Resource Documents: Noise (558 items)
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.
Author: Rand, Robert
I respectfully provide this letter in support of the many adversely impacted neighbors of Shirley Wind, and investigators and researchers including Richard James, Steven Cooper, Paul Schomer and colleagues who participated in the 2012 cooperative noise study at Shirley.
I understand that following receipt of numerous carefully submitted documents and letters of evidence, on December 15, 2015, Health Officer Chua Xiong stated:
“Presently, there is insufficient scientific evidence-based research to support the relationship between wind turbines and health concerns.”
Disbelieving that someone charged with protecting public health and welfare could issue such a dismissive statement following receipt of overwhelming direct evidence from neighbors and researchers who investigated Shirley, I waited for a couple of months in the chance that she might withdraw her statement. That hadn’t happened.
I am personally aware of the adverse health impacts having experienced them myself at Shirley. I had previously sent a detailed letter to Health Officer Xiong on September 30, 2015 providing an extensive summary of the health effects both observed and experienced directly during noise investigations at Shirley.
Health Officer Xiong apparently elected to completely disregard the information and professional experience obtained at personal health cost at Shirley and compiled and sent to her. She has apparently elected to disregard the enforcement powers authorized to her department, power which if exercised, could reduce or eliminate health harm. That tells me something is seriously wrong and neighbors are being endangered.
Under the INCE Rules Of Practice, I must notify appropriate authority if my professional judgment is being overruled under circumstances where the public safety, health, property or welfare are endangered. There is no question, and can be no question, that neighbors in the vicinity of the Shirley Wind Facility have reported serious adverse impacts when in proximity to the operating turbines which are alleviated when at sufficient distance.
Therefore I must provide to the Board this formal professional caution.
I respectfully submit this professional caution as an interested party and Member of the Acoustical Society of America and the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, in response to the recent statement by Health Officer Xiong related to wind turbines and adverse health effects in the vicinity of the Shirley Wind Facility.
As a Member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE), I am pledged to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. I take these words and this responsibility seriously, as anyone who has worked with me will tell you.
Based on the findings and personal experiences of motion sickness at Shirley correlated to power output, I concur with the Board determination of Health Hazard. As an INCE Member I can find no credible rationale for permitting continued community exposure to the potential for motion sickness evidenced by the research and actual neighbor reports when wind turbines are operated at partial power or higher.
I hereby notify the Board that my professional judgment has been overruled by Brown County Health Officer Xiong with her statement of December 15, 2015.
On behalf of the neighbors and my colleagues who have worked hard to inform all parties, and in vigorous defense of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering members, principles, and ethical practices to protect public safety, health and welfare, I object in the most strenuous terms to the statement by Health Officer Xiong.
I must warn the Board that the choice of inaction appears certain to worsen, not lessen, the health impacts being reported in the vicinity of the Shirley Wind Facility in Brown County.
In my line of work, there is no excuse for harming neighbors; most certainly no excuse available to a health officer who should be held to an even higher standard of conduct.
Author: Laurie, Sarah
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your rally.
I first wish to pay tribute to the long suffering residents of Falmouth USA, who lived or are still living near the wind turbines owned by the town. These people have made an incredible contribution to our knowledge of wind turbine acoustics, wind turbine adverse health impacts, and have shown true human courage and compassion for others in a similar situation – both in their own country and further afield. We owe them, their acoustics and health professionals, and their supporters, a great debt of gratitude.
Their lived experiences, which are now very much in the public domain, in part because of their determination to fight for their legal and human rights, are a window on the incredible suffering which excessive intrusive wind turbine noise can cause. These people are just like you and me but have had to suffer intolerably and disgracefully because of gross government regulatory failure and corporate bastardry, deceit and greed.
They are simply trying to live their lives, free from the devastating adverse health effects resulting from what can only be described as an invasion of their home, resulting in acoustic trespass and noise nuisance, from pulsing infrasound and low frequency noise. These frequencies have been known to be harmful for over thirty years since the seminal research work by Dr Neil Kelley and his team from NASA and other research organisations.
Wind turbines are of course not the only source of this damaging sound energy, but once someone is sensitised, their body and brain don’t care what the source of the pulsing sound is – it is going to react anyway, at ever decreasing doses, until or unless they can remove themselves from that exposure. The only two options are turn off the noise OR move away.
It is not humanly possible to go for long without good quality sleep and remain unharmed and as you all probably know, sleep deprivation from repeated sleep disturbance is the commonest problem reported by most residents living near industrial wind power facilities. This inevitably results in exhaustion, and consequently serious and predictable adverse physical and mental health effects.
The Centers for Disease Control in America has recently stated the obvious – that insufficient sleep is a public health problem. Their website states the following:
“Sleep is increasingly recognized as important to public health, with sleep insufficiency linked to motor vehicle crashes, industrial disasters, and medical and other occupational errors.1 Unintentionally falling asleep, nodding off while driving, and having difficulty performing daily tasks because of sleepiness all may contribute to these hazardous outcomes. Persons experiencing sleep insufficiency are also more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, depression, and obesity, as well as from cancer, increased mortality, and reduced quality of life and productivity.”
So why are the most commonly reported symptoms of wind turbine neighbours, ignored by the American Health Authorities? Where are the public health physicians?
Why has there not yet been even one detailed case study of one person, anywhere in the world, examining the full spectrum of acoustic exposures overnight, together with concurrent sleep study EEG and continuous heart rate monitoring?
The Waubra Foundation has been calling for this precise research for the last five years.
As you all no doubt know, US Acousticians Rob Rand and Steve Ambrose conducted the wonderful initial acoustic investigation in Falmouth, USA funded by the generosity of Bruce McPherson, which provided vitally important clues about the causes of the symptoms. This study is still of global importance, and is something which Falmouth residents should be very proud of.
But where are the medical and public health investigators? They seem to be in hiding; either ignoring important research evidence in the case of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council “expert panel” with members who had documented conflicts of interest, or in the case of Health Canada, deliberately choosing study designs which do not directly investigate the problems in the best possible way. For example any doctor knows that you do not make clinical judgements about someone’s blood pressure with a single once off measurement, yet that is what this Health Canada team did – with no concurrent measurement of the acoustic exposure at the time. You must repeat the measurement. This is junk science, and Health Canada know it, and are trying to hide it by dribbling the study results out slowly and in small “bites”, restricting access to the raw data and other results, making it very difficult for others to critically evaluate their results.
I applaud Falmouth Psychiatrist Dr William Hallstein for his professional integrity, courage, and honesty – advocating so strongly for his patients, to whom he owes a professional and ethical duty of care, which he clearly takes seriously. Others need to follow his example.
I also applaud Dr Nina Pierpont for her research, and her courage and integrity, and her work with Falmouth residents, helping them expose their stories to the public.
But where are their colleagues? Why the silence?
The silence of too many professionals, or indeed even active collusion with noise polluters to hide or ignore the evidence of serious harm, has allowed this serious abuse of the legal and human rights of residents in Falmouth, and indeed all over the world, to occur, and to continue.
But why are the public servants responsible for environmental health, planning and noise pollution regulation, seemingly so complicit with the harmful abuse of the rights of citizens?
Is it ignorance or incompetence?
Is it pure corruption?
Is it regulatory capture?
Is it ideological zealotry – an attitude that leads to the concept that people who are noise impacted from wind turbine noise are somehow acceptable “collateral damage”.
Is it fear of being ridiculed or ostracized by colleagues?
I am very glad that you are showing such open and public support for the impacted Falmouth residents today, and I join with you in demanding immediate change before any more damage is done to vulnerable citizens.
There must be full spectrum acoustic measurements inside and outside people’s homes, with the complete cooperation of the wind turbine operators so that on off testing can be performed to determine the true contribution of the wind turbines to the soundscape, and so the symptom triggers can be properly identified.
If the turbines are disturbing sleep, they must be turned off at night.
If health is being adversely impacted, there needs to be a resolution – two alternatives being property buy outs with compensation for nuisance, or wind turbines being deconstructed and removed. There are precedents for both.
Its time people’s health, and their human rights are properly protected – in particular the right to attain the best possible physical and mental health.
That fundamental human right to the best possible health specified in most United Nations Human Rights instruments, is not possible if people cannot sleep.
Author: David, Antoine
- Acoustics problem[s] associated with wind-farms are due to the infrasonic and low frequencies harmonics and their interaction between several turbines. Those generate annoyances and to higher intensities health effects.
- By using both a time average and frequency weighting, by definition, all those harmonics disappear and as such no assessments ofthe impact of those harmonics can be made.
- To assess those harmonics, it is necessary to use unfiltered data and no time average.
- The low frequencies and infrasmmd effects cannot be assessed by dBA. By design, the A filtering process takes away low frequency and infrasound. Low frequencies and infrasound need to be assessed by dBlin which is unfiltered data according to frequency.
- Annoyance has not been considered in either guideline[.]
- Wind masking has been applied as if it was masking noise of similar frequencies[,] and this is not the case.
- The distance of 1500m as a buffer will not be sufficient for the current size of wind turbine. This distance had originated years ago for much smaller size turbines and at the time was probably a correct distance.
- The noise criteria proposed in the draft wind farm s[t]ate code [will] most likely not protect residents for their health and well-being and will not protect their environmental values.
- It is uncertain and unlikely that the noise criteria proposed in the draft wind farm s[t]ate code will protect animals such as farmed animals for their health and well-being from low and infrasonic noise exposure.
From: Dr Antoine David, PhD, MEng, MAAS, Technical Specialist (Noise), Technical Support Unit, Regulatory Capability and Customer Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protectsion
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2015
To: Paul Roff, Manager, Environmental Planning, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
CC: Corro EHP ESR RCaCS, Lindsay Delzoppo, Lawrie Wade, David Cook
From: Tony Roberts, Deputy Director-General, Environmental Policy and Planning, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015
To: Paul Roff, Lawrie Wade (Planning Support)
We have reviewed the draft code (noting that it is based on independent technical advice) and have no concerns.
From: Paul Roff
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015
To: David Cook, Manager, Technical Support and Community Response, Regulatory Capability and Customer Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Cc: Carro EHP ESR RCaCS, Lindsay Delzoppo, Antoine David, Carro EHP EPP DDG, Lawrie Wade
I also have been asked to prepare a response to this letter. Lawrie Wade tells me there was a previous letter stating out position that wind farms should not be an ERA. The reply letter needs to restate out opposition to Wind Farms being an ERA.
Impact of wind turbine sound on general health, sleep disturbance and annoyance of workers: a pilot-study in Manjil wind farm, Iran
Author: Abbasi, Milad; Monazzam, Mohammad Reza; Akbarzadeh, Arash; Zakerian, Seyyed Abbolfazl; and Ebrahimi, Mohammad Hossein
Background: The wind turbine’s sound seems to have a proportional effect on health of people living near to wind farms. This study aimed to investigate the effect of noise emitted from wind turbines on general health, sleep and annoyance among workers of manjil wind farm, Iran.
Materials and methods: A total number of 53 workers took part in this study. Based on the type of job, they were categorized into three groups of maintenance, security and office staff. The persons’ exposure at each job-related group was measured by eight-hour equivalent sound level (LAeq, 8 h). A Noise annoyance scale, Epworth sleepiness scale and 28-item general health questionnaire was used for gathering data from workers. The data were analyzed through Multivariate Analysis of variance (MANOVA) test, Pillai’s Trace test, Paired comparisons analysis and Multivariate regression test were used in the R software.
Results and discussion: The results showed that, response variables (annoyance, sleep disturbance and health) were significantly different between job groups. The results also indicated that sleep disturbance as well as noise exposure had a significant effect on general health. Noise annoyance and distance from wind turbines could significantly explain about 44.5 and 34.2 % of the variance in sleep disturbance and worker’s general health, respectively. General health was significantly different in different age groups while age had no significant impact on sleep disturbance. The results were reverse for distance because it had no significant impact on health, but sleep disturbance was significantly affected.
Conclusions: We came to this conclusion that wind turbines noise can directly impact on annoyance, sleep and health. This type of energy generation can have potential health risks for wind farm workers. However, further research is needed to confirm the results of this study.
Mohammad Reza Monnazzam
Seyyed Abolfazl Zakerian
Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mohammad Hossein Ebrahimi
Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Shahroud University of Medical
Sciences, Shahroud, Iran
Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering (2015) 13:71