« 2/14/11 Be a Sweetheart and contact these legislators AND Our Video of the Day AND Residents say Tell it to the Judge: Lawsuit filed against Town of Forest, alleging under-the-radar granting of turbine permits AND Who are the losers in the Big Wind game? | Main | 2/10/11 What's the latest from the Capitol? What happened at the hearing on the PSC's wind siting rules? AND Big Wind VS Little Birds. Guess who wins? Want to do something about it? »

2/11/11 Wind Project Homes Slideshow AND Contact the Committee AND Want to watch Wednesday's wind siting hearing? AND Why did the Vice Chairman of the Wind Siting Council testify against the PSC wind rules AND Let's review of the first International conference on health effects associated with industrial scale wind turbines

Click on the image above to watch a video slide show of homes in the Fond du Lac County wind projects. The siting guidelines the Public Service Commission used in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are much like the siting rules that will take effect on March 1, 2011 unless the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) decides to suspend the rules and return them to the PSC.

At the hearing, the JCRAR showed themselves to be an unusually attentive group of legislators who appeared genuinely interested in what people at the hearing had to say. They gave particular attention to the stories from the people with homes in the wind projects who are clearly having trouble living with setbacks the PSC setbacks once assumed to be safe.

Click on the links below if you'd like to contact members of the joint committee to thank them for holding the hearing and to ask that they suspend the PSC's rules.

Senator Leah Vukmir (Chair) (R- Wauwatosa) 266-2512, Sen.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Jim Ott (Chair) (R- Mequon) 266-0486, Rep.OttJ@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Joseph Leibham (R- Sheboygan) 266-2056, Sen.Leibham@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) 266-7513, Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Lena Tayor (D-Milwaukee) 266-5810, Sen.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) 266-1627, Sen.Risser@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Dan LeMahieu (R-Cascade) 266-9175, Rep.lemahieu@legis.wisconsin.gov  
Representative Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie) 266-7678,  Rep.hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov 
Representative Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) 266-5813, Rep.kessler@legis.wisconsin.gov  

Don't forget to include your name and address.

Click on the image below to see a video made by Larry Wunsch who served on the wind-siting council.

Mr. Wunsch testified to the committee on Wednesday about his first hand experience of living 1100 feet from a wind turbine being marginalized. He said the council wouldn't allow him to play a recording of the wind turbine noise he lives with.

Although Mr. Wunsh made copies of the video below available to council members, it was never discussed.

Posted on YouTube in August of 2008, Larry Wunsch's video has been viewed over 45,000 times.


SOURCE: The Associated Press

February 10, 2011

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Hundreds have packed a legislative hearing on how far energy-generating wind turbines should be located from property lines.

Statewide construction standards for turbines are set to go into effect March 1. But Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans have raised concerns that the regulations would allow turbines to be built too close to a neighbor's property.

Walker proposed a bill with larger setbacks but lawmakers decided not to consider it after critics said the measure would hurt the wind industry. GOP lawmakers instead have chosen to approach the issue through the rule-making process.

Republicans on the rule committee told state regulators they're worried the rules allow turbines to be built so close to property lines neighbors could get hurt.

The committee wasn't expected to take any action on Wednesday.

Couldn't make the wind siting hearing at the capitol on Wednesday? Want to know what happened?


Want more?

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN to Wednesday's broadcast of Wisconsin Public Radio's Joy Cardin show:  Writer Lynda Barry discusses the hearing and the research she's done on  wind siting issues in our state.


To: Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR)

From: Douglas Zweizig, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Wind Siting Council

Re: Clearinghouse Rule #10-057; PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128

Date: February 9, 2011

My name is Douglas Zweizig.

I am a retired UW—Madison professor from the School of Library and Information Studies. I conducted national survey research studies, and I directed doctoral students in the conduct of original research.

I’m also a member of my Town's Plan Commission, and I serve as Vice-Chair of the PSC's Wind Siting Council.

I am here today to request the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules to set aside PSC 128 (CR 10-057).

I am one of the authors of the Wind Siting Council’s minority report to the Public Service Commission. (See Appendix E of http://psc.wi.gov/mediaRoom/documents/WSC%20Final%20Report%20and%20Cover%20Letter%208-9-2010.pdf)

That minority report details grave concerns about the basis for the wind siting rules that are before us today. I am here to request that the rules be suspended because they were produced without a thorough or responsible audit of the negative impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines.

The rules as written will not protect the health, safety and welfare of impacted Wisconsin residents and communities. As you may know, the majority of the Wind Siting Council members had a direct or indirect financial interest in pushing for rules that favored the wind industry.

The rules reflect this, resulting in setbacks that are too short, limits on noise and shadow flicker that are too lax, and nearly non-existent remedies for citizens with complaints.

In Act 40, the legislature required an independent and qualified researcher "with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" to be a member of the Wind Siting Council.

 Instead, the Public Service Commission appointed a junior physician staff member of the state Division of Public Health who was just out of medical school. He openly and publicly admitted he had no expertise in the issue of health effects and wind turbines. He had collected no data and had made no observations himself on the health effects of wind energy systems.

His research consisted of reviewing existing literature using very narrow criteria. This resulted in a whitewashed report to the Council which ignored not only the first-hand experience of Wisconsin residents who are clearly having trouble living with wind turbines, but also disregarded even the most basic recommendations of the World Health Organization on nighttime noise limits necessary for healthful sleep. (www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf)

The most common health complaint from wind project residents is not mysterious: turbine vibration and noise interrupts their sleep. Health problems associated with chronic sleep deprivation from nighttime noise are well known. The PSC should be directed to carry out the quality of study called for in Act 40.

The main argument against more protective guidelines is an economic one. Wind energy proponents tell you the very setbacks that will protect the health of Wisconsin residents are “job killers.” You have been told over and over that wind energy systems will create jobs and provide a clean, effective source of energy with no negative consequences.

Of course, we are all interested in increased jobs for Wisconsin, but those who claim that short setbacks will not only do no harm but will also result in over 7,000 wind-related jobs in our state should be required to prove it, not just claim it.

The MacIver Institute recently attempted to document Wisconsin jobs related to wind energy and were able to identify only 31 jobs that were specifically tied to wind energy-related products. (http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/08/facts-about-green-job-creation-elusive-as-the-wind/) What’s the truth here? Shouldn’t we know?

In the name of questionable job creation, you are asked to accept siting rules that clearly disregard negative impacts to human health, wildlife, and property values in order to promote unsubstantiated claims of improved air quality and job growth.

If the PSC is to create wind siting rules for the entire state, then provisions for accountability must be part of those rules.

The rules must ensure the following things: that wind development does no harm to people, property values, wildlife, or habitat; that it provides an economical power source; and that it reduces output from coal-fired power plants in our state. 

As Vice-Chairman of the Wind Siting Council, I am here to say the rules as put forth by the PSC do not meet these requirements and to ask that you suspend them.

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Douglas Zweizig

Evansville, WI 

Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission



SOURCE: Wellington Times, wellingtontimes.ca

Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.

Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong.

November 5 2010

by Rick Conroy,

Piece by piece, presentation by presentation, the foundation upon which industrial wind industry and much of Ontario’s Green Energy Act sits was taken apart and dismantled this past weekend.

The industrial wind turbine business was always on shaky ground. It has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets.

They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale.

None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.

Several analogies were made about how the fight against the harmful effects of smoking tobacco began with just a few voices in the medical and scientific community. It would take decades, however, before governments would listen and begin to take action. The esteemed participants of the Picton gathering fervently hope it doesn’t take as long for governments and the broader public to understand the harm caused by industrial wind turbines.

Dr. Bob McMurtry, a physician and former deputy minister of health in Ontario, gathered doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to Picton in reveal their findings and share the latest information on the impact of industrial wind turbines in what he termed a “consilience” or unity of knowledge.


Several alarming messages emerged. Every animal with a functioning hearing organ, including humans, is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by industrial wind turbines.

Those most acutely affected tend to be disposed to motion sickness or car sickness— but even those without these symptoms may be responding to the noise, whether they are aware of it or not.

The low-frequency and subsonic (below the hearing range) noise from wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on the ear and hearing mechanisms. The most acute symptoms include nausea, dizziness and sleep disturbance. It is now becoming evident, however, that even those who don’t suffer these particular symptoms are likely realizing some harm.

These hearing mechanisms are closely related to language development, learning and cognitive organization— as the fine components of the ear become stressed, learning in children becomes impaired, concentration becomes harder for adults, and sleep is disrupted.

Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.

Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong.

Many opponents of large scale industrial wind factories have pressed for setbacks from homes of at least two kilometres. (Ontario’s Green Energy Act prescribes setbacks of just 550 metres.) But studies done by sound experts John Harrison and Richard James now show that in some conditions— over water and rocky terrain and beneath low cloud cover—the low-frequency noise can travel up to 15 kilometres.

Keynote speaker Dr. Nina Pierpont, the author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained that “our brains don’t function well” when subjected to long-term sustained low thumping noise from industrial wind turbines.

According to her research 90 per cent of those in her test sample exposed to the “pulsating tone” of the wind turbines suffered from cognitive performance deficit as compared to a control group. Generally they had more difficulty with reading, spelling, math, memorization and recalling the plots of television shows.

Pierpont’s findings extend beyond cognitive issues. She has also observed that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. These are the same triggers that cause in some a paralyzing fear of heights.

She observed that two-thirds of her test group—14 of 21—presented “disturbing symptoms” such as the need to flee, difficulty breathing, and panic.

Dr. Arlene Bronzaft recounted her groundbreaking studies on noise and learning done three decades ago in New York City. In her work she documented how children on one side of a school nearest a busy train line suffered from measurable learning impairment compared with students on the opposite side of the school.

Her work led to legislation and changes in the classroom to ensure students has a quiet place to learn, not just in New York, but across the U.S..

She urged the physicians and scientists in the room to continue to produce evidence of the harm of industrial wind turbines.

“You need the studies and the research,” said Dr. Bronzaft. “You need to teach. You need to be political. But I ask you not to give up if you are successful in one area—there are communities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine and across North America with small groups who are fighting these developers. They will continue to need your help.”

Alec Salt heads the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis. He illustrated that sound emitted from industrial turbines is many times greater than the audible hearing range—prompting him to work through the answer to his own question—does sound that you can’t hear hurt you?

Salt’s research has shown how low-frequency sound affects the transport mechanism of the ear and hearing structure.

“A big part of the sound created by an industrial wind turbine can’t be heard,” explained Salt. “That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you. When these structures move frequently and dramatically it can have an effect on a range of symptoms.”

He asked the audience to consider this proposition against other human senses.

“Apply this notion to taste, smell, sight and touch,” said Salt. “Does anyone believe that you have to taste something in order for it to be harmful? We know that ultraviolet light (light we can’t see) can have a dramatic effect on skin and other organs. The notion that we can’t be harmed by sounds we can’t hear is nonsense. We need to stop ignoring the effects of infrasound on people.”

He is less clear about whether symptoms persist after exposure to industrial wind turbine infrasound is discontinued.

Sleep expert Dr. Chris Hanning travelled from the U.K. to explain the effect of industrial wind turbines on sleep. He observed that the need for sleep is universal among animals—that poor sleep leads to a range of disorders from obesity to heart disease.

“Disrupted sleep over time leads to heightened states of frustration, anger and feelings of loss of control,” said Hanning. “This noise is viewed as an invasion of the place in which we go to retreat from life, where we go to feel safe.”

He also observed that the pulsating tone when measured on a spectragraph appears very similar in pattern to a fire alarm: “the tone we use to arouse people from sleep and warn them of danger.”

He has found that the persistent low frequency throbbing of industrial wind turbines is more disruptive to sleep than traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. The only thing worse, according to Dr. Hanning, is the rhythmic bass pounding from a loud stereo or “boombox” nearby.

Like Dr. Bronzaft, Hanning urged his colleagues in the room to continue to produce research and studies. He said illconsidered government policies have created thousands of guinea pigs around the world.

“There are enough folks being affected right now that together we can do the work that government and industry should have done in advance,” said Hanning.


After the physiological mechanics of the effect of industrial wind turbines had been described the conference turned to the victims. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted a controlled study of effects of industrial wind turbines on residents of Mars Hill in Maine.

The subjects in his study live within 1,100 metres of an industrial wind installation consisting of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines. His control group consisted of 27 adults living on average 5,000 metres from the wind turbines.

Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of those closest to the turbine reported “a new onset or worsened sleep disturbance” since the turbines went online. Only one of the 27 of those five kilometers away reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance. One hundred per cent of those closest to the turbines had considered moving away.


Much of this evidence presented this weekend, will likely be used in January as Ian Hanna of Big Island takes on the Ontario Government in court. Hanna is arguing that the province failed to use the “precautionary principle” when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act. The precautionary principle states that governments or organizations must ensure that its policies do not harm individuals or communities prior to enactment.

It seems clear from this weekend’s Picton conference that the province failed to meet this test.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend