[ posts only (not attachments) ]

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)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Resource Documents: Noise (623 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:  October 16, 2018
Canada, Noise, TechnologyPrint storyE-mail story

Wind turbine low frequency and infrasound propagation and sound pressure level calculations at dwellings

Author:  Keith, Stephen; et al.

Abstract
This study was developed to estimate wind turbine low frequency and infrasound levels at 1238 dwellings in Health Canada’s Community Noise and Health Study. In field measurements, spectral peaks were identifiable for distances up to 10 km away from wind turbines at frequencies from 0.5 to 70 Hz. These measurements, combined with onsite meteorology, were in agreement with calculations using Parabolic Equation (PE) and Fast Field Program (FFP). Since onsite meteorology was not available for the Health Canada study, PE and FFP calculations used Harmonoise weather classes and field measurements of wind turbine infrasound to estimate yearly averaged sound pressure levels. For comparison, infrasound propagation was also estimated using ISO 9613-2 (1996) calculations for 63 Hz. In the Health Canada study, to a distance of 4.5 km, long term average FFP calculations were highly correlated with the ISO based calculations. This suggests that ISO 9613-2 (1996) could be an effective screening method. Both measurements and FFP calculations showed that beyond 1 km, ISO based calculations could underestimate sound pressure levels. FFP calculations would be recommended for large distances, when there are large numbers of wind turbines, or when investigating specific meteorological classes.

Stephen E. Keith, Non Ionizing Radiation Physical Sciences Division, Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Gilles A. Daigle, Michael R. Stinson, MG Acoustics, Carlsbad Springs, Ontario, Canada

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144, 981 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5051331

Download original document: “Wind turbine low frequency and infrasound propagation and sound pressure level calculations at dwellings

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  October 15, 2018
Health, NoisePrint storyE-mail story

A procedure for deriving wind turbine noise limits by taking into account annoyance

Author:  Fredianelli, Luca; et al.

Highlights

Abstract

With the increasing installation of wind farms, the attention of citizens towards wind turbine noise (WTN) has grown. Differently from some national legislations, the scientific community has promptly responded, increasing the studies and the social surveys in order to better understand the cause of disturbance and the indicators that relate to it. At first, the paper underlines the importance of low WTN levels for indirect health effects such as sleep disturbance and annoyance. The importance to consider noise annoyance in legislation is also discussed, as WTN is more disturbing than other most common noise sources. Then, conversion curves for equally highly annoyed are introduced considering the annoyance perceived by population in relation with the type of source. Finally, a specific limit value of 43 dB(A) for WTN is derived and suggested, comparable with British and Danish standards.

Graphical abstract

Luca Fredianelli, Stefano Carpita, Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Italy
Gaetano Licitra, Environmental Protection Agency of the Tuscany Region, Livorno, Italy; National Research Council IPCF, Pisa, Italy

Science of The Total Environment, Volume 648, 15 January 2019, Pages 728-736

Download original document: “A procedure for deriving wind turbine noise limits by taking into account annoyance

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  October 10, 2018
Europe, Health, Noise, RegulationsPrint storyE-mail story

Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region

Author:  World Health Organization

Wind Turbine Noise Recommendations

For average noise exposure, the GDG [Guideline Development Group] conditionally recommends reducing noise levels produced by wind turbines to below 45[A] dB Lden* [at the most exposed façade, outdoors], as wind turbine noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects.

To reduce health effects, the GDG conditionally recommends that policy-makers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from wind turbines in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average noise exposure. No evidence is available, however, to facilitate the recommendation of one particular type of intervention over another.

Download original document: “Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region

Download the Executive Summary

*ISO 1996-1:2016 Section 3.6: Lden is the average of all (12-15 hours of day, 4 hours of evening [if defined], 8-9 hours of night) levels, with evening and night levels weighted: +5 dB added to the evening levels and +10 dB to the night levels.

See also:
Night Noise Guidelines for Europe
Guidelines for Community Noise

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  August 13, 2018
Health, Noise, Ontario, Prince Edward IslandPrint storyE-mail story

Derivation and application of a composite annoyance reaction construct based on multiple wind turbine features

Author:  Michaud, David; et al.

Abstract —
Objectives: Noise emissions from wind turbines are one of multiple wind turbine features capable of generating annoyance that ranges in magnitude from not at all annoyed to extremely annoyed. No analysis to date can simultaneously reflect the change in all magnitudes of annoyance toward multiple wind turbine features. The primary objective in this study was to use principal component analysis (PCA) to provide a single construct for overall annoyance to wind turbines based on reactions to noise, blinking lights, shadow flicker, visual impacts, and vibrations evaluated as a function of proximity to wind turbines.
Methods: The analysis was based on data originally collected as part of Health Canada’s cross-sectional Community Noise & Health Study (CNHS). One adult participant (18–79 years), randomly selected from dwellings in Ontario (ON) (n = 1011) and Prince Edward Island (PEI) (n = 227), completed an in-person questionnaire. Content relevant to the current analysis included the annoyance responses to wind turbines.
Results: The first construct tested in the PCA explained 58–69% of the variability in total annoyance. Reduced distance to turbines was associated with elevated aggregate annoyance scores among ON and PEI participants. In the ON sample, aggregate annoyance was effectively absent in areas beyond 5 km (mean 0.12; 95% CI 0.00, 1.19), increasing significantly between 2 and 5 km (mean 2.13; 95% CI 0.92, 3.33), remaining elevated, but with no further increase until (0.550–1] km (mean 3.37; 95% CI 3.02, 3.72). At ≤ 0.550 km, the average overall annoyance was 3.36 (95% CI 2.03, 4.69). In PEI, aggregate annoyance was essentially absent beyond 1 km; i.e., (1–2] km (mean 0.21; 95%CI 0.00, 0.88); 2–5 km (mean 0.00; 95%CI 0.00, 1.37); > 5 km (mean 0.00; 95%CI 0.00, 1.58). Annoyance significantly increased in areas between (0.550 and 1] km (mean 1.59; 95%CI 1.02, 2.15) and was highest within 550 m (mean 4.25; 95% CI 3.34, 5.16).
Conclusion: The advantages and disadvantages to an aggregated annoyance analysis, including how it should not yet be considered a substitute for relationships based on changes in high annoyance, are discussed.

David S. Michaud & James McNamee, Non-Ionizing Radiation Health Sciences Division, Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada
Leonora Marro, Biostatistics Section, Population Studies Division, Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada

Canadian Journal of Public Health (2018) 109:242–251
doi: 10.17269/s41997-018-0040-y

Download original document: “Derivation and application of a composite annoyance reaction construct based on multiple wind turbine features

Bookmark and Share


« Later DocumentsHomeEarlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

 Follow: