Entries in wind farm health effects (113)
10/11/11 Show me the study: Wisconsin senator's bill requires health effects of wind turbines to be studied.
SENATOR CALLS FOR MORATORIM AND HEALTH STUDY ON WIND TURBINES
By Kristin Byrne
SOURCE: www.wbay.com
October 10, 2011
A state senator is on a mission to make sure wind turbines don’t hurt peoples’ health.
“We owe it to ourselves as legislators, and as a state and country, to not harm people when new things come down the pike,” Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) said.
Senator Lasee is introducing a bill calling for a health study on wind turbines.
The bill would impose a moratorium on future wind turbine construction until the Public Service Commission receives a study from the Department of Health Services on turbines’ health impact on people and animals in three ways:
The impacts of low-frequency sound
How turbines affect people and animals in different proximity to the systems
Any differences associated with various wind speeds and directions
Senator Lasee was in the Town of Glenmore on Monday promoting the piece of legislation.
“There’s information coming in from around the world where they’ve had windmills longer that there are health effects,” Lasee said.
Lasee says he’s done his research on wind turbines and he’s heard from his constituents.
“I’ve seen enough now in my own district and elsewhere of people actually moving out of their homes it’s gotten so bad,” he said.
Before more turbines are raised, he thinks a study should be done on how they can impact your health.
“I don’t know that it’s going to help us, because we already have the windmills here, but hopefully it will help other families from having to go through,” Darrel Cappelle, who lives in Glenmore, said.
Cappelle and his wife Sarah say ever since eight turbines started running right by their home about a year ago, the constant hum has given them headaches, a good night’s sleep sometimes isn’t an option, and they think that’s why they’re getting sick more often.
“If you get a cold, it’ll last three weeks instead of three days,” Cappelle said.
Cappelle doesn’t know for sure if his family’s health problems are directly related to the turbines, but a study might answer that question.
“We need to have a real scientific study or use data from around the world. There are plenty of other studies out there to prove that this is causing harm to people,” Senator Lasee said.
[video available]

10/10/11 Wisconsin gets serious about getting wind siting right
Fond du Lac County home in Invenergy wind projectPROPOSED BILL WOULD PLACE A MORATORIUM ON WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT
SOURCE: The Fond du Lac Reporter
Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.
Madison, WI –Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) has introduced “Health Study for Wind Turbines” legislation in the State Senate. The proposed bill creates a moratorium on future wind turbines until the Public Service Commission (PSC) receives a report from the Department of Health Services (DHS) regarding the health impacts on people and animals.
[Click here to download the wind turbine health study bill]
Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.
“There are three families that I am aware of who have moved out of their homes to get relief because they are getting so ill. One family’s teenage daughter was hospitalized, and when they moved, she fully recovered. We can’t let this kind of a thing go on,” said Senator Lasee. “It’s plain un-American to have wind turbines twice as tall as the State Capitol right next to someone’s house that they are forced to look at, which makes them dizzy, nauseous and sick.”
“This has been a nightmare, we’ve had to leave our beautiful home in order to get relief from the health issues we believe were caused by the nearby wind turbines,” said Sue Ashley an impacted property owner. Darrel Cappelle, another impacted property owner added, “my wife has been suffering from migraine headaches since the wind turbines were constructed. This has been a horrible impact on my family.”
“This bill will require the PSC to protect people and their property from being harmed by the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines,” said Lasee.
SECOND STORY
WIND SITING RULES STILL STUCK IN LIMBO
By CLAY BARBOUR,
SOURCE madison.com
October 9, 2011
Hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in potential economic development are stuck in limbo as officials continue to argue over new wind siting rules.
The new rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended earlier this year just before they were to go into effect. A legislative committee sent them back to the Public Service Commission, which was tasked with finding a compromise between both sides.
Now, some seven months later, PSC officials say they are no closer to a deal than when they started. Meanwhile, wind farm developers such as Midwest Wind Energy and Redwind Consulting are sitting on their hands, and their money.
“Right now, we just don’t have a path forward in Wisconsin,” said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company that suspended work earlier this year on a large wind farm in Calumet County. “The uncertainty is just too much now.”
Polz said Chicago-based Midwest already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project. In full, the company expected to spend upward of $200 million on the project, employ 150 to 200 construction workers for up to 18 months and five to eight people full time after that.
The project is one of five major utility wind farms suspended or canceled as a result of the ongoing stalemate, costing the state a relatively quick infusion of about $1.6 billion in economic development and almost 1,000 temporary, full-time jobs.
“In this economy, where jobs are at a premium and people are struggling, this kind of inaction is inexcusable,” said Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha.
Set back by setbacks
The sticking point, according to PSC spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch, is what it has always been: setbacks, noise levels and the effects turbines have on neighboring property owners.
The PSC spent more than a year working out the original rules, which bore the fingerprints of Democrats and Republicans, the wind industry and its critics.
Those rules were scheduled to go into effect in March. But after taking office in January, Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced a bill to dramatically increase setbacks.
The original rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence. Walker’s provision pushed the setback from the property line — not just a house — to 1,800 feet, about six football fields.
That proposal appealed to wind industry critics and the real estate industry, a heavy contributor to Walker’s campaign. Realtors donated more than $400,000 to Walker by October 2010, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, an election watchdog group.
But officials in the wind industry said the governor’s proposal would ruin their business in Wisconsin. Barca said the original rules were the result of a bipartisan agreement and he thinks the governor just doesn’t like the industry.
“It has been a deliberate decision by Gov. Walker,” he said. “They are going to kill wind energy in this state.”
Time pressure
In the end, the legislative committee that reviews agency rules chose not to act on the governor’s bill and instead voted to send the original rules back to the PSC to see if an agreement could be ironed out.
If no changes are made by March, the original rules go into effect. However, two bills sit in Legislative committees designed to kill the original rules and force the state to start from scratch.
“But I don’t think they want to do that,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. “They would be immediately vulnerable on the ‘jobs’ issue.”
Walker said he is aware of the stress caused by the delay but feels it is important any rules be fair to both sides, respecting property rights and the future of the wind industry.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Frank Lasee, R-De Pere, plans to introduce a bill Monday to call for a moratorium on wind turbines until the PSC receives a report from the Department of Health Services on possible health effects of wind farms.
“It is more important to fully vet, understand and communicate to the public the potential changes than the specific timing of when they are adopted and enacted.” Walker said. “It is important to note that whatever proposed changes are made, there are effects on a number of different areas of the economy.”

10/7/11 The answer is YES: There are negative healh effects from poorly sited wind turbines
From Illinois:
SCIENTIST SAYS WIND FARMS BAD FOR HEALTH
BY DAVID GIULIANI,
SOURCE: www.saukvalley.com
October 7, 2011
Anyone who argues that wind turbines don’t have bad health effects are either ignoring the evidence or “trying to mislead,”
DIXON – A scientist who has studied the effects of wind turbines argued Thursday that there was “overwhelming evidence” that they hurt people’s health.
A wind industry representative, however, said epidemiologist Carl V. Phillips didn’t answer many direct questions during an evening presentation.
Phillips, who lives in Pennsylvania, was allowed to present for up to an hour to the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals, which is reviewing the county’s ordinance on wind turbines.
Then the public got to ask questions.
Phillips said that in his research, he has found that people who live up to 2 miles away from the turbines develop such things as sleep, stress and mood disorders once wind farms go up.
Wind turbines create noise, vibrations and shadow flicker, he said. But he acknowledged that scientists don’t know exactly how turbines cause the health problems.
That’s not unusual in science, he said, noting that experts have known for 60 years that smoking is linked to cardiovascular disease but don’t know exactly how.
Phillips said he didn’t know the exact percentage of residents within a mile or more of wind farms who suffer “substantial” health problems as the result of the turbines, but he said his best guess, based on research, was 5 percent.
Anyone who argues that wind turbines don’t have bad health effects are either ignoring the evidence or “trying to mislead,” Phillips said.
Victims of the health effects often move away and then see their health improve, he said.
“What had been their sanctuary is now a hostile environment,” he said. “People abandon their homes and sell at a loss.”
In questioning, Phillips acknowledged that he hadn’t compared people’s health both before and after wind turbines go up. But he said he would like such information.
Lee County now requires that the distance between turbines and homes be 1,400 feet – a little more than a quarter-mile. Phillips suggested that the setback should probably be somewhere between 1 and 2 miles, but he said there wasn’t enough evidence to determine what would be the best setback.
If the setback were at 1 or 2 miles, there may not be a feasible spot in the county for turbines, he said.
Near the end of the meeting, Susie Miller of Ashton questioned whether representatives of Ireland-based wind company, Mainstream Renewable Power, had anything to say.
Mainstream’s John Martin said the presentation was Phillips’ “philosophical” statements and “personal hypotheses.” He said Phillips essentially said that he wanted more studies.
Earlier in the meeting, Richard Boris, mayor of the village of Lee, said many landowners who allow turbines must sign confidentiality agreements with the wind energy companies. He suggested that such deals would prevent them from discussing health problems that they believed resulted from turbines.
At the end of the meeting, he asked Martin whether that were the case.
Martin said he couldn’t comment on the confidentiality agreements because they were “inherently confidential.”
Wind farm opponents laughed.
Another Mainstream representative, Keith Bolin, said no one would be barred from talking about their health. He said he was offended at the insinuation they couldn’t.
Mainstream is planning a wind farm in Lee, Bureau and Whiteside counties.

9/10/11 Why your town needs a moratorium on Big Wind AND More about the noise the wind industry says is all in you head
A Letter from a Wisconsin Farmer
PLACE MORATORIUM ON LARGE WIND TURBINES
SOURCE: htrnews.com
September 10, 2011
By Jerome Hlinak, Tisch Mills
Some of you may be aware that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin appointed a committee of experts to create statewide wind siting rules, but may not know the majority of that committee benefits financially from the wind industry.[Click here to see who is on the Wind Siting Council]
One committee member living in the Fond du Lac County wind turbine nightmare had his health concerns completely ignored by those looking to fill their pockets with government green energy subsidies.
Statewide, legislators have been receiving complaints from wind farm victims who live much farther away than the committee's recommended 1,250-foot setback.
Committee member Bill Rakocy of Emerging Energies was granted a permit by Manitowoc County in 2006 to build eight turbines near Mishicot. A court denied those permits, agreeing with residents that the county should have used its new wind ordinance, not the 2004 ordinance, which was written with assistance from wind developers.
Emerging Energies, aka Shirley Wind LLC, moved on to build the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County.
Families residing up to a mile away from the Shirley turbines have been driven out of their homes due to health issues. Emerging Energies received $13.2 million in grants for this project, benefits from tax credits and double depreciation at your tax dollar expense, and these families get no compensation without legal action.
Please ask your county supervisor to support a moratorium on large wind turbines. The current county ordinance requires only a 1,000-foot setback from a lot line.
Element Power is proposing turbines in northern Manitowoc County that would fall between the county's outdated rules and new state standards that might be as much as 2,640 feet from a lot line.
Several town boards have passed resolutions to support a moratorium. Ask your supervisor to place more value on your health and safety ratherthan financial gain or jobs with Tower Tech.
Jerome Hlinak
Tisch Mills
Next Story
CURE FOR WIND FARM NOISE POLICY GRIDLOCK: BACK OFF BUT ALLOW EASEMENTS
Source: Renewable Energy News
September 10, 2011
By Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute
Most wind advocates, including both industry players and regional renewable energy organizations, continue to be in a state of disbelief that the noise of turbines could possibly be a significant issue for nearby neighbors.
While it’s increasingly acknowledged that turbines will be audible much of the time, complaints about noise are too often painted as being unworthy of serious consideration, either because turbines are not all that loud, or because of an insistence that noise complaints are bogus surrogates for a broader opposition to wind energy that is “really” based on visual impacts or economic arguments (driven in some cases by climate change denial).
Perhaps most crucially, wind advocates rarely acknowledge that turbine noise is often 10 dB louder than background sound levels (sometimes even 20 dB or more); acousticians have long known that any increase over 5 dB begins to trigger complaints, with 10dB the threshold for widespread problems.
Meanwhile, many community groups are over-reaching in their approach to reducing noise impacts, by focusing too much of their argument on possible health impacts of wind turbine noise exposure. While there are many reliable anecdotal examples of people having physical reactions to nearby turbines, even the accumulating number of reports of health reactions to new turbines represents a small minority of people who live within a mile or even half-mile of turbines.
The health claims are hard – and perhaps impossible – to prove, though some insist that any health impact is unacceptable. Much more telling are community response rates that affirm – in some types of rural communities – that 25-50 percent of people hearing turbines near the regulatory sound limits feel that their quality of life is severely impacted.
AEI’s new report, Wind Farm Noise 2011, aims to frame the current state of research and policy in a way that can help those trying to find a constructive middle ground that protects rural residents from an intrusive new 24/7 noise source while also encouraging wind development as part of our renewable energy future.
A series of court and environmental tribunal rulings in recent months shed an especially illuminating light on the ambiguous state of our current understanding of wind farm noise impacts. In each case, the ruling rejected some elements of the challenge while affirming the validity of other claimed impacts or stressing the need for continued investigation.
In Australia, a planned wind farm was derailed by an environmental tribunal responding to an appeal from a local farmer who had focused on the possible noise impacts on his family and his livestock. The tribunal rejected evidence related to health effects from noise, but held that the planned layout would impact the “visual amenity” of the area to an unacceptable degree (in Australia and New Zealand, “rural amenity” is a commonly-accepted planning and regulatory consideration). In this case, the tribunal ruled that siting turbines 1km (0.6 miles) from homes, with some homes surrounded by several turbines within 2km (a mile and a quarter), was too close.
In Minnesota, the Public Utilities Commission rejected a half-mile county setback, but required the developer to offer financial compensation to 200 residents within a half-mile, though outside the regulatory limit of 1630 feet.
In Ontario, a major challenge to the Province’s new Green Energy Act was denied, and the 223-page ruling offers a great primer on current research from all sides. The challenge was based on the health impacts argument, and failed on that count, but the tribunal stressed that “risks and uncertainties” remain. While the evidence to date was determined to be “exploratory” rather than “confirmatory,” continued study was urged. The report noted: “The Tribunal accepts that indirect effects are a complex matter and that there is no reason to ignore serious effects that have a psychological component.”
Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, in the UK an appeal of a planned wind farm (based on the claim that the regulations were insufficient) was denied, but the High Court affirmed the validity of an amplitude modulation (AM) condition in the regulations, which is very stringent: whenever sound levels are over 28 dB, AM cannot exceed 3 dB. After years of denying that AM is an issue in UK wind farms, the industry there faces a starkly restrictive standard that would, in effect, preclude wind farm operations when any blade swish is audible, even in distant, barely audible turbines. Renewable UK (formerly BWEA) is scrambling to fund research that can be used to better quantify AM so that new rules providing a reliable dB penalty for AM can be devised.
My experiences around wind farms in Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming has been very consistent: I have always been able to clearly hear any turbines that were within a half mile (faintly, but clearly there); at a quarter to third of a mile, the sound stood out, and as I approached three-quarters of a mile, the sound faded into the background sounds of distant roads or ground breeze. These have been brief experiences, always in daytime with moderate wind.
Adding to these personal observations, the widespread reports of neighbors affected by unexpectedly intrusive levels of noise from turbines up to a half mile or so away as well as ranch-country experience that suggests noise levels of 45-50 dB are often easily accepted, lead to my current perspective that the most constructive and widely beneficial path forward would be a shift toward larger setback requirements (in effect, lowering the maximum noise levels at homes nearly to quiet night time ambient noise levels), combined with easily crafted easement provisions that allow turbines to be built closer to landowners who agree to allow it.
This approach, currently used in Oregon, would protect communities and individuals who have invested their life savings in a quiet rural lifestyle, while acknowledging that there are many people in rural areas who are ready and willing to support wind energy development, even near their homes.
Yes, some locations – in fact many locations with relatively small lot sizes – may be hard or impossible to build in, but these are exactly the locations where the social tradeoffs, and the resulting balancing of costs and benefits, are least clearly favorable to wind development anyway. If the industry can accept that it doesn’t have the right to build anywhere the noise can be kept to 50 dB, and that its future development will be taking place within the fabric of a diverse society, then there is a clear business opportunity emerging for those companies that take the lead by crafting truly responsive community relations programs.
These companies will commit to working with the standards set by local tolerance for new noise sources, rather than pushing local or state authorities to adopt siting standards used elsewhere. These leading edge wind companies may also put their money where their mouth is on property values by establishing programs that compensate landowners for moderate changes in property value (which are likely to be less common than feared), and helping create programs that buy and sell homes, so residents who wish move can do so quickly at fair market value.
These companies will develop reputations as developers that are ready to be good local citizens, and will find that the increases in some costs and a willingness to forsake some locations altogether leads to dramatic benefits in terms of long-term stability and acceptance in the communities where they work – and especially in communities where they propose new projects.
Noise concerns are not obstacles to wind development, if the industry and local and state regulators can move beyond simplistic denial of the problem. Indeed, the continued growth of the wind industry in the U.S. and Canada may depend upon a fundamental shift of attitude, centered on respecting communities that choose lower noise limits, and providing assurances that negative impacts will be addressed if they occur.

9/9/11 Farmer Regrets signing on with wind company ANDDown Under or Up Over turbine troubles are the same
WIND CONTRACT BINDS REGRETFUL FARMLAND OWNER
By Sue McGinn,
SOURCE: www.saukvalley.com
September 9, 2011
When you sign a 20- to 30-year contract to have a wind turbine on your property, you may be signing away many rights you’re unaware of. A confidentiality agreement in the contract may mean legal action can be taken against you if you complain publicly. A Fond du Lac, Wis., farmer signed away his rights.
These are excerpts from a full-page ad in the Chilton (Wis.) Times-Journal, Oct. 25, 2007, as told to Don Bangart, who wrote the following on behalf of the farmer.
“As I view this year’s crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?”
In 2003, the energy company made first contact with a $2,000 “incentive.” In 2004 or 2005, he signed a $4,000 turbine contract allowing them to lease his land for their needs. The lease favored the company, but he didn’t realize it.
He watched them tear 22-foot-wide roads into his fields. Later, a 4-foot-deep-by-2-foot wide trench was started diagonally across his field, eventually making what was one large field into four smaller, irregularly shaped plots. The company placed roads and trenches where they would benefit it most, not the landowner. Costly tiling installed to improve drainage was cut into pieces.
The farmers were told to stay away from the work sites. Once, when he approached a crew putting in lines where they promised they would not go, a representative told him he could not be there.
There are now huge divisions between old friends and, yes, relatives. He and others tried to get out of the contracts, but they were binding.
[He] said, “Please do not do what I have done.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM WISCONSIN FARMERS WHO REGRET SIGNING ON WITH WIND COMPANIES
From Australia
ILL WIND BLOWING ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST
By Alexandra Weaver
SOURCE: The Standard, www.standard.net.au
September 9, 2011
“When you have people that could feel that they’re locked in, that their whole entity is signed up — their house and their business — they may feel that they don’t have places to go, and they may feel that they can’t speak out because they’re in these agreements".
Turbines appear a few kilometres from Glenthompson, rising among paddocks stocked with fat lambs.
These modern windmills are a new feature of the local landscape.
On a day when grey, rain-filled clouds sweep through the area their white blades look particularly bright, each one’s rhythmic spinning commanding attention.
Late last month AGL began commissioning its 32-turbine Oaklands Hill wind farm, a project capable of producing 63 megawatts of power each year. Just four days later, Adrian and Helen Lyon began to notice a change.
The Lyons are wool producers whose home is about 1670 metres from one of the development’s turbines.
Both have reported a feeling of sustained pressure in their ears, a sensation that has disturbed their sleep.
The couple believe the problem is worst when the wind is blowing from the north, and say it disappears when the wind direction changes or they leave the 430-hectare property.
Mr Lyon said his initial worry when plans for the wind farm were unveiled in 2006 was the audible noise it could produce, adding that inaudible low-frequency noise had since become an equal concern.
“To me, and I’m pretty sure it will be for most people, if you expose yourself (to turbines) for quite some time and then go away, you will notice there is a difference,” he said.
“Exactly what we’re experiencing now, you don’t appreciate it, even after visiting Waubra.”
There are 15 turbines within about three kilometres of the Lyons’ home, though none on their land. They were invited to host generators but were concerned that doing so would restrict the number of trees they could plant.
The pair have not approached their GP to discuss the ear pressure complaint but are looking for a rental home within 50 kilometres of Glenthompson so Mr Lyon can continue running the farm.
“We’ve tried to seek answers and clarifications because if we’re being affected, other people are as well,” Mrs Lyon said.
“Some people may think that we’re just being whingers (but) we have a genuine concern for our own health and for the wellbeing that’s associated with wind farms.
“When you have people that could feel that they’re locked in, that their whole entity is signed up — their house and their business — they may feel that they don’t have places to go, and they may feel that they can’t speak out because they’re in these agreements.
“We’re an example of our home and our livelihood being affected, and impacts have begun.
“We are fortunate that we are able to speak out.”
The Waubra Foundation was formed last year to foster independent research into the health consequences of wind farms.
The organisation’s medical director, Sarah Laurie, said those living near turbines were increasingly dealing with a raft of complaints.
“I think there’s two reasons for that: one is that turbines are being placed closer to more homes, and the other issue is that the turbines are getting bigger,” she said.
“I believe, and so do other people working in the field, that it’s predominantly the low-frequency noise that’s impacting adversely on people’s health.”
Some argue it is anxiety over turbines that leads nearby residents to experience problems such as sleep deprivation, nausea, depression and headaches, a theory Dr Laurie disputes.
“My experience is that people hope — they desperately hope — that they’re going to not be affected,” she said.
“Nobody wants to have to leave their home.
“For some people (symptoms) start the minute the turbines go on, and it depends on the individual susceptibility, but it also depends on wind direction and it depends on topography.
“Anxiety is not the primary thing that’s driving this, because people are very clear that it only happens with certain wind directions.”
Dr Laurie said she routinely met residents who could identify wind direction and whether turbines were running without looking outside, such was the variation in their physical state.
Last month Planning Minister Matthew Guy approved amendment VC82, which included key parts of the Coalition’s pre-election wind farm policy.
Perhaps the most significant of these was a two-kilometre buffer between turbines and homes that will apply unless the developer receives written consent from the property owner.
The amendment also introduced no-go areas for wind farms in areas including land along the Great Ocean Road, and prevents projects being built within five kilometres of regional cities such as Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.
“I think (the two-kilometre setback) will help — there’s no doubt that (with) close proximity people’s symptoms are bad,” Dr Laurie said.
“We well know that the symptoms actually extend way beyond the two-kilometre mark.
“Low-frequency noise travels much further than the higher frequencies and it’s more penetrating, so as the turbines get higher and increase their power-generating capacity, what we’re going to see is people impacted over a greater distance.”
The Waubra Foundation has called for a 10-kilometre setback between turbines and homes, a figure that represents the furthest point at which residents near wind farms have reported problems.
It is also keen to see independent, peer-reviewed research on wind farms’ health effects completed in Australia as a matter of urgency.
The Lyons are adamant that those with an interest or stake in wind energy should visit their farm to gauge potential problems for themselves.
“(We want) to get people here when there is an acute problem, so that they know that there’s a problem.
“It’s no good doing tests if those tests aren’t covering what the problem is,” Mr Lyon said.
“I think we’ve got to try and get people here whether it’s in the house or down in the paddock. I haven’t worked out which one will affect people quicker.”
An AGL spokeswoman said pre-commissioning of turbines at Oaklands Hill began on August 19 and was slowly ramped up, with all generators available for commissioning on the evening of August 28.
“The commissioning process ensures that the turbines are operating within their design criteria and in accordance with the permit requirements,” she said.
“It involves testing of the turbines under normal operational conditions, assessing noise levels, electricity generation, testing of electrical and control components, reliability testing.”
The wind farm’s 32 turbines are expected to come online at some stage during the first quarter of next year.
The AGL spokeswoman said the company took all issues associated with its projects seriously and was investigating concerns about noise levels raised by the Lyons.
“The couple involved have been contacted directly by an AGL representative and a written acknowledgment of the complaint has also been provided,” she told The Standard yesterday.
“Post-construction noise compliance monitoring has already been planned and is scheduled to be commenced before the end of September 2011.
“The Department of Planning and Community Development and Southern Grampians Shire Council (have been) advised accordingly.”
NEXT STORY
From Ontario
LIFE 'DEVASTATED' BY WIND TURBINES
By DENIS LANGLOIS
Source: Owen Sound Sun Times
September 9, 2011
After months of sleepless nights, symptoms began to pile up — nausea, "horrendous" migraines, pressure in her ears and head, vertigo and general malaise.
Norma Schmidt says at first she welcomed the idea of wind turbines being erected near her rural home in southern Bruce County.
"I thought that this was good for the environment. I believed what the Liberal government told us," she said in an interview.
But shortly after the gigantic blades began to spin, in November 2008, Schmidt said she began tossing and turning at night and struggled to sleep.
After months of sleepless nights, symptoms began to pile up — nausea, "horrendous" migraines, pressure in her ears and head, vertigo and general malaise.
"The symptoms became so pervasive over months that I couldn't ignore them any longer," she said.
"Eventually I became extremely ill and was diagnosed with having wind turbine syndrome."
Acting on the advice of doctors and specialists, Schmidt said she and her husband Ron purchased a home in Miller Lake to get away from the 115-turbine Enbridge wind farm.
The decision to move was a difficult one, she said.
The couple has lived on their 13-acre property near Underwood for 32 years and raised three children there. It was the first home Schmidt owned after moving to Canada from Ireland.
"All my memories and life work is there. I can't grow those 6,000 trees again. I can't bring back the memories of my kids again. I can't transplant those 32 years of my life into some other environment."
On top of having to move, Schmidt said she became so ill while living among turbines that she is now unable to work as a registered nurse.
"My life is devastated because of it."
The feisty 55-year-old has become a vocal opponent of the province's Green Energy Act and has vowed to do whatever it takes to prevent the Liberal party from forming a government for a third consecutive time on Oct. 6.
On Wednesday, she staged an anti-wind protest in front of Huron-Bruce Liberal MPP Carol Mitchell's constituency office, after a brief meeting with the provincial cabinet minister. Schmidt said the police were called on her.
Later in the day, Schmidt joined about 70 anti-turbine protesters outside Meaford Hall for a rally to coincide with a fundraiser for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Liberal candidate Kevin Eccles. Provincial Environment Minister John Wilkinson was expected to attend the event, but cancelled due to a scheduling conflict.
Schmidt was front and centre at the rally.
Using a megaphone, she led the crowd in chants like "Hey hey, ho ho, Dalton McGuinty's got to go," "Where's John Wilkinson," and "The winds of change are coming."
She held a large white sign that read "What about our health?"
She said her goal is to put a human face on the suffering caused by industrial wind turbines. She is calling on the province to halt new wind farm projects until an independent epidemiological health study is completed.
The Liberal government says Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health has conducted a review of existing scientific evidence on the possible health impacts of wind turbines and concluded "that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms like dizziness, headaches and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.
"The review also stated that the sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects."
Schmidt said the Liberal government is "denying" the health impacts of turbines and "ignoring" the people who are suffering.
"People just aren't going to sit back and take it anymore," she said.
She told Eccles, after he refused to commit to supporting a moratorium on turbines, that his Liberal government will lose the election because of its stance on the wind issue.
"We're going to have your government so low, so low, so low, you're not going to get elected. It's as simple as that," she said.
