An objective review of the evidence, using the brief provided, would have noted:
1. The large numbers of anecdotal reports and simple surveys which together provide good evidence that wind turbine noise harms health at distances currently permitted in most jurisdictions.
2. The published evidence of research examining the effects on wind turbine noise on annoyance, sleep and health. All five main studies show objective evidence of adverse effects at distances currently permitted in most jurisdictions as do a number of lesser studies.
3. The probability of sensitive receptors and the need to give them due consideration.
4. The published opinions on setback distances of a number of acousticians and researchers with considerably more experience of wind turbine noise than the panel.
5. The lack of objective evidence that wind turbine noise does not have adverse effects at distances currently permitted in most jurisdictions.
6. The lack of objective evidence behind the guidelines in many other jurisdictions.
The Panel’s charge is not an enviable one since it is nearly impossible to carry out. The health impacts on populations living in the vicinity of WT are, simply put, not documented.
Health impacts are not scientifically evaluated through questionnaires and surveys. Instead, objective clinical data are required which, in this case, do not exist.
The authorities who requested this Report (MassDEP and MDPH) will most likely not find it very useful if their priority is the health of populations living near WT. However, if other agendas exist, this Report may become relevant.
This report says nothing definitive about industrial wind turbine noise and health. As uch, this report is of no intrinsic value to guardians of public health.
This DEP Report on Wind Turbine Health Impacts does NOT present the facts; it presents a contorted and fallacious summary aimed at drawing false conclusions. Indeed, the Commonwealth’s ill-informed support of proposals to site industrial wind turbines under the setback and noise limits put forward by the Panel’s Report will cause illness and loss of property values, impacts for which the Commonwealth may find itself liable. … If the Commonwealth wants to sacrifice the health and homes of a subset of its residents in the name of Big Wind, just say so. The guidelines proposed in the DEP Report do just that. However, the Commonwealth should keep in mind that current and continuing research into the negative health effects and lost property values caused by improper siting of industrial wind turbines will demonstrate that the Commonwealth and Big Wind are liable for ruining the health and lives of many of its citizens and destroying the values of the single most important asset of many Commonwealth families – their homes.
The Wind Turbine Health Impact Study Is Junk Science
Moratorium initiatives in Canada, Wisconsin, Connecticut
‘County commissioners approve new wind power rules’ [2-mile setback, Oregon]
‘Pound … pound … pound – My experience with wind turbines’ – Neil Anderson, Falmouth, Mass.
MA DEP released a document that is far less than honest. The DEP panel review of a small amount of literature that was cherry picked by the biased pro-wind panel of so-called ‘independent experts’ from the hundreds of documents that were submitted.
This ‘review of literature’ must not stand. From ‘a to z’ it is fundamentally wrong. From the first word in the report, ‘independent’, it is false.
This material is the work of the author(s) indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this material resides with the author(s). 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. Send queries to query/wind-watch.org.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding