Better Plan, Wisconsin

Steve Deslauriers is a volunteer spokesperson for Wisconsin Citizens Coalition, the group of organizations listed as authors of the "Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines" Website: http://psc.wi.gov/apps35/ERF_view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=157326

FULL TEXT Brown County Board of Health Resolution Requesting Emergency State Aid for Families Suffering Around Industrial Wind Turbines

Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property.

The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's wind siting rules ('PSC 128') were created without oversight of a medical professional "...who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems." as mandated in 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 40. Jevon D. McFadden, MD, MPH (the Medical Doctor appointed to this role) publically acknowledged that he did not meet these criteria.

WHEREAS in the May 25, 2010 presentation made by Jevon D. McFadden, MD, MPH to the Brown County Board of Health, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services - Division of Public Health, the State recognized and acknowledged that "Gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact that wind energy may have on human health..." but has failed to take any action to fill these gaps.

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's wind siting rules ('PSC 128') were suspended on March 1, 2011 by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) stating that its contents "...create an emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare; are arbitrary and capricious; and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites."

WHEREAS the State of Wisconsin has failed to remedy this "emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare" by carrying out the mandate of 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 40 which requires the State to enact wind siting standards that "...include setback requirements that provide reasonable protection from any health effects, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker, associated with wind energy systems..."

WHEREAS the State's inaction to enact wind siting rules that protect human health and safety has allowed development of the industrial wind project known as Shirley Wind LLC to be constructed in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, Wisconsin (dedicated November 2010).

WHEREAS Shirley Wind LLC has created an environment that has resulted in the very same "undue hardships" that the JCRAR suspension of 'PSC 128' sought to prevent. These "undue hardships" have forced two families to vacate their homes to regain their health and continue to force at least two other families to suffer adverse health effects significant enough that they seek refuge away from their homes but do not have the financial ability to temporarily relocate.

WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has attached recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer-reviewed) to this resolution, organized by year of publication, accurately describing the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families.

WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has in the past, and continues to, advocate for the health and safety of Brown County families.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property. The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.

Brown County Board of Health Industrial Wind Turbine Health Impact Supporting References

The following recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer-reviewed), organized by year of publication, accurately describe the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families.

2012:

Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota), Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man) FRICS, Wind Turbines And Proximity To Homes: The Impact Of Wind Turbine Noise On Health, January, 2012. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Frey_Hadden_WT_noise_health_01Jan2012.pdf

2011:

Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.), Robert W. Rand, INCE Member, The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study - Adverse Health Effects Produced By Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed, December 14, 2011. http://randacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Bruce-McPherson-ILFN-Study.pdf

Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm, Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA, “A summary of new evidence: Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines”, August 2011. http://www.windaction.org/documents/32829

Krogh, C. M. E., “Industrial wind turbine development and loss of social justice?” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 321-333. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/321

Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill, “Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life,” Noise & Health, September 2011 vol. 13 issue 54 pages 333-339. http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2011;volume=13;issue=54;spage=333;epage=339;aulast=Shepherd

Bronzaft, A. L., “The Noise from wind turbines: Potential adverse impacts on children's well-being,”
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 291-295. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/291

McMurtry, R. Y. ,“Toward a case definition of adverse health effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines: Facilitating a clinical diagnosis,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August
2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 316-320. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/316

Environmental Review Tribunal, Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the
Environment, Jerry V. DeMarco, Panel Chair and Paul Muldoon, Vice-Chair, July 2011 http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/files/201108/00000300-AKT5757C7CO026-BHH51C7A7SO026.pdf

Harrison, J. P., “Wind turbine noise,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol.31 no. 4 pages 256-261. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/256

INCE/Europe, Wind Turbine Noise 2011— Post conference report, April 2011. http://www.confweb.org/wtn2011/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:report&catid=35:information

Michael Nissenbaum MD, Jeff Aramini PhD, Chris Hanning MD, “Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report,” 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, July 2011. http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Nissenbaum%20et%20al%20ICBEN2011_0158_final.pdf
2011 (continued):

Krogh, C. M. E., Gillis, L., Kouwen, N., and Aramini, J., “WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring,” Bulletin of
Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 334-345. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/334

Laurie, S., “Submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry on rural wind farms,” by Dr. Sarah
Laurie, BMBS, Medical Director Waubra Foundation, February 2011. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Laurie-Australia-Senate-submission-final.pdf

Møller, H. & C. S. Pedersen, “Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, June 2011 vol. 129 no. 6 pages 3727-3744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3543957

Phillips, C. V., “Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011, vol. 31 no. 4, pages 303-315. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303

Richarz, W., Richarz, H., and Gambino, T., “Correlating very low frequency sound pulse to audible
wind turbine sound,” INCE/Europe Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome Italy, 12-14 April 2011. Cited in: http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/presentation-from-the-fourthinternational- meeting-on-wind-turbine-noise/

Salt, A. N. & Kaltenbach, J. A., “Infrasound From wind turbines could affect humans,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 296-302. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs (Parliament of Australia), “The social and economic impact of rural wind farms,” 2011. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/index.htm

Shain, M., “Public health ethics, legitimacy, and the challenges of industrial wind turbines: The
Case of Ontario, Canada,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 346-353. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/346

Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K., Hill, E., Wind turbine noise and health-related quality of life nearby residents: a cross-sectional study in New Zealand. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise. Rome Italy April 2011 http://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/bep/ch375citizen_petition/pre-hearing/AR- 30%20chapter%20375%20-%20r%20brown%20hearing%20submission%20- %20Shepherd%20et%20al%20Wind%20turbine%20noise%20%20Quality%20of%20LIfe%20Rome %202011.pdf

Thorne, B., “The Problems with ‘noise numbers’ for wind farm noise assessment,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 262-290. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/262

Vanderburg, W. H., “Assessing our ability to design and plan green energy technologies,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 251-255 http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/251

Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Public Health Division, Office of Environmental Public Health, “Health impacts of wind energy facilities,” 2011. http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironment /TrackingAssessment/HealthImpactAssessmen t/Pages/windenergy.aspx

2010:

Chief Medical Officer of Health (of Ontario), Report: “The potential health impact of wind turbines,”May 2010. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf

Hanning, C., “Wind turbine noise, sleep And health”—Summary paper prepared by Dr. Christopher
Hanning. BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, November 2010. http://www.acousticecology.or /wind/winddocs/health/Hanning%202010_Wind%20turbine%20noise%20sleep%20and%20health%20November%202010.pdf

Ito, A. & T. Takeda, “Sickness claims prompt study of wind turbines [by the The Environment Ministry of Japan],” The Asahi Simbun, January 2010. http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201001180410.html

National Health and Medical Research Council (of Australia). “Wind turbines and health: a rapid review of the evidence,” 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/new0048.htm

Nissenbaum, M., Press conference by Michael Nissenbaum, MD Radiologist in Vermont's State
House, May 7, 2010, (video). http://vimeo.com/11577982

Pierpont, N., Letter to the Vermont State House of Representatives from Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Co-signed by the following: George Kamperman, PE, President, Kamperman Associates, Inc., Board-Certified Memberof Institute of Noise Control Engineers, Fellow Member of Acoustical Society of America, Member of National Council of Acoustical Consultants, F. Owen Black, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Board-Certified Otolaryngologist, Senior Scientist, Director of Neurotology Research Balance & Hearing Center North West, Legacy Health System  Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Board-Certified Otolaryngologist and Head and Neck Surgeon, Served on Hearing and Equilibrium Subcommittee of the American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ,  Stanley M. Shapiro, MD, Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, Board-Certified
Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Nuclear Cardiology, Champlain Valley Cardiovascular Associates,February 2010. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Pierpont-et-al.-to-Klein-2-10-10.pdf

Punch, J., James, R., & Pabst, D., (2010), “Wind-turbine noise: What audiologists should know,”
Audiology Today, July-August 2010. http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2047

Salt, A., “Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don't tell your brain”—Powerpoint presentation by
Alec N. Salt, Ph.D., Department of Otolaryngology, (2010), Washington University School of Medicine, First International Symposium on Adverse Health and Wind Turbines, Sept 2010. http://windvigilance.com/downloads/symposium2010/swv_symposium_presentation_infrasound_your_ears_hear_it_2.pdf

Salt, A. N. & Hullar, T. E., “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines,” Hearing Research, September 2010 vol. 268 nos. 1-2 pages 12-21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20561575 2010 (continued):

Thorne, R., “Assessing noise from wind farms,”—Powerpoint presentation by Robert Thorne, PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand for The Society for Wind Vigilence, First International Symposium, October 2010. http://acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/nois/swv_symposium_paper_thorne%20slides_assessin g_noise_from_wind_farms%20copy.pdf

Thorne, R. (Noise Measurement Services), “Noise impact assessment report - Waubra Wind Farm,”
prepared by Robert Thorne, PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand, July 2010. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Dean-Waubra-Noise-Impact-July-20101.pdf

2009:
Minnesota Department of Health, “Public health impacts of wind turbines” http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/windturbines.pdf

World Health Organization, “Night noise guidelines for Europe.”
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf

WIND POWER DOCUMENTARY TAKES A SKEPTICAL TURN

Via National Public Radio

February 2, 2012

By Mark Jenkins

As is often the case, the outside developer's biggest asset was the local elite, which was certain it knew best. Farmer and town council leader Frank Bachler joined the town's attorney in overruling a skeptical planning commission report about the effects of erecting the turbines.

Not even the most ecologically minded are always keen on the prospect of giant wind turbines near their homes. But Meredith, N.Y., welcomed "Big Wind" when it first came whistling through town. That's what makes Windfall so interesting: The documentary is the story of an education.

In some ways, Meredith seems a natural place for a wind farm. Situated in one of New York's poorest counties, it's in an agricultural area whose principal enterprise, dairy farming, has dramatically declined. But the area is mostly home to small landowners, with few large tracts that could be developed without affecting nearby neighbors. And some of those neighbors are refugees from New York City, where they learned to be skeptical and outspoken.

Director Laura Israel is among the Meredith residents who split their time between the town and the big city 160 miles to the southeast, which explains why she was able to follow the controversy over a year or more, as pro-windmill sentiments gradually shifted to anti-.

This is no first-person piece, though; Israel stays off camera, allowing her neighbors to speak. She doesn't present the views of the wind-power developer, Airtricity (originally Eiretricity, before the Irish firm was sold to Scottish and German interests), but that may be because the company is a low-profile one that didn't address the community collectively, and insisted on confidentiality agreements before it would even enter into negotiations with property owners.

As is often the case, the outside developer's biggest asset was the local elite, which was certain it knew best. Farmer and town council leader Frank Bachler joined the town's attorney in overruling a skeptical planning commission report about the effects of erecting the turbines.

Bachler and other supporters labeled the anti-windmill forces "a vocal minority." But with an election looming, the pro-wind forces had to double-check their math. Even Bachler, one of the principal on-screen proponents of the turbines, would give the whole idea a second thought.

In Meredith, the case against wind turbines turned on their size — about 400 feet high and 600,000 pounds each — not to mention their grinding noise, their bone-shaking vibrations and the flickering shadows they cast, which disrupt light and sleep (and video games). One of the opponents, Ken Jaffe, is a retired doctor who looked into the high-tech windmills' medical side effects.

Also, the turbines sometimes fall over, catch on fire or hurl dangerous ice projectiles. They kill birds and bats in large numbers. And there's more.

To optimize the investment, wind-power developers tend to build a lot more turbines than they initially propose. In Tug Hill, farther north in upstate New York, a proposed 50 high-tech windmills became 195. As skeptics began to investigate, they learned that wind power is too unreliable to replace dirtier forms of generation, and that the wind business is based less on electricity than on tax credits: Big investment companies keep flipping the companies so as to restart the depreciation process.

A veteran film editor making her first feature, Israel emphasizes the area's low-key beauty. She conducted most of the interviews outside to show the landscapes. When the movie finally gets to Tug Hill, the contrast is all the more striking. Meredith, N.Y., may not be paradise, but it's clear why residents didn't want to sacrifice its rustic appeal to the steady whomp of industrial windmills.

 Second Feature

"WINDFALL"

By John Anderson,

Via The Wall Street Journal, wsj.com

February 3, 2012 

Speaking of horror movies, the monsters are 400 feet tall in “Windfall,” easily the more haunting film of this week and a sublimely cinematic documentary by the film editor-cum-director Laura Israel. Her subject is the battle waged over wind power in the tiny upstate New York town of Meredith. What’s so scary? Industrial wind turbines, the fetish objects of the green-minded, those sleek, white, propellered and purportedly eco-friendly energy collectors that one might have seen dotting the desert outside Palm Springs, and which may soon be sprouting out of Nantucket Sound. They’re sustainable, they produce no emissions and they’ll reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Right? Not quite. And living next to one seems like a nightmare.

Ms. Israel’s movie proves, once again, that the best nonfiction cinema possesses the same attributes as good fiction: Strong characters, conflict, story arc, visual style. The people of Meredith, be they pro or con the wind-turbine plan being fast-tracked by their town council, are articulate, passionate, likable. The issues are argued with appropriate gravity, and even though Ms. Israel, a Meredith homeowner herself, is clearly antiturbine, the other side gets a chance to speak its piece: Farmers, an endangered species, need income. Turbine leases are a way to it. But not only do the energy and ecological benefits fall short of what they’re cracked up to be, the turbines themselves are an environmental disaster: The monotonous whoosh of the propellers, the constant strobing effect caused by the 180-foot-long propellers, the threat of ice being hurled by the blades, the knowledge that it’s never going to end, all adds up to a recipe for madness. And that’s just during the movie.

“Windfall” is thoroughly engaging, educational and entertaining; the neo-blues music by Hazmat Modine is a real plus. Ms. Israel might deny it out of respect for her collaborators past and future, but documentaries are all about the editing. Many filmmakers might have been able to assemble the parts of “Windfall.” Far fewer would have produced as stylish a result.

TILTING AT WINDMILLS

By ROBERT BRYCE

via New York Post, www.nypost.com

February 4, 2012 

The battle in Meredith (population: 1,500) pitted landowners who stood to profit by putting the wind turbines on their property against those who didn’t. Israel interviews one couple, Ron and Sue Bailey, who took money from a wind company, a move they soon came to regret. The couple said they “were blinded by the money” and “never thought about what our neighbors across the road would think.”

Documentary makers are always hoping that their film will come out at just the right moment, when a favorable news cycle and popular sentiment are converging so that the public is primed for their message.

In 1989, Michael Moore made his career with “Roger & Me,” a documentary that pinned the decline of his hometown — Flint, Mich. — on General Motors. By focusing his fire on GM’s chairman, Roger Smith, Moore tapped into the public’s anger at tone-deaf corporate bosses as well as the growing disenchantment with the American car industry.

Laura Israel’s new film, “Windfall,” has the same sort of fortuitous timing. Her documentary — which focuses on the fight over the siting of wind turbines in the small upstate town of Meredith — premieres at the same time that “green energy” stimulus failures fill the news, and the wind-energy industry faces an unprecedented backlash from angry rural residents.

Consider this Nov. 1 story from The Village Market, a news outlet in Staffordshire, England, about 150 miles northwest of London. The paper’s reporter, covering the staunch local opposition to a proposed wind-energy project near the tiny village of Haunton, wrote, “Huge numbers of people in rural areas are rising up against the technology, despite government assuming they would support it.”

Throughout the UK — indeed, all over the world — fights against large-scale wind-energy projects are raging. The European Platform against Windfarms lists 518 signatory organizations from 23 countries. The UK alone now has about 285 anti-wind groups. Last May, some 1,500 protesters descended on the Welsh assembly, the Senedd, demanding that a massive wind project planned for central Wales be stopped.

Although environmental groups like Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace claim that wind energy is the answer when it comes to slowing the rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions, policymakers from Ontario to Australia are responding to angry landowners who don’t want 100-meter-high wind turbines built near their homes.

Last September, CBC News reported that Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has logged “hundreds of health complaints” about the thumping noise generated by the province’s growing fleet of wind turbines. In December, government officials in the Australian state of New South Wales issued guidelines that give residents living within two kilometers of a proposed wind project the right to delay, or even stop, the project’s development.

Back here in the States, many communities are passing ordinances that prohibit large-scale wind energy development. On Nov. 8, for instance, residents of Brooksville, Maine, voted by more than 2 to 1 in favor of a measure that bans all wind turbines with towers exceeding 100 feet in height.

Meanwhile, the promoters of Cape Wind, a large offshore wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound, are still hoping to get their project built. But they continue to face lots of well-heeled opposition, including, most notably, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Well-known for his advocacy of renewable energy, Kennedy opposes the wind project — because it will be built a few miles from his family’s estate in Hyannis Port.

As “Windfall” is premiering this week in New York, wind-energy lobbyists in Washington are desperately hoping to convince Congress to pass a multi-year extension of the 2.2-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind energy. Without it, the domestic wind business, which is already being hammered by falling natural-gas prices, will likely end up becalmed.

Israel’s portrayal of the bitter feuding that happened in Meredith over wind-energy development is similar to fights that have occurred in numerous other rural communities around the world. The battle in Meredith (population: 1,500) pitted landowners who stood to profit by putting the wind turbines on their property against those who didn’t. Israel interviews one couple, Ron and Sue Bailey, who took money from a wind company, a move they soon came to regret. The couple said they “were blinded by the money” and “never thought about what our neighbors across the road would think.”

The landowner faction in Meredith was led by the town’s supervisor, Frank Bachler. Israel portrays him as a well-intentioned man who, in favoring the wind development, is trying to help the area’s struggling farmers. Bachler dismisses the opponents of the wind project as “a minority of people who are very aggressive.”

But Bachler is proven wrong. The anti-wind faction quickly gains momentum and the resulting feud provides a textbook example of small-town democracy. Three wind opponents run for election to the town board with the stated purpose of reversing the existing board’s position on wind. In November 2007, they win, and a few weeks later pass a measure banning large-scale wind development.

Israel’s film also features a colorful interview with Carol Spinelli, a fiery real-estate agent in Bovina, a town of about 600 people located a few miles southeast of Meredith. Bovina passed a ban on wind turbines in March 2007. Spinelli helped lead the opposition, and she nails the controversy over wind by explaining that it’s about “big money, big companies, big politics.” And she angrily denounces wind-energy developers “as modern-day carpetbaggers.”

That’s a brutal assessment. But it accurately portrays the rural-urban divide on the wind-energy issue.

Lots of city-based voters love the concept of renewable energy.

But they are not the ones who have to endure the health-impairing noise that’s created by 45-story-tall wind turbines, nor do they have to see the turbines or look at their red-blinking lights, all night, every night.

So many want to make the world green — so long as it’s not them who have to suffer for it.

NEXT FEATURE

TOPPLING TAX DOLLARS FOR TURBINES

by Marita Noon,

via finance.townhall.com

February 5, 2012 

On February 1, an urgent alert was sent to supporters of wind energy. It stated: “The PTC is the primary policy tool to promote wind energy development and manufacturing in the United States. While it is set to expire at the end of 2012 … the credit has already effectively expired. Congress has a choice to make: extend the PTC this month and keep the wind industry on track…”

The wind energy industry has reason for concern. America’s appetite for subsidies has waned. Congress is looking for any way it can to make cuts and the twenty-year old Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy is in prime position for a cut—it naturally expires at the end of 2012. Without action, it will go away.

The payroll tax extension will be a hot topic over the next few weeks as it expires on February 29. Wind energy supporters are pushing to get the PTC extension included in the bill. Whether or not it is included will be largely up to public response—after all, regarding the PTC’s inclusion in the payroll tax extension bill, the February 1 alert stated: “our federal legislators heard us loud and clear.” In the December payroll tax bill negotiations, the wind energy PTC was placed on a “short list of provisions to be extended through that bill.” Wind supporters are worried—hence the rallying cry.

Due to a deteriorating market, Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of industrial wind turbines, is closing a plant and laying off workers. Everyday citizens, armed with real life information gleaned from the wind energy’s decades-long history, are shocking lobbyists and killing back room deals by successfully blocking the development of industrial wind plants in their communities.

As news of actual wind energy contracts are coming in at three and four times the cost of traditionally generated electricity becomes widespread, and natural gas prices continue to drop due to abundance, states are looking to abandon the renewable energy mandates pushed through in a different economic time and a different political era. American Wind Energy Association spokesman, Peter Kelley, reports: “Industry-wide we are seeing a slowdown in towers and turbines after 2012 that is rippling down the supply chain and the big issue is lack of certainty around the production credit that gives a favorable low tax rate to renewable energy.” All of this spells trouble for the wind energy industry.

The PTC is part of a push for renewables that began in the Carter era. Enacted in 1992, the twenty-year old wind energy PTC was designed to get the fledgling industry going. However, after all this time, wind energy is still not a viable option. Even the industry’s own clarion call acknowledges that government intervention is still needed to keep it “on track.” If the training wheels are removed, it will topple.

Wind energy lobbyists have a plan: HB 3307 will extend the PTC for another four years. If the PTC extension passes, it will add an extra $6 billion to the $20 billion in taxpayer dollars the wind industry has already received over the past 20 years. These are monies we borrow (typically from China) to give to Europe—where most of the wind turbine manufacturers are located.

With advertisements featuring blue skies, green grass, and the warm and fuzzy images of families (and not one shot of a 500-foot wind turbine looming over their home), it is easy for the average person to be taken in and think we should continue to underwrite this “new technology”—after all, there is an energy shortage. “What will we do when we run out of oil?” Wind energy is electricity and electricity doesn’t come from oil—even if it did, we don’t have an oil shortage. Electricity comes from clean-burning natural gas and coal—both of which we have in abundance and know how to use effectively. They don’t need an expensive replacement.

Wind energy supporters often tout turbines because of the misguided belief they will get us off of fossil fuels—when, in fact, they commit us to a fossil fuel future. Optimistically, a wind turbine will generate electricity 30% of the time—and we cannot predict when that time will be. Highly variable wind conditions may mean the turbine generates electricity in the morning on Monday, in the middle of the night on Tuesday, and not at all on Wednesday. A true believer might be willing to do without electricity at the times when the wind is not blowing, but the general population will not. Public utilities and electric co-ops cannot—they are required to provide electricity 24/7 and to have a cushion that allows for usage spikes.

So, during that average 30% of the time that the turbine blades are spinning, the natural gas or coal-fueled power plants continue to burn fossil fuels—though possibly slightly less in an extended period of windy weather, and full-steam-ahead the remaining 70% of the time. (Research shows that turning up the heat on power plants, and then turning it back down, and up again actually increases the CO2 emissions.) Absent a major breakthrough in expensive energy storage, wind can never save enough fossil fuel to make any significant difference. After twenty years of subsidies, wind energy has not replaced one traditional power plant.

Some argue that many new technologies got their start through government support. This might be a good viewpoint if wind energy were “new.” But after twenty years of subsidies it is little better now than it was in the late 1800s. Windmills produced electricity then, and modern industrial wind turbines generate electricity now. It is not that they do not work, they do. They just don’t do so effectively, economically, or 24/7—and they still need Uncle Sam to prop them up.

Those who favor free markets need to seize upon this opportunity to push for the government to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. Clearly the “green” experiment has failed. Billions have been lost in the effort.

If we truly believe in free markets, why stop at just cutting the subsidies to wind energy? Stop the subsidies to all energy! May the strongest survive! The fact is, such a move is afoot. While HB 3307 aims to stretch out the subsidies for wind energy, HB 3308 will stop subsidies for all energy sources—wind and solar, oil and gas. The playing field will be level; billions will be saved!

A congressman I spoke to fears that, in the current political climate, his colleagues will cave on the wind energy subsidy, as they seem unwilling to take a strong stand on any issue. While wind energy supporters are calling their representatives, free-market advocates and everyone who believes the government-gone-wild spending must stop has to place a call, too.

Call, or e-mail, your Congressman, and as many others as you can take the time for, and tell them to stop subsidizing energy: “Do not include HB 3307 in the payroll tax extension bill. Support HB 3308 which will repeal the PTC and numerous other renewable energy tax incentives including the investment tax credit, the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, the tax credit for electric and fuel cell vehicles, and tax credits for alternative fuels and infrastructure. Additionally, HB 3308 will also repeal the enhanced oil recovery credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells.”

Instead of propping up energy policy based on politics rather than sound science, we have to prop up our representatives and give them the backbone to do what is right.

Tell them to end energy subsidies.

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- Residents speak about life with 500 foot turbines in the Shirley wind project, Brown County, Wisconsin.

AID FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS SOUGHT

Brown Co. panel: State should pay medical bills for those near wind farm

by Doug Schneider,

via Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

January 26, 2012 

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously. “This problem is very real,” he said.

Wisconsin should pay the medical bills of Brown County residents who were made ill by industrial wind turbines, some county supervisors say.

Saying the state allowed “irresponsible placement” of industrial wind turbines in the Glenmore area, the Brown County Human Services Committee has approved a measure to ask the state to pay emergency aid to families living near the Shirley Wind Farm.

The request, which seeks an unspecified amount until the “hardships are studied and resolved,” could come before the full County Board next month.

It is the latest attempt by county supervisors and other officials to manage an issue in which some residents began experiencing conditions such as anxiety, depression, weight loss and increased cancer risks since the wind farm was erected in 2010.

“There is a 70-year-old woman who lost 20 pounds from not being able to eat,” said Barbara Vanden Boogart, a member of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, an advocacy group. “There are two adults who sleep an average of one and a half hours a night.”

Shirley’s operators insist their facility has been built and operated safely.

Wind farms have been a topic of debate in Wisconsin in the past several years. Advocates say wind pollutes less than coal and is less expensive and less potentially dangerous than nuclear energy.

Officials say the facilities’ record isn’t good enough. The County Board resolution says the state was irresponsible in allowing the Shirley Wind Farm to be built without consulting an expert on the medical consequences of living near wind turbines.

Supervisors said they had no indication Wednesday of how the state would respond to their request. They said the answer would be up to officials in Madison to resolve this spring.

Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously.

“This problem is very real,” he said. Being upstairs in a house near the Shirley facility, he said, “felt after 10 or 12 minutes like you were getting carbon-monoxide poisoning.”

Lawmakers also are calling on the state to adopt turbine-siting guidelines approved by citizens groups.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, last week introduced a bill to allow cities, villages, towns and counties to establish the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a home — even if those rules are more restrictive than any the state enacts.

Statewide wind-siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended last March. Lawmakers sent those rules, which dealt with farms of less than 100 megawatts, back to the state Public Service Commission, where they have stayed as officials worked to reach a compromise.

Lack of regulatory agreement, particularly on the issue of how far a turbine must be from a property line, has tempered enthusiasm about wind farms. A corporation in 2011 scrapped plans for a 100-turbine development in the Morrison-Glenmore area.

On the net

» Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind-Siting Guidelines: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wisconsin-citizens-safe-wind-siting-guidelines

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The families having trouble living with the Brown County turbines are not alone: 

CLICK HERE to see photos and read the daily wind turbine noise log kept by a resident living in the Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County 

SECOND FEATURE

From Ontario

LOCAL HEALTH EXPERT: LOTS OF ROOM IN CANADA FOR WIND TURBINES

by David Meyer,

Via The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

January 27, 2012 

Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

C. WELLINGTON TWP. – Opponents of industrial wind turbines have been telling the provincial government for several years it needs to do some health studies before approving such machines close to homes.

Some of those opponents did not wait for the province. Dr. Jeff Aramini is a public health epidemiologist and former senior scientist with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. He and his family live 2.5km from a proposed wind farm near Belwood.

He has just taken part in a study of the alleged effects of wind turbines on health in two communities in Maine, in the United States, and the results indicate the closer wind turbines are to people’s home, the higher their chance of sleep disruption and their chances of suffering depression.

Aramini said in an interview on Monday people opposed to wind farms in the Belwood area asked him to check health effects because of his expertise in that field.

His partners were Dr. Michael Nissenbaum of the Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, and Dr. Chris Hanning, of University Hospitals of Leicester, in the United Kingdom.

Aramini said in an interview the two communities studied are “not unlike anything here.”

He said it was “a little surprising the health effect that came across the strongest was depression.”

The study was peer reviewed, which means experts from around the world had an opportunity to comment on it. The study was published last year in the 10th International Congress on Noise as a public health problem in Great Britain.

The peer review is important for those opposing wind turbines.

Janet Vallery, a spokesman for Oppose Belwood Windfarm, highlighted a difference between the study Aramini was involved in and the studies being cited by the provincial government.

“The Ontario provincial government used literature reviews as a basis for determining setbacks,” she said. “This new research deems setbacks less than 1.5km must be regarded as unsafe.”

Aramini said the questionnaire tool used for the research “has been used millions of times around the world.”

The researchers found, “It wasn’t simply close and far … It was, the closer you get, the [more] progressively your risk rises.”

He noted, too, that only adults were considered in the study, and wondered what effects sleep disruption would have on children.

“Losing sleep is a big deal. In kids, it affects their learning,” said Aramini.

There were about 80 adults involved in the Maine study, with about half living 2 to 3km away from a turbine, and others lived farther away than 3km.

The Ontario setbacks from human habitation is 550 metres and Aramini said that increases chances of people suffering from clinical depression by 369%.

“It’s doubling to tripling the chance of you being at risk if living that close,” he said, adding if just one person is affected badly, it is too many. “We’re talking about real people.”

Aramini said people ask him regularly about how close they can live to turbines, and if he would buy a home close to one.

“If you’re within 2km, I’d think twice,” he said about purchasing a home, adding he suggests people talk to their physician prior to turbines going in if they live near where the machines are proposed.

Aramini said it is vexing the provincial government is forcing people to endure turbines when there is plenty of land available that is not anywhere near human habitation.

“The thing that disappoints me is Canada is a big place. Surely we can put them in a place away … For God’s sake, put them out in the middle of nowhere, away from people.”

Unfortunately, he said of the issue, “Clearly there’s a lot of politics and money involved.”

Despite the study’s claims to the contrary, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) maintains there is no “conclusive” correlation between turbines and health issues.

Video of a home in an Ontario wind project

WIND HISTORIAN AND BOOSTER URGES REMOTE LOCATIONS FOR NEW WIND TURBINES

Via aeinews.org

Book review by Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute

January 2, 2011

On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”  

He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response.  Now I realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”

A new book, Windfall: Wind Energy in America Today, by historian Robert Righter,  was recently published by University of Oklahoma Press.  Righter also wrote an earlier history of wind energy, published by UofO Press in 1996.  In the intervening years, of course, the wind industry has blossomed from its initial mini-boom-and-bust in the California hills (Altamont, anyone?), with bigger turbines, larger government incentives, and growing commitment to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electric generation all leading Righter to feel that an update was in order.

As a hearty advocate of wind energy and continued rapid growth of the industry, Righter will startle many with his strong call for not building turbines “where they are not wanted.”  He spends chunks of three chapters addressing the increasing problems caused by wind farm noise in rural communities, chides developers for not building farther from unwilling neighbors, and says that new development should be focused on the remote high plains, rather than more densely populated rural landscapes in the upper midwest and northeast.  While not ruling out wind farms in the latter areas, he calls for far more sensitivity to the quality of life concerns of residents. (Ed. note: Righter’s book shares a title with, but should be clearly distinguished from, a recent documentary investigating local anti-wind backlash in a NY town.)

Righter seems to be especially sensitive to the fact that today’s turbines are huge mechanical intrusions on pastoral landscapes, a far cry from the windmills of earlier generations.  At the same time, he suggests that a look back at earlier technological innovations (including transmission lines, oil pump jacks, and agricultural watering systems) suggests that most of us tend to become accustomed to new intrusions after a while, noting that outside of wilderness areas, “it is difficult to view a landscape devoid of a human imprint.”

He acknowledges the fact that impacts on a few can’t always outweigh the benefits for the many in generating electricity without burning carbon or generating nuclear waste, but goes on to ask:

No matter how admirable this is, should a few people pay the price for benefits to the many?  Should rural regions lose the amenities and psychological comforts of living there to serve the city?  Should metropolitan areas enjoy abundant electricity while rural people forfeit the very qualities that took them to the countryside in the first place?  The macro-scale benefits of wind energy seldom impress local opponents, who have micro-scale concerns.  The turbines’ benefits are hardly palpable to impacted residents, whereas the visual impact is a constant reminder of the loss of a cherished landscape.

Righter also takes a realistic stance about the fact that our appetite for electricity leads to inevitable conflicts wherever we might want to generate it. He says, “…wind turbines are ugly – but the public produced the problem and must now live with it.  Turbine retribution is the price we must pay for a lavish electrical lifestyle.”

But unlike most wind boosters, he doesn’t content himself with this simple formulation.  He goes on to stress that even as recently as 2000, most experts felt that technical hurdles would keep turbines from getting much bigger than they were then (500kW-1MW).  The leaps that have taken place, with 3MW and larger turbines in new wind farms, startle even him:  ”They do not impact a landscape as much as dominate it….Their size makes it practically impossible to suggest that wind turbines can blend technology with nature.”  He joins one of his fellow participants in a cross-disciplinary symposium on NIMBY issues, stressing:  ”Wind energy developers must realize the ‘important links among landscape, memory, and beauty in achieving a better quality of life.’  This concept is not always appreciated by wind developers, resulting in bitter feeling, often ultimately reaching the courts.”

He was obviously touched by the experience of Dale Rankin and several neighbors in Texas, who were affected by the 421-turbine Horse Hollow Wind Farm.  Righter generally agrees with my experience there, that such wide open spaces seem the perfect place for generating lots of energy from the wind.  But two of these hundreds of turbines changed Rankin’s life. These two sat between his house and some wooded hills, and Righter says that to him, “the turbines seemed inappropriate for this bucolic scene.  For the Rankins the change is a sad story of landscape loss…”  He asked whether the developer had talked with them before siting the turbines here, but they hadn’t, since the land belonged to a neighbor and local setback requirements were met, so “the utility company placed the turbines where its grid pattern determined they should be.  Perhaps such a policy represents efficiency and good engineering, but (reflects) arrogance and poor public relations….(The developer) crushed Rankin with their lawyers when fairness and reason could have ameliorated the situation…the company could well have compromised on the siting of two turbines.  But they did not.”

On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”  He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response.  Now i realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”

While offering many nods to the constructive role of better public engagement early in the planning stages and making the case for societal needs sometimes outweighing those of a few neighbors, Righter also stresses:

While some objections to wind farms are clearly economically inspired and quite political in nature, no one can deny the legitimacy of many NIMBY responses.  When the electrical power we want intrudes on the landscapes we love, there will be resistance, often passionate.  This is part of the democratic process.  The vocal minority, if indeed it is a minority, has a legitimate right  to weigh the pros and cons of wind development in the crucible of public opinion, in public hearings, and if necessary in our court system.

As a bottom line, and despite his support for the industry and belief that we may learn to appreciate a landscape with more turbines, Righter calls strongly for new development to proceed in ways that minimize or eliminate intra-community conflict.  Recounting one of many stories of a community torn apart by hard feelings between nearby neighbors (at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in New York), he concludes:

Should the wind companies shoulder the blame?  I believe they should.  Good corporate citizens must identify potential problems and take action, and that action should precede final placement of the wind turbines….The most optimal ridge need not be developed at the expense of residents’ rights to the enjoyment of their property.

“In the final analysis,” writes Righter, “we can best address the NIMBY response by building wind turbines where they are wanted…and where they do not overlap with other land use options.”  He elaborates:

Conversely, wind developers should give serious consideration to not insisting on raising turbines where they are not wanted…Unlike Europe, our nation has land.  there are vast areas of the United States that have excellent wind resources and welcome the wind turbines….We can hope the industry will adopt the attitude of Bob Gates, a Clipper Wind Power vice president: “If people don’t want it, we’ll go someplace else.”  Fortunately, the country can accommodate him.

Righter also stresses that current setbacks requirements encourage the building of wind farms in ways that almost inevitably cause heartbreaking problems for some neighbors.  While at one point he makes the mistaken assumption that most setback limits are already a half mile or more, he addresses in some detail the findings of a 2007 report from the National Research Council’s Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects.  Righter observes that scientific difficulties with subjectivity led the committee to “shy away from the most important subject,” the impacts on humans, including social impacts on community cohesion and psychological responses to controversial projects. But he’s pleased to note:

Yet they did address one key impact on human beings: the fact that those individuals and families who suffer negative visual or noise effects from the turbines live too close to them.  This is not the fault of the homeowners, for in most cases the home was erected before the wind turbines arrived.  Usually it is attributable to local government regulations, which often allow setbacks of only 1,000 feet.  Significantly, in their study the NRC’s wind committeee observed that ‘the most significant impacts are likely to occur within 3 miles of the project, with impacts possible from sensitive viewing areas up to 8 miles from projects.’

One might expect that this would preclude setbacks of less than at least a mile.  But the industry prefers setbacks measured in feet rather than miles.

Righter’s book also includes chapters addressing grid integration, government incentives, reliability, and smaller turbines.  He repeatedly makes the case for more research and development into smaller, vertical axis turbines, which, even with their smaller outputs, could be far more acceptable in many locations where landscape disruption and noise issues are paramount.  Anti-wind campaigners won’t find Righter to be very comfortable company, for he sees the technological and grid challenges as easily surmountable, and the government support and investment in the industry as both warranted and of proper scale. He also supports various efforts to achieve better community consensus, including making royalty payments to those not hosting turbines.  Make no mistake, this is an avid supporter of the industry.

Indeed, his long history and his deep knowledge of wind energy make his final recommendations about siting all the more striking.  Righter’s experience and stance has fueled my confidence that the path AEI has been pointing to for the past year or so is more than the pipe dream of a tiny non-advocacy nonprofit.  Larger setbacks, to protect unwilling neighbors from quality of life upheavals, combined with easements obtained via royalty-sharing or annual payments to neighbors who don’t mind hearing turbines a bit more often, is a fair and promising path forward.

As Righter says in his conclusion:

The days of an oil patch mentality of greed and boom-bust cycles are about over.  Most developers understand that it is in their best interest to operate openly and in good faith with the local community.  More problematical is the question of landscape.  Wind turbines placed in a pleasing agrucultural, scenic, or historic landscape evoke anger and despair.  At the heart of the issue is visual blight. Residents do not want to look at the turbines and are willing to fight wind development.  Their wishes should be respected.

Wind developers should take to heart geographer Martin Pasqualetti’s advice: “If developers are to cultivate the promise of wind power, they should not intrude on favored (or even conspicuous) landscapes, regardless of the technical temptations these spots may offer.”  The nation is large.  Wind turbines do not have to go up where they are not wanted.  We can expand the grid and put them where they are welcome.

NEXT FEATURE

From CNN

NEXT FEATURE

From The Waubra Foundation

From ABC

FROM ILLINOIS

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to this December 20th news article , wind company NextEra  (formerly Florida Power and Light) has quietly settled with DeKalb County residents who brought a lawsuit against them.

Details of the settlement are unknown, however, a website that chronicled the  Hulthen family's daily experience of living with turbine noise and shadow flicker in the NextEra wind project is suddenly gone from the web.

Wind companies often refuse to settle unless a gag-order is part of the deal. Was this one of the terms of the settlement? Is this why the website is gone?

Residents of a wind project in DeKalb Illinois talk about their experiences.

uploaded to YouTube by preservelenoxmtn on Dec 31, 2011

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen | "Life with Dekalb Turbines" | February 5, 2011 | Blissfield Middle School

The Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a group opposing the location of wind turbines in Riga, Ogden and Fairfield townships, hosted a seminar at the Blissfield Middle School.

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen spoke on "Life with Dekalb Turbines". They are from DeKalb County, IL. They live in the middle of an industrial wind farm. There are thirteen industrial wind turbines located within one mile of their home, two within 1400 feet

Next features:

A letter from North Dakota:

Subject: Life with turbines
From: Paul L Meisel Photography
Date: Sat, May 07, 2011 5:55 pm
To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com

Hello,

I happened to hear you on KTLK a couple of weeks ago. I live south of
Minot, ND. A year and a half ago a wind farm of approximately 80
turbines was installed south of Minot. There are 42 in my township, the
nearest one is a little over one mile from me.

I have a 50% hearing loss, yet even on relatively calm days I can hear
the sound of the turbines. And on windy days I can feel them. It is as
if a diesel truck was idling nearby. I can hear that sound while in my
house, but not when I go outside. Therefore I conclude that it is caused
by low frequency sound or perhaps earth vibrations which cause my house
to vibrate. I now experience occasional vertigo and nausea often while
the low sound is occurring.

Driving near the turbines in winter can be dangerous. Ice dislodges from
the turbine blades, and if the wind is in the right speed and direction
the ice pieces land on the road. I have had several hit my car at night.

It was quite disconcerting.

Opposing wind development is not a very popular activity in this area.
When a neighbor and I tried to speak in opposition to the turbines at
our annual township meeting, we were quickly told that our opinions did
n

ot matter.

Prior to the turbines this was on a prime Bald Eagle migration path. I
have only seen one Baldy since the turbines went up. Also, this area was
an overnight stopping point for Sandhill Cranes. Accompanying the
Sandhills I would occasionally see Whooping Cranes. Now the cranes avoid
the region. Speaking out publicly is strongly discouraged and I am not
aware of any local action groups.

There is nothing which can be done up here, it is all too late. However
I am devoted to helping others avoid what has happened here. If I can
help in any way, please let me know. Also, I am attaching a photo of a
local turbine which experienced a blade failure several days ago. The
wind was less than 50 knots when the incident occurred (I maintain my
own weather station). Feel free to use and disseminate the image.

Regards,
Paul L Meisel