Entries in Wind farm health effects (116)
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.

10/5/11 Can wind turbines generate health problems? The answer is YES.
From Ohio
CAN TURBINES GENERATE HEALTH PROBLEMS?
By LOU WILIN,
SOURCE www.thecourier.com
October 5, 2011
Sleep disturbance, memory and concentration problems, headaches, dizziness and nausea, and ringing or buzzing in the ears are among their troubles,
Living close to wind turbines can hurt your peace of mind, job performance and health, according to some health experts and researchers.
“If you’re within a mile, you’re asking for trouble,” said Alex Salt, an otolaryngology professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
Air Energy TCI, a company which plans to erect wind turbines between Arcadia, Fostoria and New Riegel, would locate some within one-third of a mile of a home, the company’s development manager, Rory Cantwell, said Tuesday. He said Air Energy’s standard exceeds the state standard by more than 500 feet.
“(Wind turbines) don’t emit enough noise to do any permanent damage,” said Brett O’Connor, operations director for TCI Renewables in North America, the parent corporation of Air Energy. “All thoroughly peer-reviewed, properly conducted scientific analysis has concluded that there is no impact to human health.”
But Salt, who has studied the ear for 37 years, said wind turbines can, and do, cause some people problems. He has company.
In her book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., tells about some neighbors of wind turbines experiencing ear and health problems.
Sleep disturbance, memory and concentration problems, headaches, dizziness and nausea, and ringing or buzzing in the ears are among their troubles, Pierpont said. Those problems can lead to further health deterioration, said Pierpont and Salt: high blood pressure and heart palpitations.
“There are really distinct effects on susceptible people,” Pierpont said. “You just can’t function in this. It’s like you’re wading through mud mentally. You’re sick.”
Susceptible are those older than 50; those with migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, and existing inner ear damage from, say, exposure to industrial or military noise; and toddlers and early school-age children, she said.
Wind turbines produce low-frequency sounds, which the industry says cause no trouble because people do not hear them.
“That’s absolutely false,” Salt said. “The ear is designed so you don’t hear low-frequency sounds, but it isn’t insensitive to them. Those sounds are still going in and they are still being transfused. Even though you don’t hear it, it wakes you up.”
Salt said people over time have adapted to not notice their own body’s low-frequency sounds, like breathing and heartbeat. But when it comes to wind turbine sounds, sooner or later the brain notices they come from outside the body, and that’s when the trouble starts, Salt said.
For some, the trouble starts within a few weeks. For others, it happens immediately.
“People have difficulty describing the problem they’re having. It’s not a sound you’re hearing. It’s an uncomfortable feeling in your ears,” Salt said. “It’s a perceiving. You’re not hearing. It’s a fullness or a stuffiness in your ear.”
“It’s an odd feeling,” he said. “It’s close to motion sickness.”
Unfortunately, by the time residents experience problems, the wind farm has set up shop and enlisting its help is difficult, said Carmen Krogh, a board member for the Society for Wind Vigilance in Killaloe, Ontario. Wind turbines are more pervasive in Ontario than in Ohio.
“Once the turbines are established, it’s hard to get any kind of resolution to health troubles,” she said.
The health of those affected can deteriorate while they battle for years with a wind turbine company, Krogh said. Some people have abandoned their homes, rented elsewhere or moved in with a relative, she said.

9/3/11 What does wind industry propaganda look like AND Living with wind turbines: First hand experiences AND Board of Health looks into complaints from wind project residents AND Hawaii says NO to Big Wind
How low can they go?
WIND INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA VIDEO
CLAIMS TURBINES WILL SAVE AMERICA:
FANTASY: This slick video typifies the wind industry's manipulative PR tactics
REALITY: This low tech video shows people talking about what its really like to live in a wind project:
From Massachusetts
HEALTH BOARD TO ANALYZE TURBINE COMPLAINTS
SOURCE: Falmouth Enterprise,
September 2, 2011
By BRENT RUNYON,
“My head pounded all day, can’t sleep, think, use my yard. I fell over twice, threw up three times. Happening more frequently. Doctor finds nothing in body to cause,”
Falmouth Board of Health has received more than 90 complaints about the wind turbines in town since June 7. That total was filed by 11 residents reporting headaches, nausea, concentration problems, anxiety, anger and the inability to sleep.
Two-thirds of the complaints concern the Notus Clean Energy Wind Turbine in Falmouth Technology Park, while the remainder focused on Wind 1, the town-owned turbine at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. There were no complaints logged about any other turbines in town.
Suzanne C. Hobart of 476 Blacksmith Shop Road submitted nearly a third of the complaints, 27 in all, the most of any resident. Ms. Hobart lives about 1,900 feet from the Notus Clean Energy Turbine, and reported feeling pressure waves from the turbine, causing dizziness and migraine headaches. “My head pounded all day, can’t sleep, think, use my yard. I fell over twice, threw up three times. Happening more frequently. Doctor finds nothing in body to cause,” she wrote about the turbine’s effects on June 17.
The disturbance from the turbine that day even knocked a picture off her mantle, she wrote. A few nights later, she wrote, “Even on a perfect breezeless day the wind up there pounds the thing into the brain,” she wrote. “Seems louder on a day like this.” Ms. Hobart reported that her symptoms continued to get worse.
On July 12, she wrote, “Dear God what do I have to do? Kill myself? I passed out the other day..I am spinning when I try to do anything here…. I hate everything now Weeping!”
But when the turbine was turned off on July 19, Ms. Hobart said her symptoms were immediately relieved. “It’s off.. and life is totally different and just fine tonight..I get to sleep in my hard earned bedroom… with the windows open and fresh air. Much better!” she wrote. Ms. Hobart later wrote that her doctor told her a spinal fusion operation makes the resonance of the wind turbine worse. Her husband, Edward, also submitted two complaints.
Another resident, John J. Ford of 372 Blacksmith Shop Road, submitted 19 complaints reporting sleep disturbances, anxiety and headaches as a result of the Notus turbine.
Lawrence V. Worthington of 337 Blacksmith Shop Road submitted eight complaints. He wrote that Wind 1 and Notus Clean Energy turbines disturbed his sleep.
Almost all the complaints detail problems with noise and pressure changes from the turbines with the exception of one. Sheldon Lowenthal of 99 Ambleside Drive wrote that light flicker from Wind 1 hit his home for 30 minutes a day for a few weeks during the winter.
Apart from Mr. Lowenthal, J. Malcolm Donald of Ambleside Drive, and Mark J. Cool of Fire Tower Road, all the complaints came from residents on Blacksmith Shop Road.
Now, the Falmouth Board of Health is beginning to compare those responses with volumes of data recorded at the turbines.
The first order of business at the Falmouth Board of Health meeting last week was to determine what data board members wanted to review. Health Agent David W. Carignan said he was working with Falmouth Energy Coordinator Paul Gentile to compile the information for the board, but there is a tremendous amount of data available. Board members have access to more data than is relevant, Mr. Carignan said, including power generation, wind speeds, wind directions, angle of the nacelle, tilt of turbine blades, and heat of the oil running through the machine. “All we need is date, time, wind direction and wind speed,” said board member John B. Waterbury, to compare to the complaints. Board member Stephen R. Rafferty said the data could be collected at 10-minute intervals, and each day would have 144 points.
Over a year, that would be more than 50,000 entries. “That’s nothing,” said Dr. Waterbury, who is also a biologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Board member Jared V. Goldstone is researching the health effects of turbines and forwarded some recent articles to other board members via e-mail, but was not impressed with the quality of the scientific analysis he has found. He said most of the data was compiled from the reports of individuals. The only significant health effect reported in the study was moderate tiredness, he said.
From Hawaii

8/21/11 Epidemiologist weighs in on wind turbines and their effect on human health
There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias.
Abstract
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.
The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically-gathered data.
The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data.
Proponents of turbines have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that the evidence does not "count", the outcomes are not "real" diseases, the outcomes are the victims' own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the problems must not exist.
These claims appeared to have swayed many non-expert observers, though they are easily debunked.
Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects.
There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias.
Conclusions
It is always possible that further research will reveal that, under certain circumstances, turbines can be sited near people's homes with minimal health risk. Such is always possible for any exposure, given the nature of science (open to additional information) and changing technology.
But our current knowledge indicates that there are substantial health risks from the existing exposure, and we do not know how to reduce those risks other than by keeping turbines several kilometers away from homes.
Similarly, it is quite possible a public policy case could be made for the claim that the costs are justified by the benefits. But the key is that the case must be made, including a quantification of the impacts on local residents, which has not been done.
Those who pretend that there are no serious impacts on local residents cannot contribute any useful analysis.
Moreover, it seems unlikely that it will ever be considered ethically acceptable to force susceptible individuals to suffer serious health problems, to say nothing of the non-health complaints and effects on communities, without much greater and more reliable compensation than has been offered to date.
Dismissal of health effects cannot be seen as honest disagreements about the weight of the evidence. Honest disagreements about scientific points are always possible. But when proponents of one side of the argument consistently try to deny the very existence of contrary evidence, make contradictory claims, appeal to nonsensical and non-existent rules, treat mistaken predictions as if they were evidence of actual outcomes, play semantic games to denigrate the reported outcomes, and blame the victims, then they are not being honest, scientific, or moral.
They are preventing the creation of optimal public policy and damaging the credibility of science as a tool for informing policy.
Moreover, since their lack of plausible arguments suggests there are no defensible arguments to be made on that side of the issue, their persistence in making implausible arguments is directly responsible for hurting significant numbers of people.
Download File(s):
Phillips-1.pdf (1.19 MB)
