Better Plan, Wisconsin



WHY NOT TO DISMISS HEALTH IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 12, 2011 By Heather Goldstone,

The wind energy movement bills itself as an integral part of efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage and curb climate change while helping build the new green energy economy. But complaints about adverse health impacts – loss of sleep, headaches, depression – have surfaced in communities around the world where wind turbines are located in close proximity to homes, including here on Cape Cod. In their efforts to dismiss claims of adverse health impacts caused by nearby wind turbines, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) comes out looking more like big industry than grassroots environmentalist.

I was a toxicologist in a former career, and I see a lot parallels between this debate and debates about the toxicity – or not – of chemical pollutants. So, here are three reasons not to dismiss complaints about wind turbines drawn from the environmental movement and the science of toxicology.

Argument: It’s all in their heads

An AWEA-commissioned review of the science surrounding wind turbines, sound, and health asserts that the main impact of wind turbine noise is to annoy people:

A feeling described as “annoyance” can be associated with acoustic factors such as wind turbine noise. … Annoyance is clearly a subjective effect that will vary among people and circumstances. … the main function of noise annoyance is as a warning that fitness may be affected but that it causes little or no physiological effect. Protracted annoyance, however, may undermine coping and progress to stress related effects. … The main health effect of noise stress is disturbed sleep, which may lead to other consequences.

And yet, they draw a line between “annoyance” and a health impact: (my emphasis)

There is no evidence that sound at the levels from wind turbines as heard in residences will cause direct physiological effects.

Rebuttal: Immune suppression

AWEA’s argument seems to hinge on dismissing annoyance as a subjective, emotional response and, thus, dismissing the secondary health effects of annoyance. But consider this: certain chemicals can alter the immune system, impairing its ability to fight off infections. This might not be a problem if we lived in germ-free bubbles (i.e. not a direct health problem). But in the real world, the increased risk of infection poses a serious health threat. Not satisfied?

There are also deeper flaws in AWEA’s argument:

• As discussed earlier this week, the word “annoyance” as it is used by several researchers addressing the wind turbine issue has a technical definition that encompasses “a significant degradation of quality of life.”
• Sleep disturbance and deprivation need not be a secondary effect of stress; noise at levels typically produced by large turbines is capable of partially or fully waking a person. Prolonged sleep deprivation constitutes a medical issue in itself, and is also a trigger for other health problems.
• Some residents report physical sensations – like ear popping – not related to stress. There is little or no scientific data to address these claims … a point I’ll get to shortly.

Argument: It only affects a small number of people

Dr. Robert McCunney is an MIT researcher and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He was a member of AWEA’s expert panel that reviewed the available science and determined that there is no evidence that wind turbines directly cause health effects. He has also provided expert testimony in court to that effect. He says it’s important to remember that most people aren’t negatively affected by wind turbines:

… at least in the studies that are available, the percentage of people who report annoyance in the proximity of wind turbines tends to be a relatively low… it’s not the predominant effect, and it’s not a majority of people who report these symptoms.

Furthermore, the AWEA report states that “a small number of sensitive people … may be stressed by the sound and suffer sleep disturbances,” citing above-average sound sensitivity, as well as personality traits and pre-existing negative attitudes toward wind turbines as factors predisposing persons to such impacts.

Rebuttal: Cancer clusters

To only consider impacts that affect the majority of people holds wind turbines to a standard that would be unthinkable for chemical pollutants.

Did drinking water contaminated with industrial chemicals give the majority of children in Woburn, Massachusetts leukemia? Or did chromium give the majority of people in Hinkley, California cancer? Absolutely not. If they had, documenting those cancer clusters would have been far more straightforward. But both were eventually validated and resulted in court settlements (check out A Civil Action and Erin Brokovich this weekend for the full stories, if you’re not familiar).

For that matter, is lead any less of a concern because it mostly impacts young children and unborn babies – a particularly sensitive portion of the population?

The standard is not a majority effect, but rather, a greater than expected occurrence of symptoms in any segment of the population, based on comparison with other turbine-free areas of similar geography, demographics, etc.

Argument: There’s not enough evidence

AWEA doesn’t deny that people living close to wind turbines around the world are reporting negative impacts. However, most of the surveys and case studies that currently exist are what scientists call anecdotal data – personal stories that have not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation or the quality-control process of peer review. Thus, Dr. McCunney and the AWEA panel insist that there’s not enough scientific evidence to conclusively link wind turbine noise to health complaints.

Rebuttal: Precautionary principle

Here we can draw on an idea long embraced by the environmental movement and the scientific community (although less so industry or government) – that of the precautionary principle. The 1998 Wingspread Conference convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network crafted and adopted the following definition (my emphasis):

Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

In 2005, UNESCO released a report aimed at clarifying when and how the precautionary principle should be applied:

The [precautionary principle] applies when there exist considerable scientific uncertainties about causality, magnitude, probability, and nature of harm;

This would certainly seem to be the current situation with regard to claims of health impacts caused by wind turbines. We do not yet have controlled, peer-reviewed studies that nail down exactly how many people are affected, what their symptoms are, when they began, and at what distances and sound levels they occur. Establishing the who, what, when and where of a problem will be an important first step before moving on to the more intricate questions of how and why. So there’s a long way to go before we reach a rigorous scientific understanding of the relationship between wind turbines and health. But the highly suggestive evidence at hand almost certainly meets the standards of the precautionary principle.

TURBINE DAMAGES RAIL TRACK, THEN LEAVES

A couple of men got out, one looked under the turbine, one man hydraulically raised the load; then they got back into the truck and drove off the tracks. They then stopped for a few more minutes before driving away.

One of those eyewitnesses, concerned that approximately four feet of the rail showed a marked twist, called in to 911 to alert authorities of the possible danger.

SOURCE: Lincoln Daily News, www.lincolndailynews.com

Union Pacific and city crews responded to a report of rail damage at the Keokuk Street railroad crossing at 1 p.m. on Thursday. What they found when they got there concerned the officials.

According to witnesses, an eastbound double trailer carrying a wind turbine base supported between two flatbeds did not clear the tracks. When reaching the slight incline of the tracks, the leading flange from the turbine base scrapped the asphalt approaching the tracks and then, catching one of the rails, came to a jarring halt, bending and twisting the rail.

The eyewitnesses stated that the convoy of two lead trucks, the trailer and rear vehicles all stopped. A couple of men got out, one looked under the turbine, one man hydraulically raised the load; then they got back into the truck and drove off the tracks. They then stopped for a few more minutes before driving away.

One of those eyewitnesses, concerned that approximately four feet of the rail showed a marked twist, called in to 911 to alert authorities of the possible danger.

Tracy Jackson, streets and alleys superintendent, and Mark Mathon, city engineer, were at the crossing all afternoon.

According to the officials, a Union Pacific crew on hand at the crossing was waiting for a northbound evening passenger train to pass through Lincoln before attempting any repairs. All trains were being walked through the damaged area at 3 mph until the repairs could be made.

Jackson said the crew hoped to be able to reset the rail into the ground without having to replace it. He added that if the rail needs to be replaced, that will take some time as the special truck that carries such rails would have to be brought in from either St. Louis or Chicago.

Ironically, the crossing is scheduled to be completely reworked in the next few months.

The 5:30 p.m. northbound passenger train came through the crossing at only 3 mph as Union Pacific crewmen kept on eye on the train and the track. Fortunately the train was able to get through the crossing with no problems, and the repair crew began working on the rail.

By the time the 8:30 p.m. southbound Amtrak came through, the crew had finished. This morning there are no flagmen on the scene.

THE COST OF GREEN: HUGE EASTERN OREGON WIND FARM RAISES BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATE, FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

Source: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

12 March 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

The gravel haulers start rolling down Oregon 74 before dawn, their air brakes bellowing under the heavy loads they ferry into the neighboring hills.

Just over the rimrock of Willow Creek Valley, hard-hatted contractors scramble to pour the base pads and lay electrical cable for 338 wind turbines that will soon spin over 30 square miles of sagebrush in Gilliam and Morrow counties. When completed in 2012, Shepherds Flat is expected to be the largest wind farm in the world.

The project is a poster child for the nation’s love affair with renewable energy. From President Barack Obama to former Gov. Ted Kulongoski, from the Oregon Legislature to rural county courthouses, politicians have embraced renewable energy as an economic and environmental cure-all, a means to create jobs, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and combat global warming.

They have backed that pitch with public dollars. And no state has jumped on the bandwagon more enthusiastically than Oregon, which has given or promised more than $1 billion in tax breaks to green energy projects.

Shepherds Flat is a prime example of that spending, too.

Clyde Smith talks about his decision to leave the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm area Clyde Smith talks about his decision to leave the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm area Clyde Smith says he was offered about $15,000 by Caithness Energy to sign a concession to a 51-decibel level for the wind turbines at Shepherd Flats Wind Farm, near his property. Smith refused and gave them three choices. Of the three, they chose to buy his property rather than build an underground house for him.

[video available HERE]

Indeed, Shepherds Flat demonstrates how Oregon provides millions of dollars to projects that would probably go forward without state subsidies. It illustrates how Oregon taxpayers subsidize California’s renewable energy demand. It shows how developers have used the program’s loose administrative rules to qualify for multiple tax credits for the same project. And it reveals how a program that was originally intended to promote conservation and clean energy morphed into an extravagantly expensive green jobs program.

Stacking federal, state and county subsidies is perfectly legal. But the result is that taxpayers who subsidize a project may bear a greater burden for development than the company that profits from it.

For Shepherds Flat, for instance, federal, state and local subsidies total more than $1.2 billion, about 65 percent of its $1.9 billion cost, according to a White House memo.

Caithness Energy, the New York-based developer of Shepherds Flat, did not respond to numerous phone calls from The Oregonian or detailed questions e-mailed to the company concerning the White House analysis and the company’s state tax breaks.

Clyde Smith, a retired truck driver who recently sold his property to Caithness rather than live in the wake of the project’s noise, says he’s been treated well by the company, including a purchase price well above the value of his property.

But as a taxpayer, he’s outraged.

“This is taking money out of your pocket, my pocket, everybody’s pocket,” he said. “This is a boondoggle of boondoggles. It’s a huge waste of our state and federal money.”

To be sure, Shepherds Flat is a boon for Gilliam and Morrow counties, which stand to collect more than $100 million in taxes and fees from the project over 15 years. Construction will create 400 temporary jobs. The project’s ongoing operation will bring 35 permanent jobs into a moribund employment market. And a few landowners will collect lucrative lease fees for the turbines on their property.

“It’s more jobs than that part of the state has seen in 20 years,” said Paul Woodin, a consultant who helped Gilliam and Morrow counties negotiate property tax breaks with Caithness. “It’s changing the economics of these counties.”

Yet by any standard, the cost per job is enormous: $34 million per permanent position when all federal and state subsidies are tallied. Moreover, it’s not clear that those jobs have any link to the $30 million in proposed tax credits from the state of Oregon.

“It just makes me sick,” said state Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who attempted to reduce the tax credit for large wind farms during the 2009 Legislature but was forced to compromise after Kulongoski vetoed the bill.

“This really exemplifies the problem,” she said. “This is a windfall for a particular company, and that’s not what a taxpayer subsidy is supposed to do.”

Huge federal subsidies

In his most recent State of the Union address, Obama described the nation’s clean energy push as part of this generation’s “Sputnik moment.” He proposed a major increase in research subsidies and urged Congress to pass a national mandate that 80 percent of the nation’s electricity come from “clean” sources by 2035.

Yet Obama’s own advisers have been critical of some of the green subsidies he champions. Last October, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, energy czar Carol Browner, and Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain wrote a memo to the president outlining a number of problems with the federal government’s loan guarantee program for renewable energy.

They included the fact that taxpayers were subsidizing projects that would have gone ahead anyway.

Shepherds Flat was Exhibit A.

The memo said the project was “double-dipping,” gorging on a $1.2 billion smorgasbord of federal and state subsidies. The incentives — all within existing law — include a $500 million federal grant, $200 million in federal and state tax benefits from accelerated depreciation, $220 million in premium power prices attributed to state renewable energy mandates, and a $1.3 billion loan guarantee with a value of $300 million.

The memo concluded that the carbon reductions from Shepherds Flat would have to be valued at more than six times the going rate for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.

Meanwhile, they said, Caithness has “little skin in the game” — about 10 percent of the project’s cost — but stands to earn a 30 percent return on its investment.

“This project would likely move without the loan guarantee,” the memo concluded. “The economics are favorable for wind investment given tax credits and state renewable energy standards.”

A profitable place to build

Wind farm developers have long insisted that Oregon’s business energy tax credit is essential to attract them here rather than to competing states. And there certainly has been an explosion of utility-scale wind farms built in Oregon since 2007.

That’s when the Legislature passed a law that said Oregon would pay 50 percent of the cost of a developer’s new facility, up to $20 million, or a $10 million credit per project.

The legislators who created and expanded the program “should be commended,” said a statement from the Renewable Northwest Project, an advocacy group whose members include project developers, environmental groups and ratepayer advocates. The credits “put Oregon on the map, and it is our hope that sustained support for the program and renewable energy expansion will continue our state’s leadership.”

As generous as Oregon’s tax credits are, many developers aren’t content with just one, and have subdivided their projects to qualify for multiple tax credits.

Shepherds Flat is no exception. In 2007, Caithness applied to Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council for a site certificate covering a single project. But by July 2008, when Caithness submitted applications for tax credits, the project had been divided into three legal entities, each applying for a separate $10 million tax credit.

A cover letter accompanying the applications explained that the company originally sought a single permit for “reasons of efficiency and economy,” and would amend its site certificate to reflect the new reality.

The letter went on to say that no financial commitment had been made to the project, and “making such financial commitments depends in significant part” on whether the tax credits were certified by the state.

Such arm-twisting has become a standard — and effective — part of the industry’s lobbying message in Salem. Kulongoski vetoed a bill in 2009 that would have slashed Oregon’s tax subsidies for large wind farms, insisting that it went too far and would jeopardize the growth of Oregon’s green economy.

Yet Oregon has all the essential ingredients for a profitable wind project already in place: a ready market, plenty of wind, and transmission to move the power.

Oregon, California and Washington have each established aggressive renewable energy standards, creating a big, guaranteed market. Utilities are effectively required to invest in windmills, and independent developers are assured of ready customers for their premium-priced power.

Industry officials insist that there are windier places to build than Oregon, notably Wyoming. But Oregon’s wind belt sits directly atop the existing high voltage transmission system built to ship electricity from nearby hydroelectric dams around the Northwest, and even more important, to California.

California already purchases more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest. And when Shepherds Flat is completed, all of its subsidized output is contracted to go to Southern California Edison.

Economical transmission is a make or break proposition for wind projects. Despite growing transmission congestion in the Northwest, Portland General Electric estimates that the cost of importing wind from Wyoming would be 66 percent higher than a local resource, mostly because of transmission costs.

Wyoming offers little in the way of incentives to wind farm developers. In fact, lawmakers there passed an excise tax last year on wind farm output. A study conducted for Wyoming by Energy and Environmental Economics Inc., or E3, found that Oregon’s wind farms could deliver electricity to the West Coast more cheaply than Wyoming’s — even if Oregon’s energy tax credits were eliminated.

Wind developers have told Oregon legislators that in the absence of the state tax credits, Washington is a better place to build because of lower property taxes.

But E3 found the opposite.

“Our analysis found that Washington has one of the least favorable tax codes for wind,” said Arne Olson, a partner with E3. Oregon’s tax structure is favorable to wind even without the tax breaks, he said. “It’s not even close.”

That conclusion didn’t factor in the property tax breaks Oregon counties are providing to wind farm developers. Gilliam and Morrow counties, for example, have agreed to cut Shepherds Flat’s property taxes by an estimated $34 million over the life of their 15-year agreements with Caithness.

Terry Tallman, the Morrow County judge who helped negotiate property tax breaks with Caithness, suspects the state tax break wasn’t necessary to attract the investment. Another wind company considering a large project in the county, Spain’s Gamesa, told Morrow County commissioners that the state credits won’t be a factor in its investment decision.

PGE and PacifiCorp say essentially the same thing.

In the end, E3′s Olson said, both states are seeing plenty of new wind farms, because “the gorge region has been ideal. It meets all the criteria, and that’s why you’ve seen the development.”

SHEPHERDS FLAT WIND FARM: WHAT'S THE COST TO TAX PAYERS?

The Business Energy Tax Credit started life in the 1970s as a conservation and clean energy incentive, but the chief rationale has become economic development — namely green jobs.

So just how much does a wind farm job cost taxpayers? The answer depends on the formula, and involves an implicit assumption that the jobs wouldn’t exist without the subsidy — questionable in the case of Oregon’s large wind farms.

Either way, the simplest formula is to divide all public subsidies for a project by the number of permanent jobs it creates. For Shepherds Flat, with $1.2 billion in subsidies for 35 permanent jobs, that equation delivers a cost per job of $34 million.

Oregon taxpayers pay a share of the federal subsidies, but for simplicity’s sake, consider the cost of the jobs based on the Oregon tax credits alone.

Shepherds Flat is pre-certified for $30 million in state tax credits. At that price, the cost per permanent position is $857,000.

Bob Repine, director of the Oregon Department of Energy, says it’s possible that Shepherds Flat might not get final approval for all three tax credits. One tax credit would cost $10 million, or $285,000 a job.

Critics of tax credits like to calculate how long it would take to repay the subsidies from personal income taxes generated by the resulting jobs.

Industry experts estimate that the 35 permanent jobs would pay an average of $50,000 a year in wages. Assume each employee gets an annual raise of 3 percent. On that basis, it would take about 46 years to generate $10 million in tax revenues from the jobs created directly by the project, and 77 years to generate $30 million.

At a minimum, that’s double the effective life of the wind turbines for the state subsidies alone.

Economic development officials say such analyses are too simplistic. When they analyze the potential return on an incentive, they factor in a multiplier effect that accounts for all the other jobs created indirectly as workers spend their wages and businesses buy local supplies.

That multiplier would be smaller for a wind farm than say, a manufacturer, as wind farms don’t buy as many supplies or raw materials, and the equipment installed is manufactured elsewhere. But in the interest of conservatism, assume that the multiplier effect quadruples the number of permanent jobs created by Shepherds Flat. Then assume that all of the resulting jobs pay $50,000 a year, with 3 percent annual raises, whether it’s a grocery store clerk, a truck driver or the manager of a hardware store.

It’s an economic development fantasy. But under that scenario, it would still take 19 years to repay $10 million in subsidies for Shepherd’s Flat, and 39 years to repay $30 million.

PART 3: THE FALMOUTH EXPERIENCE:

FLICKERING LIGHT

SOURCE: WGBH BOSTON

March 9, 2011

Residents in the town of Falmouth say that a nearly 400-foot wind turbine has severely impacted their quality of life.

They talk about noise issues, ringing in their ears and changes in pressure when they are outside.

But sound isn’t the only thing generating discontent.

As Sean Corcoran reports in the third part of our series, The Falmouth Experience: The Trouble with One Town’s Turbine, there also are complaints about a phenomenon called shadow flicker.

Malcom Donald sits in his kitchen, near some of the extra windows he and his wife installed last year. He says a light-flicker caused by the turbine’s blades have degraded his quality of life.

 FALMOUTH, Mass. — It’s just after 8 in the morning, and as a light show begins in the kitchen, Malcolm Donald goes over to his computer and fiddles with its music player.

“Well, is it time to put on Dancing Queen?” he asks. “You have to do something to make it a little more tolerable, and I’ve been putting on a little disco music.”

What just a few minutes ago was a well-lit kitchen now is filled with flashing light.

The reason stands some 1,900 feet away in the form of a 400-foot wind turbine at the town’s waste water treatment plant called Wind One. Some neighbors allege the noise from the turbine is making them sick. Donald feels fine. But what he does have is this “shadow flicker,” which creates a strobe light effect on the neighborhood as the sun rises behind the moving blades.

Filmed by Malcom Donald in his kitchen

“I don’t know why we should have to be exposed to this. Somebody’s put up a machine, we lived here 20 years, and now all of a sudden we have flashing lights in the morning,” said Donald.

The intense flashing can make reading, watching television and even having a conversation a challenge. A good analogy might be to imagine trying to read a book in a moving car as the sun flashes through the trees. Donald says that this time of year the flashing continues for about 30 minutes.

Two years ago, that wouldn’t have been too much of a problem. But last year Donald and his wife installed a half-dozen new windows in the rear of the house in an effort to eat breakfast with the sunlight.

“We’ve just done major renovations, taken out some walls so we can live here and enjoy the sunshine. And now the sunshine is flashing at us,” Donald said.

Shadow flicker outside the Donald home

Opponents of wind turbines typically give a wide range of reasons for opposing it. There’s talk about alleged human and animal health effects, questions about connecting to the electricity grid, and concerns about cost, industrial accidents, property values and general noise.

David McGlinchey of the non-partisan Manomet Center for Conservation Studies in Plymouth says shadow flicker often is another source of concern, but more of an annoyance.

“As far as we know, there are no health affects related to flicker. On the other hand, if that’s your house and it’s occurring when you want to eat breakfast, it’s an impact. It’s a nuisance,” explains McGlinchey.

In recent wind debates on Cape Cod, there’s been confusion about shadow flicker. Some speakers have said it can cause health effects. And it’s not uncommon to hear claims that the flashing light can cause epileptic seizures. Heather Goldstone says that’s unlikely to be a problem in Falmouth.

“I’ve seen two studies that directly address whether shadow flicker from wind turbines can cause seizures and they both conclude that the only risk comes from small turbines that turn quickly enough to cause shadows to flicker at least three times per second. At their fastest, the blades on Falmouth’s Wind 1 interrupt the sunlight once every second and a half. It’s just not fast enough to be a risk,” Goldstone said.

The primary reason Malcolm Donald opposes Falmouth’s wind turbines is because his neighbors say sound from Wind One is making them sick. But even flicker, he says, is reason enough to stop wind projects near neighborhoods. To his aggravation, when he makes such a suggestion, the reaction he often gets from wind advocates is skepticism and indifference.

“‘You know, ‘Get over it. You’ll get used to it.’ It’s maddening. A certain small segment of the population shouldn’t have to sacrifice for the good of the entire community,” Donald argues.

Unlike noise complaints, the source and scope of which are highly debated, shadow flicker is an impact turbine developers say can be predicted by computer modeling, and often avoided or at least mitigated.

But so far, Donald says he’s received little comfort from being advised to cover his windows, grow more trees in his yard and to keep his lights on in order to reduce the flicker.

More from this series:

The Falmouth Experience, Part 1: Life under the blades

The Falmouth Experience, Part 2: Sick from the noise

_

YOU CAN'T BE FORCING THIS ON PEOPLE

Source: WGBH Boston

March 8, 2011

In Part One of his series, The Falmouth Experience: The Trouble With One Town’s Wind Turbine, WGBH radio reporter Sean Corcoran spoke to Neil Anderson, a Falmouth resident who says the nearby wind turbine has had catastrophic effects on his health. Here’s more of their conversation, plus a series of photos of the log Anderson and his wife keep of the noise and its effects on them.

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

Neil Anderson sits in his kitchen.

Anderson says the noise from the wind turbine near his Falmouth home has caused emotional and physiological problems for he and his wife.

Neil Anderson: We knew there was a turbine going over there, we were not notified of any meetings or any type of concerns. In other words, there was no input from this residence.

I am an energy conservationist, I’ve had my own passive solar building company for 35 years. I was actually looking forward to that turbine being erected there. Although when it went up it was quite astounding the size of it.

I was proud looking at it from this viewpoint until it started turning. And it is dangerous, Sean. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears is constant. Never goes away. That started probably in May. It’s a constant reminder of that thing. I can look at it all day long, and it does not bother me. It’s quite majestic. But it’s way too close.

Sean Corcoran: How long after it started to spin did you start feeling some sort of symptoms?

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

The sign at the end of the Andersons' driveway, which is just over 1,000 feet away from the turbine.

Myself, it took me about a month and a half, maybe two months, to manifest all the symptoms. First it was the pressure in the head. The ears popping for no reason at all. Trying to get the water out of your ears and there was no water there. My wife, the first day, she feels it and notices it, and she feels it and notices it every day.

People talk about the noise, it gets loud. It gets jet-engine loud from this point right here. But the noise is the minimum component of that turbine. There is a pressure involved that gets into your ear, like you’re climbing at altitude in an airplane and your ears pop.

And there is a low-frequency pulse that particularly drives me crazy and some of the neighbors around here. It is a once-per-second low-frequency pulse, and it messes up your vestibular organs in your inner ear. And gives you a sense of off-balance and vertigo.

We both have signs of these symptoms. Headaches. My wife gets headaches three or four times a week, she wakes up with a headaches. She’s actually sleeping in a back bedroom right now with earplugs and a white noise machine trying to mask the sound. But it is really not doing any good because the sound just comes right through the windows, right through the insulation, right through the earplugs. And the pulse is right there.

Can you hear it right now?

You don’t hear it. It’s inaudible. There’s testimony from all over the country of the same thing, people complaining about the turbines. Denmark, Australia, Canada, the United States. But there is really no peer-reviewed medical info, which I hear all the time. Prove it, they’re saying. Prove it. Come down here and hear it yourself if you want.

And do you take that as people calling you a liar or people calling you a fool?

I’m not sure. I think they just don’t want to believe it. It’s so ironic, here I have to try to get that thing knocked down. Basically it’s a good principle, anything that can wean us off the number-two fuel, heating oil, and that type of thing is good for us, but it has to be done correctly. In this case it certainly wasn’t.

They look at us as being the bad aspect of this. But the people in the wind industry, you cannot turn a blind eye to this. You know about it.

I’m sorry we don’t have doctors that have come to prove it. I welcome anybody to come down here with their testing equipment and test what this thing does, but I will tell you, it does hurt the wind industry. And I know there are properly-sited wind projects out there that are getting knocked down because of this. But that’s okay too.

I think everybody should just stop for awhile and figure this out. You can’t just be forcing these on people.

The Andersons decided to keep a calendar to document the turbine’s noise and its effects on them. They let us photograph parts of their log:

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

Glenmore residents' outcry sways wind project: fox11online.com

VIDEO SOURCE: FOX 11 GREENBAY

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION

SOURCE GREENBAY PRESS GAZETTE

March 8 2011

By Tony Walter

Residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then, "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

GLENMORE — The Glenmore Town Board voted Monday to wait 60 days before voting on a permit request to have seven wind turbines built in the town.

In an emotion-filled meeting that at one point had Town Chairman Don Kittell call in police officers when residents began chanting and shouting, the board reversed an earlier vote to approve the permits.

Mark Dick of Cenergy, a subsidiary of Pennsylvania-based CG Power Solutions that is seeking to erect the turbines, said the board's delay on a decision was based on emotion and opinion, not law.

"You're asking the Town Board to violate law," Dick told the more than 100 residents who crowded into the Glenmore Community Center. "You might as well as ask them to outlaw smoking."

The board voted quickly at the meeting's outset to approve the permits, with Kittell and Supervisor Kriss Schmidt supporting it and Supervisor Ron Nowak opposing it. Kittell argued that the board was simply following the law that required it to honor a conditional use permit that went into effect before the town changed its wind turbine ordinance last year.

But residents reacted angrily, chanting, "No permits," then "change your vote," prompting Kittell to call for police support.

"The people are trying to get out of hand," Kittell said on his cell phone. One Wisconsin State Patrol officer and two Brown County Sheriff's Department officers showed up 15 minutes later.

Residents continued to protest, and Kittell ended the meeting. But the residents continued to argue that the recent decision by a legislative committee to suspend the Public Service Commission's wind-siting rules made it possible for the board to delay its vote.

"I don't understand what your rush is," Cliff Hammond said.

Resident Steve Deslauriers said wind turbine officials wanted the permits approved before the state had a chance to impose new siting rules.

After 90 minutes of debate, the board decided to reconvene the meeting and Schmidt made a motion to delay a decision until more information came from the state. This was approved unanimously but brought Cenergy officials to their feet to protest that the board voted illegally.

"You can't let the minority dissuade you from the law," Dick told board members, ignoring shouts from the residents.

But the board voted unanimously for the delay, bringing applause from the audience.

Glenmore initially had two wind turbines erected in 1997 and last year had seven more built in the Shirley Wind project.

SECOND FEATURE: Wind lobbyists re-writing the news: Chapter 4,567

Note from the BPWI research nerd:

The Green Bay Press Gazette article above has a headline which reads "GLENMORE TOWN BOARD POSTPONES WIND TURBINE DECISION"

RENEW Wisconsin, an organization that lobbys on behalf of the wind industry changes the headline to this on their website:

ANGRY ANTI-WIND CROWD INTIMIDATES TOWN BOARD TO CHANGE VOTE ON T[UR]BINE DECISION

A RESIDENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING..

LAST NIGHT IN THE TOWN OF GLENMORE.....

The meeting was attended by many residents and also State Representative Andre and John Vander Leest, a representative sent by State Senator Frank Lasee to read a statement from him.

The Glenmore Town Board was to decide on issuing building permits for seven proposed 500' wind turbines on an 80 acre parcel owned by Mike and Sandy  Zirbel, 6013 Morrison Road.

After a speech by Andre Jacques and John Vander Leest, as well as Rick Loppnow (Glenmore Town Supervisor candidate), requesting the Town Board to delay issuing the permits in light of the recent JCRAR suspension of the Wind Siting Rules, the Board made and passed a motion to  approve the building permits.

This action precipitated an immediate widespread expression of outrage by nearly all of the attendees, at which time Chairman Kittel called in the police.

Before the police arrived, the Town Board decided to adjourn the meeting, although most of the agenda items had not yet been covered. This was followed by about 45 minutes of passionate comments from many in attendance, as well as more statements from Representative Jacques and John Vander Leest. The police arrived in the midst of a peaceful open forum, and stayed until the meeting ended.

Following calls from the audience to reopen the meeting and reconsider the earlier motion to approve the building permits, the Board did just that.

The Town Board made a motion to amend their earlier motion and delay a decision on the building permits for 60 days while waiting to see what would happen at Madison.

This created great consternation with the wind developer representatives in attendance who then put tremendous pressure on the Town Board to not delay their decision.

Following consultation with the town attorney, the Board confirmed that they would proceed with the 60 day delay. This decision was met with a standing ovation and round of applause, much to the dismay and anger of the wind developer.
 
The balance of the agenda was dealt with and the  meeting was adjourned. Many congratulations, handshakes, and hugs were exchanged throughout the crowd.

 NEXT FEATURE:

Click on the image above to hear the Falmouth Turbine

Click here for SOURCE

The Falmouth Experience: Sick from the Noise

SOURCE Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

March 8, 2011

By Jess Bidgood, Reported by Sean Corcoran,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Last September, under the cover of darkness, Barry Funfar set out on an act of civil disobedience. His target was a wind turbine the town installed about 1,600 feet from his Falmouth home. Funfar used sticky-backed letters and a large poster-board to vandalize a welcome sign near the turbine’s base. When he was done, the new sign read, “The Noise from This Turbine is Killing Me.” And the word “killing” was in red, and he signed his name with a thick black marker.

“I had this huge foam board and covered the whole thing. I used gorilla tape to make it hard to take off. I figured the police would be up to my house the next morning or something. But I heard nothing,” Funfar said.

Dozens of people living near the 1.65-megawatt turbine have reported sleep interruptions, headaches and vertigo since it was turned on last April. Neighbors say it’s like sea sickness — some people feel it, others don’t. But the effects seem to be cumulative in that symptoms appear and increase the longer they’re near the turbine.

What’s not clear is why. A town-commissioned sound study concluded the turbine produces broad spectrum sound at levels within town and state guidelines. But residents say it’s not the volume as much as the type of sound that’s the problem.

“I’ve learned it’s just a different kind of noise. It’s like it gets inside of me and just causes so much stress and anxiety that even when it isn’t going I have this fear of when it is going to start up again,” Funfar said.

Residents primarily report three different types of turbine noise (all of which we were unable to record on our visits to the turbine). The first and most easily understood noise is a swooshing sound that’s made at regular intervals when the blades spin. Then, there’s another, more erratic sound, which some compare to a sneaker bouncing around in a drier.

Heather Goldstone says both of those noises are called impulse sounds, which scientists know are harder to get used to than constant sounds. But for reasons scientists don’t understand, wind turbine noise seems to be more disturbing than other noises such as airports and highways.

“Many scientists and wind-energy advocates say that while people may become annoyed by turbine noise, annoyance is not considered a health impact from a clinical perspective. That said, chronic annoyance can build into stress, and stress could cause many of the symptoms people are complaining about,” Goldstone.

Goldstone cited the work of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, a physician who has studied the impacts of two wind farms in Maine on nearby residents. “He told me he thinks there’s a more direct explanation: That sleep deprivation caused by turbine noise is taking a toll on people’s mental and physical health,” she said.

The residents who report being the most severely affected by Wind One blame low-frequency sound, often called infrasound, that is inaudible and controversial. They say it’s like a pulse that gets into their heads and makes their hearts race.

“People have different sensitivities to sound, particularly in the low-frequency range,” Goldstone says. “The question is whether sounds below a person’s hearing threshold can affect the ear in other ways and possibly lead to health impacts. Conventional wisdom says no, but a couple of recent studies say maybe. There’s just not enough science available to sort this out yet.”

Steven Clarke is the top wind expert in Governor Patrick’s administration. Clarke says he won’t downplay residents’ complaints. But it’s important to recognize that Falmouth is only one out of 26 turbines that have been installed in Massachusetts, including a half-dozen turbines similar in size and capacity to Wind One.

“Once you put that context around the Falmouth situation,” he says, “I think it becomes clear that we should look at this as a specific case and not generalize that wind energy in general is problematic.”

State leaders have heard complaints about the lack of science as town boards make decisions, and Clarke says the state is looking to partner with a scientific institution to further study turbine noise.

MORE ON THE FALMOUTH TURBINE:

THE FALMOUTH EXPERIENCE: LIFE UNDER THE BLADES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 7, 2011

Reported by Sean Corcoran, By Jess Bidgood,

FALMOUTH, Mass. — Standing on his home’s porch, Neil Anderson points through the thicket of trees in his front yard and across Blacksmith Shop Road towards one of his closest neighbors: A wind turbine.

“Right now we are 1,320 feet, which is one-quarter mile south of Wind One, which is Falmouth’s first wind turbine. It’s been online since April. And we’ve been trying to get it stopped since April,” Anderson says.

Wind One, as the turbine is officially called, is owned by the town of Falmouth and is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant, where it stands 262 feet tall to the turbine’s hub. That’s about 10 feet taller than the Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown. The blades extend just shy of 400 feet, which is about half the height of the John Hancock Building in Boston.

When it was installed last spring, Anderson didn’t think Wind One would cause a problem. For 35 years, he’s owned and operated a passive solar company on Cape Cod.

The energy conservationist in Anderson considered wind power a good principle. He wasn’t alone — before the turbine switched on, Falmouth residents almost universally welcomed Wind One as a symbol of renewable energy and a way to keep taxes down.

“I was proud looking at it from this viewpoint — until it started turning,” Anderson said.

But now, as many as 50 people are complaining about the turbine and the noise it makes at different speeds. A dozen families are retaining a lawyer for that reason.

“It is dangerous. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me. It’s quite majestic — but it’s way too close,” Anderson said.

Neighbors say this isn’t a debate about a turbine ruining their view, and their goal is not compensation. Some just want it turned off at night.

But Anderson can’t compromise. “This house has been my hobby, my investment, and we love it out here. We will move if we have to. Because we cannot live with (the turbine). No, we cannot,” Anderson said.

Wind One is expected to save the town about $375,000 a year in electricity. Heather Harper, Falmouth’s acting town manager, says Falmouth owes about $5 million on the 1.65-megawatt turbine.

Harper said one of the challenges of running the turbine is that the type of sound some neighbors complain about — that low-level pulse — isn’t regulated by the state. “The times I have been there I do not experience the impact of the effect that the neighbors have expressed that they’ve experienced. But I do believe that they are experiencing something that is very real to them,” Harper said.

David McGlinchey is with the non-partisan Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Plymouth, which provides science-based information to policy makers. McGlinchey says that while Wind One has generated complaints, other turbines of similar size, including a 1.8-megawatt turbine in Hull, have been mostly well-received.

“The existing peer-reviewed studies suggest that there are no health effects associated with the sound and noise from wind turbines,” McGlinchey said. “That being said, people clearly experience symptoms. People have headaches, people have their sleep disturbed, people are not living well next to them in some situations. In some situations they are. So, both sides are right.”

Wind advocates say Falmouth’s experience has made it nearly impossible to get other turbines approved on Cape Cod, and potentially across the state. Last week, Falmouth’s selectmen acknowledged the issue and agreed to turn off the turbine when wind speeds exceed 23 miles per hour.

It’s unclear how much relief this will bring or how long it will last, since selectmen said more permanent mitigation efforts still must be negotiated.

One looming concern of neighbors is a second turbine, one of the same size and make that has gone up not far from the first. Falmouth’s Wind Two is scheduled to be turned on sometime this spring.

MORE NEWS:

WYOMING LEGISLATURE FAILS TO SETTLE EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE

SOURCE Associated Press, trib.com 8 March 2011

CHEYENNE — The state Legislature failed to settle the sensitive issue of whether wind farm developers can forcibly take land so they can stretch power lines to their turbines.

Instead, lawmakers who ended their 2011 session last week extended a moratorium banning private wind developers from using eminent domain for another two years, meaning the issue will be back again.

“I hope, in some form, somebody will come up with some idea that can satisfy all sides to the problem,” said Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

[rest of article available at source]

INCREASE THE SETBACK FOR WIND TURBINES

"I served as vice chairman of the [Public Service Commission's] Wind Siting Council. The majority of that council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protected those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents.

I helped author a minority report to the commission, detailing how the majority’s guidelines failed to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on people living nearby."

SOURCE: The Telegraph Herald, www.thonline.com

March 6, 2011

by Doug Zweizig

Why would Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker propose to increase the setbacks between wind turbines and property lines to 1,800 feet? Because the newest industrial wind turbines in our state are 50 stories tall.

It’s hard enough to imagine living next to a structure that big. Now include spinning blades that weigh 18 tons with a span wider than a 747 and a tip speed of about 170 miles per hour, operating 24/7 just 1,250 feet from your door.

Imagine living with turbine noise that is twice as loud as the World Health Organization’s limit for healthful sleep. Imagine 700 feet of your land used by a wind company without your permission and without compensation. Imagine a loss of your property’s value as high as 40 percent.

The new Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Rules, which would have made this situation a reality, were to go into effect March 1. However, the state Legislature’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules set aside the commission’s rules, allowing a reconsideration of the governor’s proposal.

I served as vice chairman of the commission’s Wind Siting Council. The majority of that
council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protected those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents. I helped author a minority report to the commission, detailing how the majority’s guidelines failed to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on people living nearby.

Wisconsin residents have been living with turbines of the 400- to 500-foot variety for only a few years, but the problems with Public Service Commission setbacks once thought to be adequate have become very clear.

Wind project residents from all over the state gave sworn testimony to the Public Service Commission and to our legislators, telling of turbine noise much louder than expected, of sleep deprivation and resulting deterioration of health, of headaches from shadow-flicker, of loss of TV and radio reception, of complaints to wind companies that are ignored, of communities torn apart, and of homes that simply will not sell.

The Public Service Commission rules would have allowed wind companies to put a turbine 440 feet from your property line and claim about 700 feet of your land for use as their safety zone. It’s still your property, but you couldn’t build a structure or plant trees there without the wind company’s permission.

All of these problems can be avoided with greater setbacks.

I agree with increasing the setback between a turbine and your property line to 1,800 feet. If a wind company wants to put a turbine closer, it absolutely can. The difference is it will need your permission to do it, and it may have to compensate you.

A greater setback from the property line ensures that a wind company can’t take your property for their use unless you want them to.

Although this setback does not completely mitigate the very real health concerns associated with living too close to wind turbines, it gives us increased protection from turbine noise and shadow flicker and it protects our property. Most importantly, it gives us some choice.

If we can find a way to site turbines where they do no harm, everyone will be happy.

Zweizig retired as professor emeritus from the University of Wisconsin, where he taught in the School of Library and Information Studies. He is a member of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Council. Zweizig lives outside Evansville, Wis., and has served for five years on the Plan Commission of Union (Rock County) Township when it developed an ordinance for the siting of large wind turbines. His e-mail address is dougzweizig@hotmail.com.

EXCERPTS FROM DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING SOCIAL AN ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RURAL WIND FARMS

SOURCES :The social and economic impact of rural wind farms

AND windturbinesyndrome.com

The first day the turbines started operating closest to our home, my wife started feeling ear and head pressure. Similar to flying in an aeroplane, she said. About six months after, I started feeling similar effects.

As the weeks went on it has gotten worse and worse.

We now suffer headaches, chest pains, a feeling of heart palpitations, and continuous lack of sleep. Every night we can’t sleep.  We go to sleep, then wake and just never settle into a good night sleep.

Stephen Stepnell

I am a third generation farmer on our Waubra farm.  We farm 4200 acres of high quality farming land, and are currently running 16,000 to 20,000 sheep, 500 acres of crop and 100 acres or irrigated land included.

From the first day we were asked to have wind turbines on our farm, we were very concerned about the impacts of a wind farm in our community. We declined to have 4 wind turbines on our land.

The closest wind turbine is 900 metres from our house, and we have 5 wind turbines within 1500 metres from our family home, where I live with my wife Samantha and three children, Jacob, Courtney and Joshua. There are about another 6 wind turbines within 2000 metres of our land, at another location on our farm. We can see nearly all the wind turbines from most areas of our farm.

The first day the turbines started operating closest to our home, my wife started feeling ear and head pressure. Similar to flying in an aeroplane, she said. About six months after, I started feeling similar effects.

As the weeks went on it has gotten worse and worse.

We now suffer headaches, chest pains, a feeling of heart palpitations, and continuous lack of sleep. Every night we can’t sleep.  We go to sleep, then wake and just never settle into a good night sleep.

I have never seen my wife of 18 years look so tired, stressed and unhealthy. This is a huge concern. My children are also more tired and emotional. We have no other illness or medical conditions that could cause us to feel like this.  We have not changed anything in our lifestyle since we started feeling like this.

We have had talks with the operator of the Waubra wind farm, Acciona Energy, telling them of our concerns of our health effects of living too close to the wind turbines and the effects of the asset values of our land.

Acciona Energy replied that we don’t have any evidence the wind turbines affect our health.  We have large concerns about the lack of any evidence wind turbines don’t affect our health. We have lived near wind turbines for about 14 months and are feeling the worse in regards to our health and the depressed feelings we get from the visual effects of wind turbines day and night, as they have aviation lights at night.

The noise they create and the inaudible noise that I know affects our lives. And the effects in changes to bird life, such as our decreased number of brolgas breeding in our area. The total loss of bats we used to hear nearly every night, and so on.

We have now gone to the desperate measure of moving out of our family home on our farm and into Ballarat, which is 45 kilometres drive away. We will travel daily to our farm. This is a large financial outlay. Our house on the farm is only 10 years old and will remain empty, as we could not rent our house farm employees due to wind turbines being too close and therefore having health effects on them.

In conclusion, we have massive concerns about the health effects of living and working too close to the wind turbines. We are members of the Lexton Land Care group, we have planted thousands and thousands of trees, fenced off creeks and are all for the environment and green energy such as wind power or solar or whatever it takes to help our environment, but to watch myself and family suffer from health effects from living too close to wind turbines is a very big concern.

There has to be a compromise.

Carl Stepnell

Letter from wife Samantha Stepnell:

The day the furniture removals came (4/11/10) was an extremely sad day for my family and me.  To pack up our belongings and leave our family home we built. We brought our three kids home from hospital and we were going to live there forever. But we have been forced to move away because of the Acciona wind farm.

Our family home is about 800 m to 900 m from five turbines that are closely clustered together. Our farm is surrounded by turbines. My bedroom is the closest room to the four turbines.

The health impact from living so close to the wind turbines began the day they began operation near our home are:

• Chronic sleep deprivation from repeated disturbance during the night from the noise the turbines make.
  • When the noise of the turbines wakes me up, I find it very difficult to go back to sleep. This can happen a number of times a night. When I wake in the morning, I feel as if I have had no sleep at all. I also feel very tired all the time and have no energy and very lethargic.
  • Prior to the turbines being built, I was able to sleep peacefully with our window open (in the summer) and wake up feeling like I have had a great sleep, and ready for the day ahead.

• Feeling of uneasiness
• Suffer from pressure in my ears and head. Some days the noise is that bad, the pressure is unbearable.

The only way I can explain how I feel, it is like being in a plane with that pressure in the cabin from flying. Except it does not go away.

Our farm is 4200 acres and it is our business.  My husband and I work on the farm, so we are frequently outside. The noise from the turbines in certain conditions is unbearable and makes our workplace very hard to put up with.  I find it very upsetting and stressful.

I feel very depressed and some days I could just curl up and cry.

All these symptoms—headaches, ear pressure and sleep disruption—have occurred only since the turbines began operation, and they occur only when the turbines are operating.

I feel the longer I am around the wind turbines, it is affecting my health even more. I feel it is taking me longer to get over the health problems I am suffering from.

For example, my family and I just returned from a week’s holiday. I slept all night and when I woke up, I felt like I had a good night sleep. I woke up from my night’s sleep with lots of energy. This is the way I should feel all the time. There was no pressure in my ears and head. I felt like I was back to my old self.

The day I returned from holidays, I began to feel all the symptoms that I have explained, above.  They had returned.

We had no choice but to leave our family home we built nine years ago on our farm. We have moved into Ballarat, and we travel out to the farm to work each day. (Ballarat is 45 kilometres away from Waubra.)

The day the furniture removals came (4/11/10) was an extremely sad day for my family and me.  To pack up our belongings and leave our family home we built. We brought our three kids home from hospital and we were going to live there forever. But we have been forced to move away because of the Acciona wind farm. We thought that we would grow old together in our home on the farm and watch our children grow up and move on with their lives.

No, that is not the case, we have been forced out of our home.

We have nothing against wind farms. I am all for the environment.  We plant thousands of trees for our farm each year. The planning of a wind farm has to be in a better location and not so close to residential areas. Buying a home in Ballarat put huge financial pressure on us, but we had no choice but to leave. Our health is number one and it was really suffering.

The first night we slept in our new home was the first time we have had a full night sleep in 18 months.

I am fine when I am away from the turbines, although, as soon as I return to the farm, the symptoms return. I find it very difficult to enjoy a day’s work on the farm because of the health effects caused by wind turbines.

If you care for the health and well-being of my family and me, could you please take the matter of the health effects from living so close to the Waubra wind turbines very seriously?

You are more than welcome to come and experience what it is like to be so close to the wind turbines, as no letter will ever express exactly what we are feeling. There are no words to describe these feelings and how the turbines are effecting our health.

Thank you for your time, and please take this letter seriously.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha Stepnell

From the Stepnell family doctor:

These turbines have been in operation for the last fourteen months, as I understand, and Carl and Samantha acknowledge they have been aware of a constant sound while the turbines are in operation since this period of time.

However, in the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems, including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night. This has led to increased lethargy and inevitably a lowered mood.

Acciona Energy

30 September 2010

Dear Sir,

re: Carl and Samantha Stepnell

I saw this couple on 29 September 2010 regarding health problems related to wind turbines which are located nearby in Waubra. They have a 4500 acre farm on which they run sheep and grow grain.

The farm is surrounded by wind turbines, but the ones that they feel are contributing to their current symptoms relate to five turbines, located within 900 metres of their home.

These turbines have been in operation for the last fourteen months, as I understand, and Carl and Samantha acknowledge they have been aware of a constant sound while the turbines are in operation since this period of time.

However, in the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems, including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night. This has led to increased lethargy and inevitably a lowered mood.

Last May, Carl and Samantha noticed when the turbines were not in operation for two weeks that their symptoms significantly improved, but worsened again when the turbines came back online.

Carl and Samantha have also noticed that they have significantly less problems when away on holidays.

Samantha Stepnell notices that her symptoms are more persistent and severe as she spends more time in the house closest to these five turbines. Her husband, Carl, is also constantly affected but is able to move around the farm doing his usual work and therefore, at times, is further away from the turbines.

Their three children spend most of the day away from the farm, and, as such, have minimal symptoms.

The couple has not had a past history of these symptoms, nor has there been a past history of depression, stress or anxiety. They feel that they can accept the visual impact of the turbines and the red flashing lights at night, but it is the noise from the turbines that is causing their symptoms.

I also confirm that I have one other patient who lives at Waubra on a 10-acre farm, who is distraught with exactly the same symptoms as the Stepnells.

I believe from the circumstantial evidence that there is a strong correlation between their symptoms and the operation of the wind turbines nearby.

I hope therefore that you can take this into consideration in your discussions with Carl and Samantha Stepnell to try and come to an outcome that will resolve these symptoms.

Yours sincerely

Scott Taylor, M.B., B.S.