Better Plan, Wisconsin

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

Download File(s):
HorojeffReportFinal.pdf (275.71 kB)

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.



Noel Dean has a farm at Waubra but he and his family moved out 13 months ago when their headaches worsened.

“Sore ears, pain in and around the eyes, pain on top of the head, pain in the back of the head, behind the ears and early this year, we started to get throbbing pain at the back of the head and tinnitus,” he said.

“We couldn’t stay there another night – it was that bad.” 

RESIDENTS REJECT WIND FARM HEALTH FINDINGS

SOURCE: ABC News, www.abc.net.au July 5 2010

By Kellie Lazzaro,

Campaigners against wind farms have rejected a report finding no scientific evidence to link wind turbines to health problems.

The National Health and Medical Research Council, which advises the Federal Government, found that there was no evidence that the turbines’ low frequency noise or shadow flicker made people sick.

But residents of Waubra in Victoria’s south-west who live near the state’s largest wind farm, say they are sick and are convinced that wind turbines are to blame.

Noel Dean has a farm at Waubra but he and his family moved out 13 months ago when their headaches worsened.

“Sore ears, pain in and around the eyes, pain on top of the head, pain in the back of the head, behind the ears and early this year, we started to get throbbing pain at the back of the head and tinnitus,” he said.

“We couldn’t stay there another night – it was that bad.”

Mr Dean first complained to the Waubra wind farm operator Acciona in May last year, but the company refused to give him access to the outcome of its investigation.

He then commissioned an independent report into noise levels at his property at a cost of more than $40,000.

He has just received that report by Noise Measurement Services and says it confirms there is a link between the low frequency noise from wind farms and adverse health effects.

“Anything from 1 to 20 hertz can cause adverse health effects and that is what we have found in a pulsing motion. It is a pulsing motion that makes the effects just a lot worse,” he said.

But in a rapid review of existing studies, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has found there is no published evidence of direct pathological effects from wind farms.

The director of the council’s evidence and advice branch, Professor John McCallum, says they have brought together opinion and evidence from all around the world.

“Shadow flicker is the flicking on and off of wind turbine shadows as the blades rotate. It is the glint off the surface of the blades and those are now minimised by treatment of the blades that prevents reflective glint as well, and they are the kind of four main areas that people talk about health effects from,” he said.

He says World Health Organisation (WHO) studies have found no reliable evidence that sound below the hearing threshold will produce physiological or psychological effects.

The NHMRC report refers to a study of three wind farms in the UK that found if people are worried about their health, they may become anxious and suffer stress-related illnesses.

For this reason Professor John McCallum says people who believe they are experiencing health problems should consult a GP, but he says the report commissioned by Noel Dean about noise levels on his farm would need to be further tested.

Donald Thomas also lives at Waubra and was a big supporter of the wind farm, until he too started getting headaches, heart palpitations and high blood pressure.

“We’ve invited the Health Minister and top health officials to actually come out to Waubra to talk to us and see what the problem is first hand, but none of them have bothered to do that. They just look at overseas studies and pick the ones that suit them,” he said.

The National Health and Medical Research Council acknowledges the health effects of renewable energy generation have not been assessed to the same extent as those from traditional sources and recommends authorities continue to monitor research.

The National Environment Protection and Heritage Council has met in Darwin today to consider national wind farm development guidelines.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Acciona has several projects in the works in Wisconsin, but we've had no luck getting them to tell us what their plans are for our communities.

 

 

WIND SITING HEARING NOTICE

Tuesday  July 6, 2010, beginning at 1:00 p.m and 6:00 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
First Floor, Amnicon Falls Room
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio and video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:00.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

 

MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council
Docket 1-AC-231

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of June 21, 2010 & June 23, 2010
3) Straw proposal amendment ballot results
4) Straw proposal revisions based on ballot results
5) Additional revisions to straw proposal prior to end of public comment period
6) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
7) Adjourn

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE WIND SITING COUNCIL STRAW PROPOSAL

Click on the image below to watch Representative Zigmunt's testimony to the PSC

STEPPING BACK FROM THE LEDGE

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter, dailyreporter.com 

July 2 2010

By Paul Snyder

Unrest among Brown County neighbors of what would be Wisconsin’s largest wind farm is reason enough for the state to consider alternative projects, said a lawmaker from the area.

State Rep. Ted Zigmunt, D-Francis Creek, said the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin should consider energy projects such as geothermal and solar hot water for individual properties and commercial buildings as alternatives to the Ledge Wind Farm, a $300 million, 100-turbine project proposed by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC that would touch three towns.

“I’m not trying to kill the project,” Zigmunt said. “I’m neutral on Ledge. But a lot of constituents have been contacting me with concerns about the project, and I’m putting these things out there as an alternative.”

Kevin Parzyck, Invenergy’s development manager, called Zigmunt’s proposal for alternatives an apples-to-oranges comparison with building a power plant.

“It’s not a this-or-that scenario,” he said. “The PSC is looking at power needs across the state and the means by which to best achieve those needs.”

Invenergy last year submitted its proposal to the PSC for Ledge, which would include 100 turbines spread across the towns of Wrightstown, Holland and Morrison in Brown County. The proposed project would generate 150 megawatts of electricity.

However, Parzyck said, Invenergy is waiting to provide a more detailed analysis of the project until the PSC issues a new set of turbine placement rules for Wisconsin. The setback distances from properties established in those rules could alter Invenergy’s proposal, Parzyck said.

“We think we’ll be able to provide greater clarity on the project and a timeline in the next few months,” he said.

Invenergy’s proposed project has drawn opposition from such local groups as Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. Zigmunt said Brown County has put a moratorium on wind development until more research on health effects is available. Zigmunt said final approval of such significant projects should not be in the state’s hands.

“It’s always been my feeling that it should be up to local communities and governments to decide if they want these things there,” he said. “Counties and towns know the lay of the land a lot better than the state.”

If any of the proposed turbines interfere with property or cause problems for residents who oppose the project, Zigmunt said, Wisconsin should have a backup plan.

But putting energy projects in the hands of homeowners and businesses is different from providing new power sources that can last decades, Parzyck said.

“Obviously, we look for broad-based support on any project we do, and we know there are those who oppose this project,” he said. “But we also have in excess of 120 landowners signed up to take part in this project.

“We’re very confident that once this is fully evaluated, the PSC will determine Ledge is safe and a good economic engine for the community.”

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE BROWN COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE WIND ENERGY WEBSITE

SECOND FEATURE

PORTLAND SCHOOL TURNS OF WIND TURBINE TO HALT SEABIRD SLAUGHTER

 Dorset Echo, www.dorsetecho.co.uk 

July 3 2010

By Laura Kitching,

A £20,000 wind turbine brought in to make a Portland primary school more environmentally friendly has been turned off because it was killing seabirds.

Headteacher Stuart McLeod, of Southwell Community Primary School, said they ‘tried everything’ to solve the problem but had no choice but to shut it down.

In the past few months the nine metre high generator has taken the lives of 14 birds – far higher than the manufacturer’s estimate of one per year.

The wind turbine was installed at the school around 18 months ago, thanks to grant funding, to provide six kilowatts of power an hour.

Mr McLeod said: “We’ve got the ideal location for wind power but unfortunately seagulls kept flying into it.

“We were told by the manufacturer to expect maybe one fatality a year but it killed 14 in six months so we took advice and made the decision to turn it off.

“If it had happened at night time you could understand that the birds couldn’t see the blades, which rotate at 135mph but it was happening at all different times of the day.”

Mr McLeod came into school early to clear up the fatalities but when the deaths happened at playtimes and lunchtimes, the children got upset and he worried about the impact on the birds.

He said: “The school governors investigated putting scaffolding up but that would impact on its performance, we thought about painting the blades a dazzle yellow but the manufacturer said that couldn’t be done.

“We’ve even gone as far as Stansted Airport to investigate bird-scaring plastic owls and we spoke to herring gull eyesight experts at the Natural History Museum.

“We’ve tried so hard to be eco-friendly but now we can’t turn it on.

“We can’t get rid of it either because we bought the turbine we had to apply for grants and the grant from the Department of Energy and Climate Change states that it has to stay on site for five years.”

The school is now negotiating with Dorset County Council about the future of the wind turbine.

WIND SITING HEARING NOTICE

WEDNESDAY  June 30, 2010, beginning at 1:00 p.m and 6:00 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
First Floor, Amnicon Falls Room
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio and video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:00.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.

WIND TURBINE DEBATE SPINS TOWARD SEPTEMBER 1 DEADLINE

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter, dailyreporter.com

 June 29 2010

By Paul Snyder,

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is sticking to a firm Sept. 1 deadline to propose wind turbine placement rules despite calls from local governments to wait.

“We had a very clear mandate to get work done quickly,” PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said Tuesday.

“Expediency is important in order to have uniformity and ground rules in place for future wind development.”

Callisto and other PSC staff members this week are traveling throughout the state to hold public hearings on wind turbine placement draft rules based on recommendations from the state’s Wind Siting Council. The council’s goal is to recommend rules for turbine placement on wind farms that generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity. Wind farms that generate more than 100 megawatts are subject to PSC approval.

The council first met in March, and Callisto said then he expected recommendations by July. The PSC will then use those recommendations to make rules by Sept. 1 for review and approval by state lawmakers.

Still, local governments argue the process is moving too fast.

Representatives from the towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore in Brown County last week requested the Wind Siting Council first consider a March report by the World Health Organization relating to health problems caused by wind turbines.

Glen Schwalbach, who submitted the request on behalf of the towns, said further review is more important than a year or two delay in setting the turbine placement rules.

“The fact is: We have newer information now that says there are more health implications than some people have believed relating to noise effects,” said Schwalbach, the town supervisor in Rockland, which neighbors the three towns requesting the review. “It’s not just a case of whining or people imagining things.”

Doug Zweizig, the siting council’s co-chairman, said council members do not know why they have to meet the Sept. 1 deadline. He said he thinks itís a mistake to rush a set of recommendations to the PSC.

Zweizig, a Plan Commission member in the town of Union, said his town took about a year and a half to develop a wind farm ordinance.

“It’s clear that they’re trying to pass something as quickly as possible,” he said. “I think the council could have had a much better process, but it went almost immediately to looking at positions of the various members.”

The majority of the 15-member council, Zweizig said, favors wind development, and members who have experience living on wind farms are not being heard.

Callisto said he wants consensus recommendations but will take the majority’s vote if that’s the best he can get.

“It would hold more weight if it was consensus, but I realize how difficult this is,” he said. “It was not unanimous legislation, either.”

The reason for the Sept. 1 deadline, Callisto said, is so Senate and Assembly committees can review and approve the rules before the legislative session ends. Because the turbine placement recommendations would represent rule changes, they would need to be submitted by Sept. 1 during an election year and only would require approval from legislative committees rather than the full Legislature, Callisto said.

He said he wants the same group of lawmakers that formed the council to review the rule change proposals.

If new wind farm studies come along, Callisto said, and groups such as the Brown County towns want more review, there is room for change.

“I think they’re going to be flexible to accommodate new studies,” he said. “Rules get modified all the time. Nothing’s written in stone.”

NEXT FEATURE

TO: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128--Wind Energy Systems

Request by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 23, 2010

Issue: Request to delay issuing the PSCW wind siting standards until epidemiological studies of health complaints from Wisconsin`s current wind farms are thoroughly completed.

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County are very concerned about the mounting evidence that there are serious negative impacts on human and animal health caused by wind turbines. It appears it is not only reasonable to delay the issuance of wind siting standards but it would be irresponsible to not do so in light of new studies and ongoing complaints of residents in and near Wisconsin`s existing wind farms.

In general, scientifically and statistically relevant studies have been limited. But, a very important report was published March 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO) entitled "Night Noise Guidelines for Europe" (available at euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/abstracts/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe).

The report is based on a six-year evaluation of scientific evidence by thirty-five scientists from medical and acoustical disciplines. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure at night. WHO sets the limit for annual average exposure to not exceed 40 decibels (dB) outside of a residence.

WHO stated, "Recent research clearly links exposure to night noise with harm to health. Sleep disturbance and annoyance are the first effects of night noise and can lead to mental disorders. Just like air pollution and toxic chemicals, noise is an environmental hazard to health". WHO stated that they hope their new report will prompt governments to invest effort and money in protecting health from this growing hazard.

Our towns ask the PSCW to acquire the WHO report and evaluate its application to setting appropriate sound levels for wind turbines.

The PSCW`s draft rules do not address low frequency noise levels. It is not known whether the WHO report addresses this issue but other studies have described the likely effects. This is another area where epidemiological studies are needed before wind turbine setbacks can be reasonably proposed.

Besides sleep disturbance, there are complaints of other physiological problems. It is not acceptable to ignore or minimize the significance of these impacts as just quirks of human imagination.

Also, there is evidence that existing wind farms in Wisconsin are negatively affecting farm animals. Whether it is noise or some other physical phenomena, studies and testing should be done before setting siting standards.

At a public meeting of the Brown County Health Department and the Brown County Human Services Committee, reputable medical and health experts stressed the importance of epidemiological studies to determine the true nature of health impacts of wind turbines.

The State Board of Health pointed out that the lack of funding is a hurdle. But a conviction to do the right thing should prompt the PSCW to make a case to pursue the money issue with state legislators as well as our U.S. senators and representatives. Certainly, our towns would help in this endeavor. That said, it is even more appropriate for the wind developers and their associations to offer funding for independent studies since such studies should reduce future litigation. Electric utilities should have a stake in this effort as well. This is an opportunity to involve the University of Wisconsin research capabilities in both human health and animal health.

It appears that Act 40 does not set a deadline for completing the siting rules. This week a state senator who was one of the leaders in passing the wind siting law agreed that studies should be done to be sure the rules are adequate. If one or two years were used to study the existing wind farms while delaying any new installations, the developers would still have time to help utilities meet their 15% RPS by 2015. Again, if needed, our towns would help in getting the support of legislators.

Our towns implore the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council to not ignore the evidence of potentially serious health impacts and to not set standards until they have done the obvious and reasonable step of studying the health impacts of existing wind turbine installations in Wisconsin. Professional ethics demands no less. We believe our request aligns with the PSCW`s responsibility to protect the citizens of Wisconsin.

Submitted for the towns by Glen R. Schwalbach, P.E.