[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

New county slogan? . . . Where land, sky meet turbines 

Credit:  By Malcolm Rubel | Special to The County Compass, www.compassnews360.com 10 March 2012 ~~

Arguing about the logic or economics of wind energy is a waste of time at the county level. We found that out with the ‘Great Ferry Toll Debacle.’  The “Big” decisions are made by the Federal and State governments. They decide spending tax dollars and mandating the purchase of expensive but “green” wind energy.

There are, however, important issues that, at a county level, we can and must address.  Handling noise pollution and something called “blade flicker” are things within our control and both have effects on the community’s health and welfare.

Looking at what has happened in other communities is helpful.

The experience in Maine – a state that has already sited windmills in low density population areas – has shown that the noise pollution issue becomes very real only after a project is operational. 

The culprit is the noise made by the rotating blades. Blade tip noise is low frequency; between 200 and 300 Hz depending on the size of the installation. Low frequency sound travels much further and, when created “up in the air,” travels a much greater distance.

Here in Pamlico County we already have experience with this: The helicopters from Cherry Point.  We all know that you can hear the rotor blades “whumping” several miles away but we only hear the engine noise when the helicopter is close at hand. Unlike our helicopters, however, the source of the turbine blade noise pollution does not fly away:  It stays in place and generates the rhythmic ‘whumping’ as long as the blades are turning.

Maine’s experience with is instructive. While everyone was worried about the “visual” pollution of 450-foot tall white towers sticking up four to five times higher than the surrounding forest, the most invasive aspect of wind turbines has actually been the incessant low frequency “thuds” that come from the blades as they rotate.

This has caused issues for the people who live within the sound’s radius which, even in forested areas, is significantly further away than the quarter mile setback recommended by the wind energy industry, and approved by the State of Maine.

People report sleeping problems, irritability, headaches and even cardiac problems related to stress. Some have even been forced to move from their houses. The popular term for this is “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

“Blade flicker” (another new term) is caused by shadows cast by the blades as they pass between the observer and the sun. Most people who are unfortunate to be plagued by this have reported that the persistent dark “flashes” is annoying at best.  They say that they have to shut the blinds to escape while indoors. But, outside there is no escape. This is also a reported health issue. Blade flicker has been associated with epileptic attacks.

The flicker shadow moves with the sun and, coupled with the blade diameter, affects a large area. Regulations minimizing the impact of this must be incorporated in county regulations concerning wind turbine siting.

A search of PubMed, whch is a complete database of scientific articles, reveals many relevant studies on humans, animals, fish, and even marine mammals, all pointing to the fact that the low frequency noise is both persistent over long distances and has measurable effects on health and behavior.

In Maine, there has been an outcry against the noise pollution caused by windmills. In September 2011, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection voted to lower the allowable decibel level to 41db between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The industry is appealing the decision but also points out that the new, lower sound level limits will not apply to existing approved projects.

The Netherlands, with a longer history of living with wind energy generation, has decided that the most viable alternative is to move future wind generation development offshore. 

The Maine experience demonstrates that the initial setback requirements were inadequate to deal with the low frequency blade tip noise.  Recommendations of as much as 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) have been suggested to minimize the effects of the blade noise and flicker.

The town of Eastbrook, Maine, just passed a 42-page ordinance with a one-mile setback, maximum exposure to blade flicker, and a maximum allowable sound level of 40db at residential structures.

With this information available, would it be wise for Pamlico County to adopt limits that are significantly more lenient than current recommended parameters designed to protect personal, environmental and public health?

To view a copy of Eastbrook’s wind energy ordinance, download the attachment at the end of this article.

It is also important to remember that, given the nature of noise pollution generated by the wind turbine blades, setbacks should be not only from existing structures, but also from property lines as well.

Towers 450 feet high that generate persistent low frequency pressure waves are a material intrusion on neighboring property owners and the zoning laws must protect them from both from degradation of their property as well as from falling structures!

Finally, no matter what Pamlico County decides as far as zoning is concerned, provisions must be made for a decommissioning and removal bond to be posted by the builder so that, at the end of the tower’s useful life or, in our coastal location, in case of catastrophic structural failure in a hurricane, the county has the funds to adequately remove the structure and restore the land to its original condition.

There are already too many instances of abandoned towers left as standing junk.  We do not want this for Pamlico County nor do we want the landowner or the county to become financially responsible for removal and cleanup.  Decommissioning and removal is a cost of construction and should be borne by the company promoting the project. 

No matter what personal opinions are about wind energy, Pamlico County must consider the health, safety, and welfare of both individuals and the community when establishing regulations for these projects, no matter how attractive they may seem from a financial standpoint.  Let us not become known as “Pamlico County, where land and sky are assaulted by wind turbines.”

Eastbrook _Wind_Energy_Ordinance.pdf 239.11 KB
Source:  By Malcolm Rubel | Special to The County Compass, www.compassnews360.com 10 March 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational 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 requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)


e-mail X FB LI TG TG Share

News Watch Home

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


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook

Wind Watch on Linked In Wind Watch on Mastodon