrint storyE-mail story

Wind Turbine Regulation Bill 2014

Author:  Oireachtas, Eire

An Bille um Rialáil Tuirbíní Gaoithe, 2014

An Act to regulate wind turbines through providing limits on the exportation of product generated from wind turbines; protecting nearby dwellings from noise and shadow flicker by providing minimum set back distances; allowing access to public consultative processes and related matters. …

Excess product

(1) The generated product from wind turbines within the state and as regulated in 15 accordance with this Act, shall not be exported outside the island of Ireland, until such a time as the Minister is satisfied, subject to the conditions outlined in subsection (2), that the generated product is product which may be deemed excess product. …

Noise and shadow flickers

Every person applying for permission under the Act of 2000 to construct a wind turbine, and every operator of a wind turbine shall ensure the following—

(a) that the noise from the wind turbine does not exceed the noise limits specified in the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise (1999), or any preceding or replacement guidelines, and

(b) that the distance of the wind turbine is such that any shadow flicker from the turbine does not pass over the dwelling.

Set back distances

(1) Subject to the duties in section 4, the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a dwelling shall be as set out in subsection (3).

(2) If a number of wind turbines are proposed as part of the same development, then the minimum distance requirements in subsection (3) apply to each individual wind turbine.

(3) Wind turbines that are of a height which is greater than 25 metres shall be located not less than a distance of ten times the height of the turbine away from any dwelling.

(4) The height of a wind turbine is measured from the ground to the end of the blade tip at its highest point.

(5) The distance from a dwelling is measured from the base of the wind turbine to the point of the dwelling nearest the base of the wind turbine. …

Introduced by Deputies Michael Colreavy, Brian Stanley and Martin Ferris
13th March, 2014

Na Teachtaí Micheál Colreavy, Brian Stanley agus Máirtín Ó Fearghusa a thug isteach,
13 Márta, 2014

Download original document: “Wind Turbine Regulation Bill 2014”

Bookmark and Share


Earlier Documents »

Get the Facts
HOME ABOUT PRIVACY CONTACT DONATE
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Formerly at windwatch.org.

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share