Entries in wind farm noise (219)
7/20/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: Madison, we have a problem: Epidemiologist says ample evidence of turbine related health effects. AND Wisconsin Health Department denies request to do study of local wind project residents AND What's so different about wind turbine noise?
Executive Summary
A summary of the main conclusions of my expert opinion, based on my knowledge of epidemiology and scientific methods, and my reading of the available studies and reports, is as follows:
• There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. Some of the most compelling evidence in support of this has been somewhat overlooked in previous analyses, including that the existing evidence fits what is known as the case-crossover study design, one of the most useful studies in epidemiology, and the revealed preference (observed behavior) data of people leaving their homes, etc., which provides objective measures of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena. In general, this is an exposure-disease combination where causation can be inferred from a smaller number of less formal observations than is possible for cases such as chemical exposure and cancer risk.
• The reported health effects, including insomnia, loss of concentration, anxiety, and general psychological distress are as real as physical ailments, and are part of accepted modern definitions of individual and public health. While such ailments are sometimes more difficult to study, they probably account for more of the total burden of morbidity in Western countries than do strictly physical diseases. It is true that there is no bright line between these diseases and less intense similar problems that would not usually be called a disease, this is a case for taking the less intense versions of the problems more seriously in making policy decisions, not to ignore the serious diseases.
• Existing evidence is not sufficient to make several important quantifications, including what portion of the population is susceptible to the health effects from particular exposures, how much total health impact wind turbines have, and the magnitude of exposure needed to cause substantial risk of important health effects. However, these are questions that could be answered if some resources were devoted to finding the answer. It is not necessary to proceed with siting so that more data can accumulate, since there is enough data now if it were gathered and analyzed.
• The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence. Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis.
Important editor's note: The last page of Dr. Phillips document, which contained references to his work, was omitted. He has provided us with the missing information as follows:
Roberts M, Roberts J. Evaluation of the scientific literature on the health effects associated with wind turbines and low frequency sound. Exponent Inc. Prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission Docket No. 6630-CE-302 (the identity of the actual client for whom this was prepared is not disclosed in the document). October 2009.
Waye K. Effects of low-frequency noise on sleep. Noise and Health 6(23):87-91, 2004.
Dr. Phillips will post any other errata at this link as the need arises.
Download File(s):
phillips WI filed expert report.pdf (206.07 kB)
Second Feature:
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AGAIN SAYS NO TO REQUEST FOR LOCAL STUDY OF HEALTH IMPACTS OF LARGE WIND TURBINES.
State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services
DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
dhs.wisconsin.gov
Iuly 14,2010
Dear Mr. Marion:
Thank you for your July 12,letter to Secretary Karen E. Timberlake regarding the possible health effects of wind turbine noise.
Secretary Timberlake has asked me to respond to you on her behalf, and I welcome the opportunity to do so.
In your letter of May l3,you asked for confirmation of the Division of Public Health's views regarding the health effects of wind turbine noise.
You shared additional information with us, and requested that the Division of Public Health (DPH) conduct a formal epidemiological study of the health effects of wind turbine noise in Wisconsin.
The presentation 'Wind Turbines, a Brief Health Overview" by Dr. Jevon McFadden to the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council on May 17,2010, was not a statement about the position of the Wisconsin Division of Public Health.
DPH recognizes that wind turbines create certain exposures; audible sound, low-frequency sound, infrasound and vibration, and shadow flicker.
Certain ranges of intensity or frequency of audible sound, low frequency sound, vibration, and flicker have been associated with some objectively-verifiable human health conditions.
Our review of the scientific literature indicates, exposure levels measured from eontemporary wind turbines at current setback distances do not reach those associated with objective physical conditions, such as hearing loss, high blood pressure, or flicker-induced epilepsy.
Your letter also cites information that many symptoms are reported by some who live near wind turbines. This information is difficult to interpret for a few reasons.
First, symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headache are common, and caused by a wide variety of conditions.
For example, sleep disturbance is a common problem in the general population, and may also be a sign of an underlying medical disorder.
The same is true for symptoms like nausea, headache, problems with equilibrium, and others mentioned in your letter.
Neither individuals, nor investigators should assume that they originate from exposure to wind turbines.
Persistent symptoms, or those that interfere with daily functions, should be evaluated by a medical professional.
Second, as your letter describes, some people experience annoyance at wind turbines, and annoyance has been associated with some of the symptoms you cite.
Unfortunately, we cannot know which may be responsible for the other.
Annoyance is a psychological reaction with a wide range of individual variability and is influenced by multiple personal and situational factors.
Annoyance, per se, is not considered a physical or mental health disorder, but it may influence perception or interpretation.of health-related complaints (or introduce "bias," in scientific terminology).
This makes it very difficult to objectively assess whether or not reported symptoms are indicative of actual physical conditions caused by exposures from wind turbines.
DPH staff previously reviewed the five reports you referenced in your letter.
They also reviewed over 150 reports from the scientifiennd medical literature (published and unpublished) pertinent to the issue of wind turbines and health.
DPH has also taken time to listen to, and respond to concerns voiced by local residents, municipalities, and local health department officials from across the State of Wisconsin.
We have discussed this issue with colleagues at UW School of Medicine and Public Health, the Minnesota and Maine state health departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
From this, we conclude that current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that contemporary wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes to those living nearby.
This is different from saying that future evidence about harms may not emerge, or that wind turbines will not change over time, or that annoyance and other quality-of-life considerations are irrelevant.
DPH does not endorse a specific setback distance or noise threshold level relating to wind turbines.
Nevertheless, in keeping with standard public health practice, DPH favors a conservative approach to setbacks and noise limits that provides adequate protections to those who live or work near wind turbines.
These will help minimize local impacts on quality of life and serve as a buffer against possible unrecognized health effects.
Current draft siting rules limit noise exposures from wind turbines to very modest levels, and we anticipate that the final siting rules will, at the very least, be equally protective.
For this reason, we do not believe there is a compelling reason to perform an epidemiologic investigation in
Wisconsin.
To the extent that gaps remain in current science, DPH favors continued investigations to help advance knowledge and guide future policy development.
The value of these studies will depend on the degree to which subjective corpplaints can be compared with
objective clinical and environmental measurements.
However, complex clinical studies requiring coordination of acoustical engineering efforts with clinical assessments are outside the scope of standard public health investigations.
As additional scientific evidence becomes available, DPH will continue to appraise its relative strength, credibility, and applicability to the issue of wind turbine development in Wisconsin.
As is the case with any major deve[opment undertaking in the State of Wisconsin, it is important that we continue to look for ways to maximize positive impacts and minimize negative impacts to residents.
To the extent that these impacts fall into the public health realm, DPH will continue to seek data and information to guide public policy on this matter.
Sincerely,
Seth Foldy
State Health
Wisconsin Department of Health Services
Division of Public Health
THIRD FEATURE
Different sound sources vary in their sound level, frequency content and temporal character. These differences are most easily described by example. First, there are steady state noise sources. A good example would be an active highway. The sound level at a listener location away from the highway may vary somewhat from moment to moment, but by small amounts. But by and large human observers perceive highway sound as near constant in amplitude.
Second, there are transient sources. These are sources present only for brief periods of time. Good examples are passing trains or aircraft. These sources rise gradually in amplitude as they approach the listener and then decay as they depart.
A third class of sound source is the impulsive one. These sources can be repetitive or random in nature. Repetitive impulse sources would be jackhammers and pile drivers. The basic difference between the two examples is the rate at which the impulses occur. A random impulsive source would be the operations in a machine shop where hammering or metal fabrication takes place. In all of these examples any one impulse lasts for only a very small fraction of a second, and the onset and offset of the impulse is very rapid.
Finally, we come to the wind turbine source. Unlike any of the previous sources described, it is neither steady state in the classic sense, nor is it transient, nor is it impulsive. Instead, it produces a distinctive broadband "swoosh-boom" sound4 with each passing blade of the turbine. Each whoosh effectively modulates the sound level, with a more gradual onset than an impulsive sound, and a less gradual one than the transient sources I mentioned. For the typical three-bladed turbine in the 1-megawatt output range the blade passage rate is nominally one per second. One can sound out the observed sound in the typical second-counting style... "whoosh" one thousand, "whoosh" two thousand, "whoosh" three thousand, and so on. So long as the wind is blowing at sufficient speed to drive the turbine the sound will be generate for lengthy periods of time without interruption.
The hours of operation of wind turbines are not dictated by diurnal patterns of human activity like many other anthropogenic sources. They are able to operate when wind conditions are favorable, day or night. This means they may become a factor during both waking and sleeping hours.
The repetitive sound character is unique and unlike any other source found in residential communities. As such it is easily identifiable. It does not blend in to other background sources that are continuous in nature.
Wind turbine noise is most prevalent in rural areas. By their very nature, large-scale wind turbine installations require vast areas of open land. Hence, any potential sound masking effect from urban and suburban sources is unlikely to be present. This means that their sound will be audible at lower levels in the rural environment. It further means that rural noise standards should be applied to these installations as opposed to suburban or urban ones where nighttime sound levels, for example, can be 15 to 20 decibels higher.
Download File(s):
HorojeffReportFinal.pdf (275.71 kB)
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind health effects
|
Comments Off
7/19/10 Sow the wind, reap dead bats AND The sport of pitting neighbor against neighbor: Wind developers won't hesitate to tear communities apart AND an interview with a wind project resident who had to leave her home once the wind turbines went on line
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Wind turbine related bat kills are ten times higher in Wisconsin than anywhere in the nation except Pennsylvania. There is serious concern about the survival of bat populations near Wisconsin wind projects.
WIND TURBINES AND DISEASE CUTTING BAT TOTALS
SOURCE: The Times Leader, www.timesleader.com
July 19 2010
By Matt Hughes,
WILKES-BARRE — Sue Gallagher of the Carbon County Environmental Center has presented her educational program on bats so many times she could probably do it hanging upside down in the dark.
She ran through much of that program Thursday at Wilkes-Barre’s River Common, going over myths and misconceptions about nature’s only flying mammals. To summarize: Bats aren’t blind, they aren’t flying mice, they won’t get stuck in your hair and, unless you’re vacationing on a South American cattle ranch, they won’t suck your blood either.
A little more than a year ago, things changed, and Gallagher’s message about bats changed with it.
Bats in Pennsylvania are dying, Gallagher said, in such extreme numbers that future generations of Pennsylvanians may never see them in the wild.
“You guys aren’t going to grow up seeing bats the way we grew up seeing bats,” Gallagher told the approximately 10 children who gathered with their parents for the program, which was sponsored by rivercommon.org.
There are two culprits in the disappearance of the state’s bats, Gallagher said.
Hibernating bats, the sort that live in caves, have been affected by white nose syndrome, a fungus-based illness that causes bats to awaken from hibernation early. The bats, which live on a diet of insects, then die of starvation.
The illness, which spread south from New York State last year, kills 85 to 100 percent of bat populations it infiltrates.
Other bats, especially the migratory variety, are being killed by an unlikely source: wind turbines. Bats are attracted to the turbines during mating season, Gallagher said, when they will fly to the highest point above ground. They are then either killed by the large fan blades or by low pressure systems that form near the tips of the blades that cause the bats’ lungs to explode.
A single turbine can kill 50 to 100 bats a year, Gallagher said, adding that it is too early to judge the effect of wind energy on bats because Pennsylvania does not track bat population size.
“We want to get behind wind energy; we want to say wind energy is green, but we’ve got to address its impact on bats,” Gallagher said.
“I feel bad, because I really like bats, and I don’t want them to die,” Bethany Kelsey, 7, of Wilkes-Barre, said after the program.
“I didn’t know that they were dying, which makes me very sad,” Kelsey’s mother, Angel Kelsey, added. “I grew up in the woods watching the bats.”
The bat program was the first in a series of free children’s nature education programs being held at the River Common. The next, a live mammals program, will take place July 23.
Wind farm sows discord among friends
URBANA, Ohio - One need not drive too far into Champaign County to recognize that 2010 will be a bumper year for corn and soybeans. As for harvesting the wind, the jury is still out.
Last week, the Ohio Power Siting Board essentially reaffirmed its decision to allow 53 wind turbines to be erected near here, despite the persistent objections of residents who are not convinced that the turbines - some of them approaching the height of the Washington Monument - will do any more than set longtime county residents at one another's throats.
"One woman told me she couldn't go to church anymore because she couldn't stand to look at one of the people who has sold out" by leasing land for the turbines, Julia Johnson, one of those longtime residents, said last week.
These once were Champaign County farmers who shared a tremendous kinship as stewards of the land. If one were injured or fell ill, his friends would bring in his crops. They attended Grange meetings and social gatherings together. Their children signed up for 4-H and the Future Farmers of America.
The atmosphere has become so acrimonious that merchants who must sell to all community members have avoided any signs at their businesses suggesting favoritism to either side of the issue.
"There are certainly some people I will never trust again, and any friendship we might have had in the past is now gone," said Diane McConnell, who, with her husband, Robert, owns farmland. "We will have five turbines right out the north window 700 feet from our property line."
Those who want the windmills say they produce electricity without pollution, fit in with farming because crops can be planted around them and cattle can graze underneath, and will bring jobs to the county. But neither the McConnells nor Johnson believe that the quality of life in the Urbana area will be enhanced.
"Eighty percent of the revenue for those turbines will go overseas and will not benefit our economy at all," Johnson said. EverPower Wind Holdings, the company developing the wind farm, is owned by Terra Firma, a British private-equity firm.
"It is not about energy. It is about money," Johnson said.
The McConnells and Johnson also worry about safety. People living near wind turbines in other places have complained about headaches, sleeplessness and anxiety from the humming.
Could it be that in some now-forgotten, long-ago debate, some energy whiz proposed going after crude oil not only with land-based drilling but by employing offshore oil platforms as well? Surely, the question of safety arose.
If offshore oil drilling were scrutinized no more carefully than wind turbines have been, it was only going to be a matter of time before something happened.
It might be time for a good, ol' Bible-thumping homily preached in a rural Champaign County church from Hosea 8:7: "They have planted the wind and will harvest the whirlwind. The stalks of grain wither and produce nothing to eat. And even if there is grain, foreigners will eat it."
Retired columnist Mike Harden writes Wednesday and Sunday Metro columns.
SECOND FEATURE:
Click on the image below to find out why a family in a wind project left their home once the wind turbines went on line
In this interview by Save Our Skyline Renfrew County (sosrenfrewcounty.wordpress.com), Helen Fraser talks about health issues she suffered after the Melancthon wind energy facility near Shelburne, Ontario, began operation in the spring of 2006.
Her home, where she had lived for more than 30 years, ended up in the middle of the facility.
Her fibromyalgia seriously deteriorated shortly after the wind turbines were active, yet improved just as drastically every time she was outside the vicinity of the facility.
Mrs. Fraser also notes that they no longer saw the abundance of wildlife that they had before. There were 12 turbines visible on three sides of her home, the closest only 423 meters away. Eight of the turbines had an obvious direct impact on the home, with noise or shadow flicker.
“I could tell if the turbines were running if I had a headache,” she says. When the towers were erected, she began having severe head and body aches, ringing in her ears, digestive issues, and chronic fatigue, which led to a whole host of other issues, including depression and not being able to concentrate.
“And they all cleared up after 24 hours [of being away from home], and when we’d come back the symptoms would be there 24 hours later.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, wind developer lies, wind farm complaints, wind farm contract, wind farm headaches, wind farm noise, wind farm ringing in ears, wind farm shadow flicker, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind farm property values, wisconsin wind farms
|
Comments Off
7/10/10 What's on the docket? Doctor VS Doctor: McFadden VS Phillips: which doctor is right about wind turbine related health impacts?
An Analysis of the Epidemiology and Related Evidence on the Health Effects
of Wind Turbines on Local Residents
Executive Summary
A summary of the main conclusions of my expert opinion, based on my knowledge of epidemiology and scientific methods, and my reading of the available studies and reports, is as follows:
• There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. Some of the most compelling evidence in support of this has been somewhat overlooked in previous analyses, including that the existing evidence fits what is known as the case-crossover study design, one of the most useful studies in epidemiology, and the revealed preference (observed behavior) data of people leaving their homes, etc., which provides objective measures of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena. In general, this is an exposure-disease combination where causation can be inferred from a smaller number of less formal observations than is possible for cases such as chemical exposure and cancer
risk.
• The reported health effects, including insomnia, loss of concentration, anxiety, and general psychological distress are as real as physical ailments, and are part of accepted modern definitions of individual and public health. While such ailments are sometimes more difficult to study, they probably account for more of the total burden of morbidity in Western countries than do strictly physical diseases. It is true that there is no bright line between these diseases and less intense similar problems that would not usually be called a disease, this is a case for taking the less intense versions of the problems more seriously in making policy decisions, not to ignore the serious diseases.
• Existing evidence is not sufficient to make several important quantifications, including what portion of the population is susceptible to the health effects from particular exposures, how much total health impact wind turbines have, and the magnitude of exposure needed to cause substantial risk of important health effects. However, these are questions that could be answered if some resources were devoted to finding the answer. It is not necessary to proceed with siting so that more data can accumulate, since there is enough data now if it were gathered and analyzed.
• The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence.Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis.
WHAT'S THE LATEST?
IN THE NEWS:
-FARMER SUES WIND DEVELOPER FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE:
“Now I’m faced with a farm I wanted to buy all my life. I spent all this money restoring, and I’m going to have a wind turbine that will create shadow flicker. It will make noise; it will prevent spraying from east or west — that’s the way this farm runs. It will have an impact on the value of my farm, and nobody asked me for my permission, and my zoning commission didn’t protect my rights.” Click here to read the whole story
- AT 35dbA, NEIGHBORS SAY INVENERGY WIND FARM TOO LOUD FOR COMFORT
"When the turbines began to turn, they said they had trouble sleeping and suffered symptoms such as nausea, anxiety and vertigo. They are convinced the symptoms arise from turbine-generated noise and vibrations. The neighbors and their noise expert say the project routinely violates the state noise standard of 36 adjusted decibels, or dBA, at their homes." Click here to read the whole story
FROM THE WIND SITING DOCKET:
Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?
The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.
The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.
CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Invenergy, Wind farm health effects, carl V phillips, wind farm noise, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife
|
Comments Off
7/9/10 In the news and on the docket: Getting out of what you didn't know you were getting into: Wisconsin landowner regrets signing wind contract AND Will warnings about potential negative impacts be taken seriously?
WIND FARM DEBATE CONTINUES IN BROWN COUNTY
SOURCE WGBA NBC 26, www.nbc26.com 8 July 2010
Wind Turbines is again a controversial topic in the southern Brown County community of Hollandtown. At the core of the issue, plans to have turbines dotting farmland cross Brown County. Opponents like Carl Johnson say it’s bad for property values and even worse for your health. “Contracts get signed with people who will host turbines before other people in the community know what is happening and have any say in that.”
Invenergy hopes to build 100 industrial turbines in the county. The company says 120 landowners have already signed up. It already has wind farms up in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties. Invenergy’s senior development manager says those projects are safe and they bring in money paying landowners and taxes.
Johnson says not everyone is on board. “They see them as symbols of America’s progress toward energy independence, but beneath those turbines there are some serious problems regarding health and safety and water resources that really everyone in the state needs to be concerned about.”
SECOND STORY:
Click on the image below to hear Dick Koltz speak about why he wants out of his wind contract
“I just feel they could have been more on the up and up some of the people they sent around just outright lied to a lot of the people.”
-Dick Koltz
WIND TURBINE CONTRACT DISPUTE
SOURCE: WGBA NBC 26, www.nbc26.com
July 8 2010
As Dick Koltz takes a ride through his farmland he says he can’t imagine the sight of a wind turbine on his property.
“The more I dug the more I learned, there are many questions, health, safety.”
But before he did his research, Koltz signed a contract with Invenergy to put a wind turbine on a portion of his land. Invenergy management says the turbines are safe and create revenue for landowners and taxes for the county. But it’s a decision Koltz says he now regrets and is trying to reverse.
“I just feel they could have been more on the up and up some of the people they sent around just outright lied to a lot of the people.”
Koltz joined others at this meeting sponsored by Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, to hear more about the effects of wind turbines on the proposed wind farm Invenergy wants to build in southern Brown County.
“Beneath those turbines there are some serious problems regarding health and safety,” says Carl Johnson who is against the proposed wind farm.
Questions Koltz wishes he had asked before he signed a contract for a turbine on his farm.
“I’m not anti anything good, but I don’t think this is good, I just can’t see the benefit when the cost is so high.”
THIRD FEATURE
STUDY OUTLINES WIND TURBINE CONCERNS. DR. PIERPONT: 14% OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
SOURCE:The Journal, www.ogd.com
July 9 2010
By Matt McAllister,
HAMMOND – The author of “Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment” told the Hammond Wind Committee on Monday that 14 percent of the town’s residential dwellings will be adversely affected if the entire wind overlay zone is filled with wind turbines.
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, a Malone physician who received her master’s degree from John Hopkins University and a doctorate in population biology from Princeton University, told the committee, “I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.
“I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from John Hopkins to actually gather the information.
“A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects,” she said.
According to Wikipedia’s website, “Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has said that noise can be an important disadvantage of wind turbines, especially when building the wind turbines very close to urban environments. She says that wind turbines may produce sounds that affect the mood of people and may cause physiological problems such as insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo and nausea.”
Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont’s research, theories, and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.
The predictions she made for the Hammond community, along with a map she constructed outlining 2010 residential dwellings within 1,500 meters of the wind overlay zone and recorded wind leases, contained some eye-openers.
* “You can estimate that 152 households in Hammond Township would be affected in the wind overlay zone and the 1,500 meter buffer, assuming the entire wind overlay zone had turbines in it.”
* “Using the number of 2 percent of households likely to have to move away from the turbines, you can estimate 21 out of the 152 affected households having to move, and estimate the monetary costs to these households and to your town. From your population number of 2635, all ages, you can estimate 316 are highly likely to be affected on the basis of 12 percent of Americans having migraine disorder.”
* “Children do not have to be excluded from this number because they, too, have inherited migraine tendencies. In my study, I found that the children of adults with migraine were affected like the adults with migraine in terms of their susceptibility to headaches around wind turbines.”
* “You can also see that you have a population of 766 over age 55, and a population of 146 age 5 and under, both groups likely to have higher numbers of affected people.”
Attempts to contact several members of the wind committee for comment or reaction to Dr. Pierpont’s presentation were unsuccessful.
The wind committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.
Subjects to be discussed, according to Mr. Duff, include the development process, permitting, interconnection, engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.
A “roundtable” discussion is to follow Iberdrola’s presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.
“The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer’s plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process,” Mr. Duff said.
SECOND FEATURE:
WHAT'S THE LATEST?
IN THE NEWS:
-LANDOWNERS WISE-UP ABOUT THE WAYS OF WIND DEVELOPERS
-WHO PAYS FOR THE HIGH COST OF "FREE" WIND?
-WHO MAKES ALL THE MONEY FROM "FREE" WIND?
FROM THE WIND SITING DOCKET:
Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?
The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.
The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.
CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, wind farm complaint, wind farm contract, wind farm noise, wind farm ordinance, wind farm property values, wind farm setback, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildife, wind power, wind turbine
|
Comments Off
7/8/10 Meet Me at Van Ables: Brown County is Getting the Word Out: The trouble with siting industrial scale wind turbines 1000 feet from homes
Wind Farm Meeting Tonight in Holland
SOURCE: Greenbay Press Gazette
July 8, 2010
By Jon Styf
A group that has opposed a proposal to build a 100-turbine wind farm in southern Brown County will host what it calls an informational meeting tonight in Holland.
Chicago-based Invenergy LLC has proposed the wind farm in Morrison, Glenmore and Wrightstown. It is waiting to resubmit its application until the guidelines are approved by the PSC.
The Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy has organized tonight's meeting scheduled for 6:30 at Van Abel's of Hollandtown, 8108 Brown County D in the town of Holland.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in BCCRWE, BCCRWE, Brown County, Brown County Wind, Invenergy, Invenergy, wind farm contract, wind farm health, wind farm noise, wind farm ordinances, wind farm setbacks, wind farm shadow flciker, wind farm strong arm, wind farm wildlife
|
Comments Off