Resource Library Category: Noise (289 items)
Also see NWW press release on noise
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.
Response to NSW Planning Department Draft Guidelines for Wind Developments
Source: Waubra Foundation
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
On the basis of current limited knowledge, these proposed draft guidelines will inevitably result in serious and predictable harm, to the health of current and future rural residents in New South Wales, from the harmful effects of sound and vibration energy generated by industrial wind turbines.
The New South Wales Department of Health’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of an emerging serious global public health problem with exposure to operating wind turbines, is a gross dereliction of their responsibilities to protect the health of rural citizens who will inevitably be adversely impacted by these developments.
Rural residents are already significantly disadvantaged with respect to decreased access to health care and related services, and suffer a greater illness burden as a result. The additional burden of ill health, which these turbines will directly cause rural citizens, is entirely preventable, if wind turbines are located appropriately. This is clearly a planning issue.
To proceed with the proposed setbacks outlined in the draft guidelines is deliberately ignoring the warnings of a growing number of clinicians and acousticians internationally, based on limited but compelling empirical data and adverse event reports, from both residents and their treating doctors. Acousticians such as Professor Phillip Dickinson, from New Zealand, who is well aware of the problems experienced there, has suggested that a 5-10km setback would prevent many of the problems, concurring with our advice.
Urgent independent collaborative multidisciplinary acoustics and clinical research is required to investigate the problems, in order to determine what a safe turbine setback distance is, given a multitude of different variables. The planning requirements need to take into account the “worst case” scenarios for noise impacts, because this is what people will be living with.
The effects of audible and inaudible sound and vibration energy are resulting in frequent sleep disturbance for residents up to 10km away from thirty seven 3MW turbines in South Australia at TRU energy’s Waterloo Wind Development. As 3MW turbines and larger are planned for multiple sites in NSW, it is inevitable that these adverse effects will be felt out to this distance and beyond. In France, at 4,000 feet above sea level, there are credible reports of people characteristically affected at distances of 12-14km away as the crow flies, from six 2MW turbines. This is of major concern, and highlights the knowledge vacuum we are operating in, and the need for urgent clinical and acoustic data collection globally.
There is a complete lack of knowledge nationally and internationally about the actual dose of sound energy at different frequencies being experienced by people inside their homes and workplaces, and no knowledge of what constitutes a “safe” dose with cumulative exposure. Consistently, people’s health relentlessly deteriorates with ongoing exposure, if they are affected.
Siting turbines too close to institutions such as schools, jails, hospitals and nursing homes, with vulnerable and powerless groups, will result in serious harm to those living, and working in those establishments. This will be the inevitable outcome from many of the currently planned and unsafely sited wind developments in NSW, particularly those with larger turbines, placed on hills.
Rural residents in New South Wales are currently being damaged by the sound and vibration pollution emissions from existing wind developments at Capital, Woodlawn, Crookwell, and Cullerin. NSW Department of Health deny the problem exists, because there is “insufficient credible peer reviewed published evidence” but refuse to investigate the reports of serious health problems occurring in rural residents for themselves, apart from one or two phone calls which have not resulted in follow-up, according to the residents.
Nor has there been any proper independent and comprehensive acoustic assessment of the full range of acoustic pollution to which residents are exposed, inside their homes, and in their workplaces, despite numerous complaints being made. Preliminary acoustic data of this type collected by an independent acoustician at residences impacted adversely by Infigen’s Capital and Woodlawn Wind Developments and funded by concerned rural residents suggests that there are indeed problems relating to the infrasound and low frequency sound energy measured inside resident’s homes where those residents are becoming ill.
The current NSW audit of wind turbine noise does not include full spectrum noise assessments, nor does it include inside home measurements. This is ignoring the precise frequencies and locations (inside homes and workplaces) which we suspect are doing the most damage to health.
There may well be additional health effects from Electromagnetic field effects for some residents, in some locations, which similarly remain uninvestigated.
These serious health problems are entirely preventable, by adopting a truly precautionary approach, based on existing relevant information including field observations, until more definitive independent multidisciplinary acoustic and medical longditudinal research is conducted. This is precisely what the Waubra Foundation’s Explicit Cautionary Notice suggested, in June 2011, and it was based on the best field observations and limited research literature available at that time. Subsequent information is revealing that even this distance may be inadequate to protect the health of surrounding neighbours in some locations.
Two research proposals by suitably qualified and experienced independent acousticians, Dr Bob Thorne and Professor Colin Hansen, were first suggested to the NSW government Health Department representatives at an En Health meeting in November 2010. Subsequent proposals have been submitted directly to the NSW government by Acoustics researchers since that time.
Research was also recommended by the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into Rural Wind Farms in June 2011.
In the meantime, the suggestion by the NHMRC to “adopt a precautionary approach” is being ignored by developers and bureaucrats from planning and health departments alike. The justification given is that “there is no evidence” or “there is no credible peer reviewed published scientific evidence”.
Yet people’s health is being seriously damaged, and has been for years in Europe, the UK, North America, New Zealand, and in Australia. The voices of the sick residents, their clinicians, and their advocates, have been universally ignored by these bureaucrats, and the politicians they advise.
This lack of relevant research, despite the longstanding reported problems, is a global public health disgrace. So are the attempts of the wind industry to deny the problems, despite being well aware of them, as the letter from the Vestas CEO to the then Minister for the Environment in Denmark shows. Clearly corporate profits are being put ahead of the health of rural residents, the world over.
THEREFORE: to proceed with these inadequate guidelines, and without investigation into the current problems at existing developments, is reckless and irresponsible in the extreme.
What is urgently needed is:
- Full sound spectrum acoustic monitoring at all the homes of impacted residents in New South Wales, by acousticians who do not rely on the wind developers for their income, including inside and outside measurements concurrently. Data required by the acousticians from the developers to properly determine their results must be handed over.
- Thorough clinical assessment of impacted residents, paying particular attention to the commonly reported health problems experienced by residents elsewhere.
- Concurrent sleep and acoustic studies at the homes of people reporting regularly disturbed sleep, to assist with determining the cause of their sleep disturbance.
- Other broader epidemiological studies will be dependent on available funding, but as a minimum there should be an assessment which includes the population within 10km of existing developments, and suitable controls not exposed to low frequency noise for comparison. There must also be longditudinal data collected, as it is widely observed that symptoms deteriorate over time, with increasing exposure.
Submitted March 14, 2012
DR SARAH LAURIE
Bachelor of Medicine,
Bachelor of Surgery
FLINDERS UNIVERSITY, 1995
Chief Executive Officer
WAUBRA FOUNDATION
Wind turbine noise — editorial
Source: Hanning, Christopher; and Evans, Alun
Wind turbine noise seems to affect health adversely; an independent review of evidence is needed.
The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise.[1] However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside.
The impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on sleep and daytime functioning (sleepiness and cognitive function) is well established.[1] Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint.[2] Such reports have been dismissed as being subjective and anecdotal, but experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep.[3]
The noise emitted by a typical onshore 2.5 MW wind turbine has two main components. A dynamo mounted on an 80 m tower is driven through a gear train by blades as long as 45 m, and this generates both gear train noise and aerodynamic noise as the blades pass through the air, causing vortices to be shed from the edges. Wind constantly changes its velocity and direction, which means that the inflowing airstream is rarely stable. In addition, wind velocity increases with height (wind shear), especially at night, and there may be inflow turbulence from nearby structures—in particular, other turbines. This results in an impulsive noise, which is variously described as “swishing” and “thumping,” and which is much more annoying than other sources of environmental noise and is poorly masked by ambient noise.[4,5]
Permitted external noise levels and setback distances vary between countries. UK guidance, ETSU-R-97, published in 1997 and not reviewed since, permits a night time noise level of 42 dBA, or 5 dBA above ambient noise level, whichever is the greater. This means that turbines must be set back by a minimum distance of 350-500 m, depending on the terrain and the turbines, from human habitation.
The aerodynamic noise generated by wind turbines has a large low frequency and infrasound component that is attenuated less with distance than higher frequency noise. Current noise measurement techniques and metrics tend to obscure the contribution of impulsive low frequency noise and infrasound.[6] A laboratory study has shown that low frequency noise is considerably more annoying than higher frequency noise and is harmful to health—it can cause nausea, headaches, disturbed sleep, and cognitive and psychological impairment.[7] A cochlear mechanism has been proposed that outlines how infrasound, previously disregarded because it is below the auditory threshold, could affect humans and contribute to adverse effects.[8]
Sixteen per cent of surveyed respondents who lived where calculated outdoor turbine noise exposures exceeded 35 dB LAeq (LAeq, the constant sound level that, in a given time period, would convey the same sound energy as the actual time varying sound level, weighted to approximate the response of the human ear) reported disturbed sleep.[4] A questionnaire survey concluded that turbine noise was more annoying at night, and that interrupted sleep and difficulty in returning to sleep increased with calculated noise level.[9] Even at the lowest noise levels, 20% of respondents reported disturbed sleep at least one night a month. In a meta-analysis of three European datasets (n = 1764),[10] sleep disturbance clearly increased with higher calculated noise levels in two of the three studies.
In a survey of people residing in the vicinity of two U.S. wind farms, those living within 375-1400 m reported worse sleep and more daytime sleepiness, in addition to having lower summary scores on the mental component of the short form 36 health survey than those who lived 3-6.6 km from a turbine. Modeled dose-response curves of both sleep and health scores against distance from nearest turbine were significantly related after controlling for sex, age, and household clustering, with a sharp increase in effects between 1 km and 2 km.[11] A New Zealand survey showed lower health-related quality of life, especially sleep disturbance, in people who lived less than 2 km from turbines.[12]
A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children,[1] and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.
BMJ 2012;344:e1527 (Published 8 March 2012)
Christopher D. Hanning, honorary consultant in sleep medicine
Sleep Disorders Service, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, U.K.
Alun Evans, professor emeritus
Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, U.K.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
References
1. WHO. Burden of disease from environmental noise. 2011. www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf.
2. Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:334-9.
3. Phillips C. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:303-8.
4. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:3460-70.
5. Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound. Energy Policy 2010;38:2520-7.
6. Bray W, James R. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011, Portland, Oregon, 25-27 July 2011. Curran Associates, 2011.
7. Møller M, Pedersen C. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;129:3727-44.
8. Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:296-303.
9. Van den Berg G, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20. Specific support action project no 044628, 2008. www.rug.nl/wewi/deWetenschapswinkels/natuurkunde/publicaties/WFp-final-1.pdf.
10. Pedersen E. Effects of wind turbine noise on humans. Proceedings of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg Denmark 17-19 June 2009. www.confweb.org/wtn2009/.
11. Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Proceedings of 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), 2011, London, UK. Curran Associates, 2011.
12. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks K, Hill E. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise Health 2011;13:333-9.
Evaluation of wind farm noise policies in South Australia: a case study of Waterloo Wind Farm
Source: Wang, Zhenhua
This study was conducted as part of a Master’s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang at the University of Adelaide, in the Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population. The dissertation was submitted on November 21, 2011. It evaluated the effectiveness of South Australia “wind farm” noise guidelines regarding both wind energy development and community amenity.
For the latter aim, questionnaires were delivered on July 15, 2011, to residents of Waterloo Township who lived within 5 km from the Waterloo wind energy facility (n = 75). A total of 48 questionnaires were returned for use in the study. In-depth interviews of six residents added to the information gathered.
More than 70% of the respondents claimed that they had been negatively affected by noise from the wind energy facility, and more than 50% “moderately” (35%) or “very” (19%) negatively affected. Respondents affected by noise from the Waterloo wind energy facility experienced it an average 2 days per week. A few claimed that they experienced it every day.
At the time of the survey, 40% of the respondents were neutral about wind energy, 35% were opposed, and 25% were supportive. Only 21% of the respondents supported further wind development around Waterloo; 67% of them did not and 12% were not sure.
Also according to the survey 38% of the respondents made noise complaints to the developer, 25% to the local council, and 19% to the Environment Protection Authority. Furthermore, 38% of those affected claimed to have experienced adverse health issues caused by the wind energy facility noise, and 38% were not sure if their health had been affected. Health issues mainly related to sleep deprivation and headaches.
Many affected respondents took actions to address the annoyance being caused by the wind farm noise, e.g.: “moved to other areas for sleeping well when it is windy”; “had medicine or saw doctor to help sleeping well”; “installed double-glazed window to block the wind farm noise”; “planted trees”; “used ear plugs”; “played music all night”. Several respondents had bought property in other places, where no wind energy facilities are established.
The top two expectations of the affected residents were to “turn off the wind turbine during night time” and that “affected residents obtain appropriate financial compensation from wind developers”.
More information about Mr. Wang’s dissertation may be obtained from:
- the study supervisor at the University of Adelaide, Melissa Nursey-Bray (Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population): tel +61-8-8313-3497, e-mail melissa.nursey-bray@adelaide.edu.au;
- the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research), Mike Brooks: tel +61-8-8303-5665, e-mail enquiries.dvcr@adelaide.edu.au; or tel +61-8-8313-5665, e-mail michael.brooks@adelaide.edu.au;
- or the Dean of Graduate Studies and Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Operations, Richard Russell: tel +61-8-8313-5665, e-mail richard.russell@adelaide.edu.au
The government of South Australia issued two series of “Wind farms environmental noise guidelines” in 2003 and 2009, aiming to balance the advantage of wind energy development in South Australia with the protection of amenity of the surrounding community from adverse noise impacts. These Guidelines for wind farms have in fact played regulatory roles in both the planning stage for wind project approval and the operation stage for noise management
This briefing paper sums up a study undertaken during 2011 evaluating the efficiency and adequacy of these guidelines. The study examined two aspects: (1) the achievement and restraints of the wind energy development; and (2) the situation relating to community amenity near the Waterloo Wind Farm. The findings of this study are expected to help planning authorities and decision makers better devise the strategies for dealing with issues relating to wind farm noise.
This study was conducted as part of the completion of a Master’s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang, who was studying in the Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population, University of Adelaide.
2. Overview of methods
Documentary analysis method was used to examine the achievement and restraints of the wind energy development in South Australia. Key parameters, such as annual growth rate of wind power; wind power share in electricity supply and per capita wind power capacity, were examined and then compared within Australian and international contexts. A literature review provided information about issues relating to wind farm noise in an international context.
A questionnaire was undertaken in the Waterloo Township. A specific aim of the questionnaire was an assessment of community amenity in relation to wind farm noise after nine months’ operation of the Waterloo Wind Farm. The questionnaire was additionally supported by a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews with the local residents. These interviews interrogated in more depth community views and conceptions about wind farm noise and views on or about the efficacy of the State “Wind farms environmental noise guidelines”.
The questionnaire was conducted on July 15, 2011, at Waterloo Township. A total number of 75 questionnaires were delivered to the local residents (within 5 km from the wind farm) with attached return envelopes and return address. By the 10th August 2011, 48 valid questionnaires had been received. The response rate was 64%.
The semi-structured interviews with some of the Waterloo residents were conducted on August 19, 2011, at Manoora Sports Club Room located about 10 km from the Waterloo Township. Six local residents attended the interviews with about 45 minutes for each interviewee.
After further data analysis, conclusion drawing, thesis editing and revising, the dissertation was completed and submitted on November 21, 2011.
3. Ethics
An ethics application for this study was submitted to the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Adelaide and was approved in April 2011.
4. Summary of the results
Documentary analysis showed that the average annual growth rate of wind power (from 2003 to 2010) in South Australia was 62.18%. This is very high in contrast to the rate of Australia (30% in the last decade) and to the worldwide rate (28.68% from 1998 to 2010). The wind power share in electricity supply in South Australia in 2010 was 19.4%, being also very high in contrast to the share of Australia (5.1% in 2010 in six main wind power States) and to the share of worldwide (2.5% in 2010); the per capita wind power capacity by the end of 2010 in South Australia was 0.697kw/per capita, being eight times the value of Australian (0.086) and more than three times the value of worldwide (0.201).
Survey results showed that overall more than 70% of the respondents claimed they had been negatively affected by the wind farm noise. 35% of the respondents stated they had been ‘moderately affected’ and 19% claimed they had been ‘very affected’. In total more than 50% of the respondents indicated they had been very or moderately negatively affected by wind farm noise. This is higher than evidence gathered in previous studies: early wind farm noise research in the early 1990s in three European countries showed that the rate of residents who were annoyed by wind farm noise was only 6% to 7%. Later research in the Netherlands in 2007 highlighted that the rate of residents Jiving within 2.5 kilometers of a wind farm who were rather or very annoyed by wind farm noise was only 8%.
Those affected by noise from Waterloo Wind Farm noise experienced it about two days per week. A few respondents claimed that they had been affected every day. At the time of the survey, 39.6% of the respondents held neutral attitudes to wind energy, 35.4% held opposed attitudes and 25% held supportive attitudes. Only 20.8% of the respondents supported further wind development in the area of Waterloo while 66.7% of them held a ‘no’ attitude and the other 12.5% claimed ‘not sure’ about supporting the further wind development in their region.
The survey also showed that 38% of the respondents raised wind farm noise complaints to the developer; 25% to the local council; 19% to the Environment Protection Authority. 38% of the affected residents claimed experiencing health issues caused by wind farm noise, while 38% claimed they were not sure about whether their health had been damaged. Health issues mainly related to sleep deprivation and headaches. Many affected respondents took actions to address the annoyance being caused by the wind farm noise. Actions taken by these respondents are highlighted by these excerpts: “moved to other areas for sleeping (resting) well when it is windy”; “had medicine or saw doctor to help sleeping well”; “installed double glazed window to block the wind farm noise”; “planted trees”; “used ear plugs”; even “played music all night” to protect themselves from the annoyance coming from the wind farm noise. Several respondents have bought property in other areas where no wind farms are established. The top two expectations of the affected residents were “turn off the wind turbine during night time” and “affected residents obtain appropriate financial compensation from wind developers”.
In summary, results from this study highlight that the Guidelines have not fully met their core objective in terms of the case of Waterloo Wind Farm.
Interview results showed that the failure of those guidelines to attain their core objective is attributed to some key flaws residing in the guidelines including: the lack of a clearly established integrated procedure which could be employed to tackle the local community’s complaints against the wind farm noise; the failure to utilize an independent third party to conduct valid and trustworthy noise level testing procedures; and the lack of appropriate penalties to be applied if wind developers violate the terms of the guidelines.
Note that this is only the summary brief. Request a copy of the complete Master’s dissertation from:
the study supervisor at the University of Adelaide, Melissa Nursey-Bray (Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population): tel +61-8-8313-3497, e-mail melissa.nursey-bray@adelaide.edu.au;
the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research), Mike Brooks: tel +61-8-8303-5665, e-mail enquiries.dvcr@adelaide.edu.au; or tel +61-8-8313-5665, e-mail michael.brooks@adelaide.edu.au;
or the Dean of Graduate Studies and Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Operations, Richard Russell: tel +61-8-8313-5665, e-mail richard.russell@adelaide.edu.au
Aesthetics, Environment, General, Health, Human rights, Impacts, Noise, Wildlife •
Wind Wise Radio
Source: Wind Wise Radio
RSS feed — previous shows
RSS feed — upcoming shows
Infrasound and Adverse Health Effects
Ambrose and Rand
Sunday, February 12, 2012, 7:00-8:00PM
Join us for the first edition of Wind Wise Radio when we will be delighted to welcome Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand, professional acousticians, members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, and the authors of “The McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study” which investigated the possible relationship between infrasound and adverse health effects experienced by people living near and industrial wind turbine (IWT) in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
We will be discussing Stephen and Robert’s findings, their personal experience in the vicinity of IWT, their work on other projects, and their thoughts on the the recently released “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study”. We will also be asking them about their ideas for further studies to advance our knowledge.
Stephen and Robert will be happy to take questions and listen to your comments so please join us for this important event.
Read the McPherson Report.
Read the Mass. DEP Wind Turbine Health Impact Study.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
The Word from Waubra
A conversation with Dr. Sarah Laurie
Sunday, February 19, 2012, 7:00PM
Dr. Laurie is the medical director of the Waubra Foundation in Australia and is facilitating some of the seminal research surrounding the set of symptoms known here in the U.S. as Wind Turbine Syndrome. ”Down Under” it is often termed Waubra Disease.
In mid 2010, Dr. Laurie was in the process of returning to work clinically as a rural General Practitioner when she became aware that a wind energy project was proposed for the hills near her home in regional South Australia. Being concerned with climate change and the environment, and the need for renewable energy she was initially supportive of the local project and unaware of any health concerns. It wasn’t until a neighbour alerted her to Dr Amanda Harry’s study of health issues with wind factories, that Dr. Laurie realised there were some potentially serious health problems associated with wind turbines. She decided to look into the matter fully, and became aware that despite the health problems being described around the world, there was a lack of research, and hence an urgent need for more research into this problem.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
An Alternative Vision for Vermont
Luke Snelling, Geoff Goll, and Steve Wright
Sunday, February 26, 2012, 7:00PM
Please join us as we talk with leaders in the struggle for smart alternative energy solutions in Vermont.
- Lukas B. Snelling, Executive Director, Energize Vermont
- Geoff Goll, Hydrologist, Princeton Hydro
- Steve Wright, Former Commissioner of Fish & Wildlife Department
We will discuss the current situation in Lowell Mountain, Sheffield, Searsburg, the current regulatory environment, and other projects and issues involving industrial scale wind turbines in Vermont.
Energize Vermont advocates for renewable energy solutions that are in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont and contribute to the people’s well-being.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (18-MB MP3).
National Wind Watch’s Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson on WWR
Sunday, March 4, 2012, 7:00PM
Wind Wise Radio is honored to be joined by the president and vice-president of National Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson, for an hour of conversation about their experiences at the center of the struggle against Industrial Wind in the U.S.
Since 2005, National Wind Watch (NWW) has been a indispensable resource providing a central clearinghouse for information and assistance to individuals and local groups seeking the facts about industrial wind power.
Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer and editor. In 2001 Eric and family moved from New York to northeastern Vermont, where he founded his own company, Kirby Mountain Composition & Graphics. Eric has been involved since 2003 when he learned that there were plans to erect wind turbines on the ridge behind his house. At first, he was a cautious supporter of the development but as he learned more his opinion shifted. In 2005, he started up the excellent site aweo.org, which he continues to maintain and where you can find much of his writing on the subject of IWT. He also blogs at kirbymtn.blogspot.com.
David Roberson is a gallery owner in Shelburne Falls (jewelry, fine handcrafts, décor, books, gifts) and a small-scale farmer. David lived off the grid for 12 years in Hawley, Massachusetts, before moving to Rowe, where he lives with his “wife, dogs, cats, goats, geese, and chickens.”
In December of 2003, his seminal article, Questioning the Faith of Wind Power, was published in Shelburne Falls Independent. The article broke new ground on a host of issues, argued cogently against the rush to wind without rigorous, thorough analysis, and should be required reading for all those interested in these issues. In 2005, David organized the first gathering of interstate wind opponents, a weekend-long conference with participants from 10 states. He was the founding president of National Wind Watch and has served as its Vice-President since 2006.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
The Struggle in Canada
Dr. Robert McMurtry
Sunday, March 11, 2012, 7:00PM
Dr. Robert McMurtry is currently an advisor for the Society Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, engineers and other professionals promoting the development of authoritative international wind turbine guidelines to protect the health and safety of communities. The mission of The Society for Wind Vigilance is to mitigate the risk of both physiological and psychological adverse heath effects through the advancement of independent third party research and its application to the siting of industrial wind turbines.
He was a member of the Health Council of Canada for 3½ years and a member and special advisor to the Royal Commission under Roy Romanow on the future of health care in Canada. Dr. McMurtry was a visiting Cameron Chair to Health Canada for providing policy advice to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health. He was the Founding and Associate Deputy Minister of Population & Public Health, Canada.
Dr. McMurtry sat on the National Steering Committee on Climate Change and Health Assessment. Presently Dr. McMurtry is Professor (Emeritus) of Surgery, University of Western Ontario.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Vermont’s Precious Ridges
Susan Morse and Annette Smith
Sunday, March 18, 2012, 7:00PM
Please join us as we talk with Susan Morse, a world-renowned naturalist and wildlife tracker, and Annette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE), about the threats posed to some of Vermont’s most ecologically sensitive areas by industrial wind power.
Susan Morse has more than thirty-five years of experience monitoring wildlife and interpreting wildlife habitat use. Her research has focused on cougar, bobcat, black bear, and Canada lynx. She is the founder and director of Keeping Track an organization devoted inspiring community participation in the stewardship of wildlife habitat.
Ms. Morse has authored numerous articles and authors a regular column on wildlife in Northern Woodlands Magazine. Her work has also been featured in many other publications, including Smithsonian, Audubon, Amicus Journal, Forest Magazine, Wild Earth, Vermont Life, Adirondack Life, The Nature Conservancy, and Ranger Rick, as well as on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition”.
Annette Smith is a native of Lewisburg and leads Vermonters for a Clean Environment in its mission to raise the voices of Vermonters and hold corporations accountable for their impacts on our people, our land, our air and our water.
VCE’s members are united in the belief that Vermont’s future lies in conserving its clean, rural, small-town environment. They have joined together to pursue the common goals of encouraging economic development with minimal environmental impacts and preserving Vermont’s natural beauty. VCE is committed to providing facts and information so that people can make informed decisions.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Industrial Wind in the Wilds of Maine
Monique Aniel, David Corrigan, and Steve Thurston
Sunday, March 25, 2012, 7:00PM
Join us as we talk with those struggling against the ongoing destruction of Maine’s precious natural areas by industrial wind developers.
We will be joined by Dr. Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston from the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – a coalition of citizens from around Maine drawn together in the common purpose of advocating for responsible, science-based, economically and environmentally sound approaches to Maine’s energy policy.
Also we are happy David Corrigan, a Registered Maine Master Guide who blogs at Real Wind Info for Me, will be joining in our discussion.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
Talking Action
Lisa Linowes and Julie Johnson
Sunday, April 1, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Direct Impact: Talking with Victims of IWT
Neil Anderson, Barbara Ashbee, and Richard Braithwaite
Sunday, April 8, 2012, 7:00PM
Neil Anderson hails from Falmouth, Massachusetts, and has been a leader in the effort to tell the story of the many families in Falmouth who have been severely affected by the turbine know as Wind One. Wind One is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant a little more than 1300 feet from Neil’s home. As many as 50 families have been affected and they have managed, for now, to get the turbine turned off. Neil was an advocate of the turbine before it turned on and started to affect his health.
Barbara Ashbee was forced out of her Amaranth, Ontario, home by the siting of industrial turbines too close. Barbara could easily count 15 turbines from her yard. Her experiences with the local and provincial government is scary and disturbing:
“The Ontario government did not help, in fact they misled us on the number of complaints they had received and were claiming all was running in compliance when it wasn’t.
“The Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) released a literature review in May 2010 concluding there are no direct health issues linked to turbines. The developers and government actually use this review to approve new wind projects and they hand out copies at wind meetings but the CMOH, Dr. Arlene King, was well aware of the serious problems in many wind projects in Ontario before she signed off on the literature review. She was made well aware that families were being made sick with some being forced from their homes and chose not to speak with even one of them. She was warned.
“There is a wall of silence but as the evidence mounts they will have to answer to it at some point. These people are in a position of public trust and their lack of action or even acknowledgment of what they are doing to people is very serious.”
[Click here for a CBC radio report about Barbara Ashbee's whistleblowing about the province's knowledge of noise problems. (Click the play button above to listen, or download the 7-MB MP3 file.)]
Richard Braithwaite lives in Keyser, West Virginia and was one of 75 neighbors who signed a petition seeking a solution to the noise coming from the Pinnacle Wind project. He purchased an inexpensive sound meter and routinely registers 60–70 dB outside his home. As he says, “Let them bring their thousand dollar machine and take their own readings.” The wind developer has paid lip service to the complaints and is installing, of all things, a muffler!
Gerry Meyer lives in the 86-turbine Forward Energy project in Brownsville, Wisconsin that was erected by Invenergy of Chicago. There are five 400′ turbines within 3/4 of a mile and eleven within a mile of his house.
Gerry attended the first few public meetings about the Forward Energy project. (that was long after many local farmers were signed up to host turbines). The Invenergy representatives and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin told the public the turbines were quiet and would be a great benefit to his community. Gerry left those meeting feeling good about wind energy.
Gerry knew know about the Horicon Marsh Advocates, a group fighting for a 5-mile set back from the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, however he did nothing to help them in their cause. As a rural mail carrier he drove within the project often stopping to take photos and on his way home from work stopped to talk to workers and take more photos. As a former construction worker the turbine construction was intriguing.
On March 3rd, 2008, he walked out of his house and heard a jet flying over. He looked to the sky for that jet. There was no jet. It was the large industrial wind turbine 1560 feet straight north of his house. This was the first day of operation of this turbine. He immediately knew he was lied to by Invenergy about the quiet sound of the turbine. This did not sound like the wind blowing through the trees. It sounded like sitting on the runway at O’Hare Airport. He began writing a daily noise diary which can be read at lifeinawisconsinwindproject.tumblr.com.
“In the house there are thumping sounds everywhere, especially upstairs in the sewing room. Very tense and sickening.”
Just a few of the heath affects caused to Gerry’s quality of life are sleep deprivation, high cortisol levels, chest pain, pulsating the neck, nausea, exhaustion, no longer has dreams, cognitive thinking issues, and the concern of what other heath affects are down the road due to constant sleep deprivation.
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Strife in Ontario: The IWT Resistance
Sunday, April 15, 2012, 7:00PM
Rural Ontario is being plundered by the McGuinty government and his wind developer allies. The citizens are actively resisting the onslaught. We will talk to some of the leaders of the resistance.
Mark Davis, Deputy Mayor of the Municipality of Arran Elderslie, farm country consisting of 1 town, 2 villages, several hamlets and about 7000 people, located in central Bruce County, which is about 10 miles off the shore of Lake Huron about 3 hours northwest of Toronto. Cash crop and beef farmer, real estate sales rep for Coldwell Banker and auctioneer doing charity auctions for worthwhile causes, Mark has been a strong opponent of industrial wind turbines for quite some time and is chair of the Inter Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group consisting of 12 to 15 municipalities from about 6 counties of like-minded elected and appointed citizens doing their very best to work with the Ontario Green Energy Act and come up with bylaws and ideas to get some control back to local government and the people directly involved.
Greg Schmalz, the founder of S.T.O.P. Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy resisted group opposing placement of CAW (UAW in Canada) whose 35-story turbine on the grounds of their $70M resort is surrounded by 100 families living within 550 m and more than 4,000 people within 2,000 m. This turbine has become the lightning rod representing all that is wrong with placing turbines too close to people’s homes and businesses.
Lisa Thompson, the MPP for Bruce-Huron, recently introduced a private member’s bill at Queen’s Park to establish a moratorium on futher IWT development in Ontario.
Jane Wilson, a registered nurse and health care writer and editor, is the current president of Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of individuals and community groups in Canada’s most populous province, Ontario. She is also the editor of a book on how the Ontario government has pushed the industrial wind power generation agenda at the expense of Ontario’s people and communities, called Dirty Business: the reality behind Ontario’s rush to wind power. Jane lives in a rural community which is part of Canada’s capital city, Ottawa; her community is threatened by a 20-megawatt industrial power project that will be too close to hundreds of homes.
Along with our special guests:
Gail and Ed Kenney of Wolfe Island, Ontario, whose appeal of their property value assessment was rejected this past week by Ontario’s assessment review board because they could find “no evidence”. Didn’t the fact that zero homes had sold since the 86 Turbines went up actually constitute stark, compelling evidence?
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
Saving Massachusetts from IWT — Louise Barteau, Virginia Irvine, Andrew Wells
Sunday, April 22, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (15-MB MP3).
Truth from Texas — Robert Bryce
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (18-MB MP3).
Turbine Trouble in Paradise
Sunday, May 6, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (17-MB MP3).
Windfall hits the small screen – Director Laura Israel
Sunday, May 13, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (16-MB MP3).
Fighting for Feathered Friends (and Other Creatures) – Ileene Anderson, Biologist and Public Lands Deserts Director, Center for Biological Diversity; and Miriam Raftery, Editor and Founder, East County Magazine
Sunday, May 20, 2012, 7:00PM
Click the play button above to listen, or download the archived show (18-MB MP3).
