<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>



<channel>
	<title>National Wind Watch: Documents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents</link>
 	
	<description>Industrial Wind Resource Library, from National Wind Watch</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:56:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Threats from industrial wind turbines to Ontario’s wildlife and biodiversity</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/threats-from-industrial-wind-turbines-to-ontarios-wildlife-and-biodiversity/</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stelling, Keith; and Petrie, Scott</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction The precautionary principle outlined in The Bergen Agreement, signed by Canada in 1990, has become, over the past fifteen years, part of customary international law and has been included in virtually every recently adopted treaty and policy document related to the protection and preservation of the environment. It states: &#8220;policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2850</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noise]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Re: Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/re-wind-turbine-health-impact-study-report-of-independent-expert-panel/</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Krogh, Carmen</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel of January 2012 that was prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Department of Public Health. I would like to share excerpts from Ontario, Canada experiences regarding the serious risks to health that can occur when industrial wind turbines are sited in close proximity to residents. As background, I have held senior executive positions at a teaching hospital, .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2847</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noise]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Wind Turbine Health Impact Study Is Junk Science</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbine-health-impact-study-is-junk-science/</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hartman, Raymond</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[[Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel, January 2012, prepared for: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Department of Public Health] Junk Science: What Is It? “Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.” General Examples “Government regulators may use junk science to expand their regulatory authority, increase their budgets or advance the political agenda of elected officials.” “Businesses may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors’ products, make bogus .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2844</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Zealand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Pragmatic view of a wind turbine noise standard</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/pragmatic-view-of-a-wind-turbine-noise-standard/</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dickinson, Philip</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[Abstract New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind farm noise is unique in that it acknowledges, up front under committee representation, that a representative of a university involved in its development does not support the Standard. Since that time a number of papers and presentations have decried this opposition to the Standard without giving the committee member the privilege of comment or reply. This paper is to put the record straight and explain why the Standard is not supported. Wind .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2840</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Wind energy facilities in Victoria</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-energy-facilities-in-victoria/</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:48:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dept. of Planning and Community Development, Victoria, Australia</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[Amendments VC78 and VC82 implement the [Victoria State] government’s policy on wind energy facilities. Amendment VC82 Amendment VC82, gazetted on 29 August 2011, amends the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria to implement further aspects of the government’s policy on wind energy facilities. Amendment VC82 prohibits a wind energy facility in the following circumstances and locations: Turbines within two kilometres of an existing dwelling except where the planning permit application includes evidence of written consent from the .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2839</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Impacts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Questions arising from the Auditor General’s 2011 Report on Renewable Energy Initiatives</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/questions-arising-from-the-auditor-generals-2011-report-on-renewable-energy-initiatives/</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stelling, Keith</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[Summary: With comprehensive and detailed evidence gathered independently from inside the Ministry of Energy&#8211; much of it previously unavailable to the public&#8211; the Auditor General’s Report unambiguously challenges both the rationale and implementation of the Green Energy Act. The Act has been promoted as a mechanism for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, increasing job opportunities, and creating a competitive business environment. However the Auditor General’s investigators found little evidence that these objectives have been or would be realized. Instead it suggests .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2837</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Wind and gas: Back-up or back-out – “That is the question”</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-and-gas-back-up-or-back-out-that-is-the-question/</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:04:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Méray, Nora</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[The focus of this study is to explore the effect that the deployment of a large share of wind energy has on the Northwest European power generation mix in the current market circumstances. The starting point of the study is that wind power is added to the power generation system with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions. Several other studies, papers and reports have been published on this subject which underline the complexity of the issue. Facts, projections and speculations .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2835</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Measuring the Performance of Wind Energy Projects</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/measuring-the-performance-of-wind-energy-projects/</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Wind</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[Assuring the Success of the Commonwealth Energy Policy The General Assembly has found that energy is essential to the health, safety, welfare and economy of the Commonwealth and that state government should facilitate the availability and delivery of reliable and adequate supplies of energy to industrial, commercial, and residential users at reasonable costs. The General Assembly has also enumerated energy objectives (§ 67-101), set forth a Commonwealth Energy Policy (§ 67-102), and directed development of a non-regulatory Virginia Energy Plan .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2832</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Maine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noise]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Letter to Riga Township Planning Commission</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-to-riga-township-planning-commission/</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<description><![CDATA[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 .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2827</guid>
		</item>
					<item>
				<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noise]]></category>
		<category>Wind power</category>
		<category>Wind energy</category>
		<title>Why is sharp-limited low-frequency noise extremely annoying?</title>
		<link>http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/why-is-sharp-limited-low-frequency-noise-extremely-annoying/</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Krahé, Detlef</dc:creator>
		<description><![CDATA[[Introduction] Low-frequency noise (LFN) is sound focused in the frequency range below ~100 Hz. For example, in Germany sound is defined as low frequency if the C- and A-weighted sound pressure level (SPL) differs by more than 20 dB. For a growing number of people LFN is an urgent problem, and many questions remain unanswered: Why does LFN seem to be a greater problem today than in the past? Are people more sensitive? Is LFN increasing? It can be assumed .&#160;.&#160;.]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2825</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

