[ posts only (not attachments) ]


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

By Title

By Author

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

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


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups


Resource Documents: Wisconsin (72 items)


Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here 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. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.

Date added:  September 5, 2017
Health, WisconsinPrint storyE-mail story

Herb Coussons comments to Brown County Board of Supervisors

Author:  Coussons, Herb

So a little bit of background and why I’m here to speak. I’ve been in practice in Green Bay since 2002. I’m originally from Louisiana and finished medical school in 1992 so I’ve been in practice for 25 years, mostly in primary care. Prior to coming here I practiced in the Pacific Northwest, I was on the faculty of the University of Idaho and Washington State. I’m on the faculty of the new medical college here in Green Bay, at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

I’m also a private pilot and I was a pilot since 1992 and have gone through all of the ratings all the way through airline pilot and have a particular interest in the physiology and science behind spacial disorientation. I also teach and consult around the United States.

I also would like to state that I have no conflicts of interest, no financial disclosures. I’m not paid to be here and I’m not here to represent anybody.

I also would like to say, since this is on wind energy and it is a controversial topic, I am very pro–American energy, whether that’s carbon or green, it doesn’t really matter, but I have some particular opinions about this topic. And I am presenting because I think that there is some overwhelming science behind the link to health issues, particularly in our local area with Shirley and even further south, Fond du Lac, but as it applies to this Board, Shirley, with the complaints that have come from south Brown County, and I have personally seen and taken care of six of these patients.

So I would like to point out the difference between a syndrome and a disease (you can follow along if you want to), but a syndrome is just a group of symptoms with no seemingly cohesive thing that draws them together or explanation for why they occur together. And this is where there is a lot of misunderstanding when wind turbine syndrome gets thrown around.

Well, I would like to point out that now I think it is a recognized disease, where a disease is a specific disorder with a pathologic or physiologic explanation. So now we classify this as vibro-acoustic disease, and last year with the new CMS guidelines encoding, there is a new code T75.20 which is the effects of vibration and there is a specific code now listed, vertigo from infrasound [T75.23]. It is a diagnosis and it is a disease.

I printed some abstracts for you and the most, I think, telling one is about vibro-acoustic disease. And vibro-acoustic disease has now been autopsy-proven to show soft tissue proliferation, particularly collagen and fibro-elastic tissue that causes heart problems, hypertension, and other physiologic proven findings. This is not isolated to wind turbines. This is in any instance of prolonged exposure to low-frequency noise, infrasound as we call it. And it applies in aeronautics too, from low frequency noise, that’s how I came upon these studies. It causes thickening of cardiovascular structures and potentially early death. There’ve even been some links to chromosomal damage and increased malignancies in these patients. And I would grant that there is an inadequacy of studies linking this to wind noise but without a doubt the frequency ranges that affect these individuals in both human and animal studies are the same frequencies that have been measured in the Shirley project.

The second one shows what those frequencies are, 0-20 Hz range. Low frequency, infrasound, ILFN, all the same thing. And I won’t get into the details there. You can read it and I can email you a copy of this if you would like it. But it is echocardiography, brain MRI, and histologically proven in autopsies of both animals and humans.

Other supporting evidence: sleep disturbance alone is enough to cause health problems. That’s why we have CPAP to treat sleep apnea patients, because they develop obesity, hypertension, right-sided heart failure, as well as other psychologic issues.

The next one, the theory to explain some physiologic effects of infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites, includes measurements in our own back yard in the Shirley project because it’s been one of the most studied around.

The next one was published in Canada and I would point to the conclusion of the study. Now that so many indicators point to infrasound as a potential agent of adverse health effects it is critical to re-examine the approach to this aspect of wind turbine operation, revise regulations immediately and implement protective public health measures based on a precautionary principle.

So, epidemiology. This gets pushed out there quite a bit. Why are there no epidemiologic studies, or we need to have more studies is the conclusion of every study.

So, first of all, the FDA is responsible for safety and effectiveness of health altering devices. That could be a surgical device, a drug, or anything like that, whereas OSHA is responsible for things that are environmental, that people may be exposed to. So there is a little bit of a conflict or struggle at a federal level between the FDA and OSHA.

Next is, there are things called IRBs, institutional review boards. So, medical research was unethical prior to the implementation of restrictions on human subject protections. There are animal studies, there are models, and there are other types of studies, but it is very difficult in any circumstances to point to a direct causal effect, or anything causing any disease, and I’m going to point that out in a subsequent slide.

So what study designs do we have? Case reports – somebody says, this bothers me. Next, cross sectional surveys – we’re going to go out and survey lots of people in an area. Next, we’re going to say, case controlled studies – we’re going to measure affected vs non-affected individuals. Cohort studies – groups of individuals against groups of individuals, maybe even in different neighborhoods or different states. Next would be a randomized control trial and then a meta analysis which is pooled groups of studies to get substantial numbers to prove a point when small numbers don’t prove a point.

Well, what do we have with wind? We have case reports, cross sectional surveys, case control studies, cohort studies including crossover, but we have no randomized control trials. What’s interesting is the wind industry also has no randomized control trials that are independent, not industry funded, and that are peer-reviewed. So, those types of things that claim safety, there’s just as much lack of evidence to stand on that claim as they say that the opposition, people who suffer adverse health effects have.

We will never actually see a randomized control study for wind. The reason why is there are ethical concerns with these studies. There’s enough out there to say that there are potential adverse health effects. There will never be a study. What would be an example of this? An example would be, and I printed something from a nephrology journal, that shows why there are no randomized control studies in some disease states, and the example is smoking. There are no randomized control studies that say that smoking causes adverse health effects, none, zero. But, we warn people, we tax them, there are lawsuits against them, there’s plenty of information and it’s commonly accepted that there is a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.

So in summary, I think we now have three decades of reports of adverse health effects, research has shown that infrasound and low frequency noise cause disturbances both in sleep and in physiologic direct link causal effects, the range of low frequency noise that’s been proven to cause these are measured in the wind turbine developments, vibro-acoustic disease is now a proven entity, and over 90 worldwide professionals and medical researchers that aren’t linked to any type of industry conflict would agree to that and have signed onto that statement. And now Shirley Wind is one of the most studied and documented industrial wind turbine developments in the United States and we have those affected individuals that we see in our own backyard.

So the conclusion, I am concerned, based on the patients that I’ve seen, that our local residents are being harmed by a very real risk of low frequency noise, some of which may not be seen or known for a decade or years to come. An example of this would be sun. It’s a wave form of energy and no one would disagree that UV light or infrared energy affects different people in different ways. I’m much more likely to burn than some of you in the room because I’m quite pale. So, there are people who are more susceptible, but that doesn’t deny the fact that they are affected. And I’m concerned also that with the evidence in our local backyard that the Board and the County will be at risk for both liability and negligence with the amount of information that’s been presented here over the last five years.

That’s about fifteen minutes of time and I would be open for questions or discussion to clarify any points because I breezed through that pretty quickly.

Herb Coussons, Greenleaf, Wisconsin
February 15, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  September 26, 2016
Health, Noise, WisconsinPrint storyE-mail story

Shirley Wind case crossover testimonies

Author:  Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy

The following one page statement, and the twelve case crossover testimonies attached, were submitted to the Brown County (Wisconsin) Board of Health on September 13, 2016, by Barbara Vanden Boogart, Vice President of BCCRWE (Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy).

In late July 2016, all of the Shirley Wind turbines were shut down for several consecutive days and nights – Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and part of Thursday, July 25-28. Not only were the wind turbines not operating during this timeframe, it also appears that all electric power to the wind turbines was also shut down for some or all of this timeframe, as evidenced by the fact that the red warning lights on top of the wind turbines were not illuminated during one or more of these nights. Also it was observed that work was being performed on the Shirley Wind substation during this timeframe.

After the wind turbines resumed operation during the day of Thursday, July 28, 2016, a number of Shirley Wind residents described what they experienced during this shutdown period when they were not exposed to any wind turbine emissions as compared to what they experience when the Shirley Wind turbines are operating and they are exposed to the wind turbine emissions. They then had their statements notarized.

These case crossover testimonies of several Shirley Wind turbine residents are attached and are being submitted with permission of the authors.

BCCRWE requests that members of the Brown County Board of Health, Human Services Committee, and Board of Supervisors consider the gravity of this evidence and testimony that appears supportive of not only a relationship between wind turbine emissions and adverse health effects to Shirley Wind residents but also confirms that the Brown County Board of Health’s “human health hazard” declaration is appropriate and that remedial action is needed to protect these adversely affected Brown County residents. Prior Shirley Wind resident testimony and acoustical experts’ ILFN test measurements at Shirley Wind, together with the vast body of professional documents that have been submitted, further support the relationship between Shirley Wind turbines and the adverse health effects reported by Shirley Wind residents.

Download original document: “Shirley Wind case crossover testimonies

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  April 1, 2015
Health, Noise, WisconsinPrint storyE-mail story

Theory to explain some physiological effects of the infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites

Author:  Schomer, Paul; Erdreich, John; Pamidighantam, Pranav; and Boyle, James

For at least four decades, there have been reports in scientific literature of people experiencing motion sickness-like symptoms attributed to low-frequency sound and infrasound. In the last several years, there have been an increasing number of such reports with respect to wind turbines; this corresponds to wind turbines becoming more prevalent. A study in Shirley, WI, has led to interesting findings that include: (1) To induce major effects, it appears that the source must be at a very low frequency, about 0.8 Hz and below with maximum effects at about 0.2 Hz; (2) the largest, newest wind turbines are moving down in frequency into this range; (3) the symptoms of motion sickness and wind turbine acoustic emissions “sickness” are very similar; (4) and it appears that the same organs in the inner ear, the otoliths may be central to both conditions. Given that the same organs may produce the same symptoms, one explanation is that the wind turbine acoustic emissions may, in fact, induce motion sickness in those prone to this affliction.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Mar;137(3):1356.
doi: 10.1121/1.4913775.

Paul D. Schomer
Pranav K. Pamidighantam
James H. Boyle

Schomer and Associates, Champaign, Illinois
John Erdreich
Erdreich Forensic Acoustics, Edison, New Jersey

Download original document: “Theory to explain some physiological effects of the infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  February 21, 2015
Australia, Health, Noise, WisconsinPrint storyE-mail story

E-mail messages from acoustic consultants and researchers to Steven Cooper and colleagues

Author:  James, Richard; Swinbanks, Malcolm; and Rand, Robert

These e-mails were exchanged among acoustic consultants and researchers in the USA, New Zealand, and Australia regarding claims by wind developer Pacific Hydro and others that acousticians/noise engineers are not qualified to determine cause and effect of human perceptions and therefore physiological and psychological responses to sound energy.

The comments by Pacific Hydro trying to limit the expertise of acousticians and noise engineers followed the public release of a review of, and strong endorsement of, Steven Cooper’s acoustic survey at Cape Bridgewater by senior US Noise Engineers Dr Paul Schomer and Mr George Hessler.

Mr Cooper’s work at Cape Bridgewater followed on from an acoustic survey conducted by Dr Paul Schomer, George and David Hessler, Bruce Walker, and Rob Rand at the Shirley Wind Farm, which was released in December 2012. Steven Cooper’s work achieved a number of the goals which Schomer, the Hesslers, Walker, and Rand had established were required after their Shirley acoustic survey, namely:

  1. Data collection during “on off” turbine operation, so that comparative acoustic data could be collected to accurately determine the wind turbine generated component. Duke Energy had refused to comply with their request to do so in the Shirley acoustic survey.
  2. Conduct attended measurement of acoustic exposures of residents when they could not see or hear the turbines ie establish whether some people could accurately determine wind turbine operation in these circumstances (as some residents have repeatedly stated).
  3. Determine acoustic thresholds for human perception above which residents could perceive turbine operation, and below which they could not.

Mr Cooper’s acoustic survey work for Pacific Hydro at Cape Bridgewater achieved the above three tasks.


1. From Rick James, 17 Feb 2015


In spite of what Pac Hydro may say, acousticians routinely use measurements and their observations about how people respond to different sounds to determine cause and effect. Whether it is a simple situation of whether a compressor is causing a noise disturbance or the effects of wind turbines on people that is our job. Do not let them try to claim that this is a medical decision. That is the MOE’s strategy in Ontario, but we do not need to let it be so in Australia. You are not establishing the biological processes by which cause the effects, you are only associating the presence of certain sounds to people’s responses.

Use my paper “Warning signs that went unheard…” to show that acousticians, including Leventhall and Broner, determined that rumbling, generally inaudible, HVAC sounds were the cause of Sick Building Syndrome. If a medical doctor was required to assess cause and effect for sick building syndrome the problems would still exist. There is no need to know the biological process to assign cause and effect. That hurdle would rule out most medicines which work for unknown reasons.

The pro-wind associations and other partisans need to use the medical hurdle to try to stop us from doing our job. Do not let them deny you the professional authority that is part of being an acoustician.

Rick James, INCE, 
E-Coustic Solutions

“Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere.” —former U.S. Surgeon General William Stewart, 1969

2. From Malcolm Swinbanks, 18 Feb 2015

Rick & Others,

I agree completely with what Rick is saying. It is not necessary to establish the precise mechanisms that cause adverse health effects from infrasound. It is sufficient to establish a rigorous correlation.

For thousands of years, since the days of the Greeks and Romans, the effects of sea-sickness were clearly acknowledged, but no-one had any knowledge of the structure and operation of the vestibular organs. Indeed one could ask Leventhall and Broner what is the precise mechanism by which low-frequency sound can cause nausea, dizziness, and headaches. I don’t mean simply because the basilar membrane is excited and the hair cells respond – what I mean is why does this make people feel ill, when a skilled opera bass singer can make people feel good?


3. From Rob Rand, 19 Feb 2015

Steve, Malcolm, Rick and All,

I agree completely with Rick and Malcolm. I spoke along these lines when questioned last week by the reporter at ABC Australia. As an acoustician working to protect public well-being, I don’t need the exhaustive medical research that would establish the mechanisms themselves. I said in fact it would be unethical of me as a member of INCE to wait the years required for such careful medical research work to be completed.

I have sufficient correlation already from the neighbors reports and affidavits and the measurements done thus far, to inform others for designing properly to be good acoustic neighbors.

 Yes do not let anyone especially those bent on promoting harm prevent you from doing your job as acoustician.

Best wishes,

Prepared by courtesy of Sarah Laurie, CEO, Waubra Foundation, 21st February 2015 – reproduced with permission of the authors.

Bookmark and Share

Earlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch