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

NEW! CLICK HERE WATCH A SHORT ANIMATION ABOUT SHADOW FLICKER AND SETBACKS

COURTESY OF THE GREAT EVANSVILLE OBSERVER (Click here to visit the Evansville Observer Website)

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

A copy of the finalized ballot for voting on Wind Siting Council issues has been made public today by the PSC and can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE.

Anyone who wishes to fill out this ballot and submit it to the PSC as public comment for the Wind Siting Council Docket may do so.

Because this copy is a Word Document format, you must

A: Fill in the ballot and then copy and paste the entire document into the comment box for Docket 1-AC-231 by CLICKING HERE. (This link will get you directly to the comment page for the Wind Siting Council Docket There is no limit on the number of comments you may make to the docket.)

B: You may also save your completed copy of the document as a PDF and upload it to the docket if you are registered with the PSC's ERF system.

C: You can fill it in and mail it directly to the PSC. It must be there before July 6th, 2010. You'll need to provide your name and address and make it clear that it is to be included on docket 1-AC-231

Send it to The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

610 N Whitney Way

Madison, WI 53705

Scroll down to the previous post to read a draft version of this document which was released last week.

Click on links below for times and locations of hearings taking place in Fond du Lac, Tomah and Madison this week. 

• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 28, 2010 (6:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 29, 2010 (1:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 29, 2010 (6:00 PM)
• Public Hearing: PSC Wind Siting Rules
  June 30, 2010 (1:00 PM)

WHAT'S THE WORD FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?

Here is what the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore in Brown County submitted to the wind siting council docket.

If you would like your Town Board to read this and consider submitting a comment, download this document by CLICKING HERE

Although the timing may not allow for Town Boards to officially decide to comment as a group, any of Town board member or other local government officials may comment individually as citizens, and identify themselves as members of local government.

Submitted to: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128—Wind Energy Systems
Comments by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 24, 2010

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County respectfully submit our comments and concerns in regard to the May 14, 2010 draft of the Chapter 128 rules for wind energy systems.

This submittal reflects many hours of research, participation in county meetings involving wind energy and health experts, consultation with licensed Professional Engineers, seven town meetings for citizens’ input including two joint meetings of all three towns and a thorough review process of this submittal.

The overall objectives of the towns are as follows:

1. To help the PSCW develop rules for Wind Energy Systems (WES) so that public safety and health are preserved.

2. To provide credible and reasonable suggestions.

3. To base suggestions on current state law, recent wind turbine and health studies, expert publications, and citizens’ input and experiences with existing WES.

4. To ensure citizens’ input from the towns of Glenmore, Morrison, and Wrightstown into the rule-making process.

The towns appreciate the efforts of the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council. The comments will follow the order of the draft rules but first some critical points are presented.

First, attention is requested to another submittal of these towns cautioning about the potential danger to human and animal health by rushing the promulgation of these rules.

The PSCW with the University of Wisconsin, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection should be involved to be sure that health and safety are not compromised.

Wisconsin has existing wind turbine installations which provide the opportunity to measure health effects and also a responsibility to not build more wind projects until health complaints are studied and resolved. If not done, such requirements as setbacks and sound levels must be set very conservatively.

It appears that Act 40 has no deadline for promulgating these siting rules. Just this week, a state senator who was one of the leaders in the wind siting legislation agreed that these rules should not be rushed. He supports scientific studies of Wisconsin’s existing wind turbine complexes.

Second, the draft rules require the developer to involve the DNR for the usual permitting requirements.

The rules must require the DNR to include groundwater impacts in their review and to require construction and operation techniques which will protect water quality.

Brown County has experienced how easy and widespread groundwater can become contaminated. The rules need to allow for the DNR to identify geological areas in which wind turbines are not to be constructed because the risk of contamination is too high.

If statutory authority is needed, the towns would work to accomplish that.

Third, the rules are only as good as their implementation. Most towns, counties, and state agencies are not able to inspect the whole construction process for wind turbines. The rules should require the use of qualified, third-party engineering/environmental inspectors reporting to the DNR, county land conservation, and local political subdivisions and paid for by the wind developer/owner.

It is believed the PSCW has done similar in the past for energy projects. PSC REF#:133746
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin


Comments on specific sections of draft rules: (“D/O” means “developer/owner”)

II. Developer Requirements

.10(1) Notification Requirements and .11 Real Property Provisions

1. Consider pre-qualifying of D/O (or state licensing) for one MW or larger projects to minimize unqualified D/Os who waste time and money of local towns and counties, contact landowners without any accountability and, most importantly, are likely to construct poorer quality facilities.

2. Create a process to assign a temporary franchise area to D/O while contacting landowners but require public announcement before contacting landowners for an easement or lease. This should satisfy developers who do not want confusion by alerting a second developer of their activities. But, since competition is good, PSCW may consider issuing two temporary franchises with full disclosure to landowners who could sign options with each developer. PSCW would then choose the best project to move forward.

3. Require a PSCW-published “Truth-In-Negotiating” brochure to be sent to landowners one month before contact. A few references are available such as www.flaginc.org. One disclosure which should be included is that, it appears, in Wisconsin if the turbine or cable trenches create pathways for manure to contaminate the groundwater, it is still the farmer who is responsible for the contamination unless the easement/lease can transfer that liability to the developer.

4. Require that lease/easement agreements allow for an option to terminate the contract at some point early in the process if landowner wishes.
.
12 Existing Property Uses

1. This requirement is helpful but “reasonable” needs some definition or examples.

.13 Siting Criteria

1. With more and more evidence that setbacks which have been used in the past are not adequate, it is disturbing to see the setbacks proposed in the PSCW draft.

2. Determining the correct setback has to be driven by what is necessary to ensure safety and health, not by the fact that someone wants to invest in wind energy.

3. Since human stress causes health problems, the stress of “taking of property (value and use options) without due process” from neighbors of wind turbine installations must be considered. The PSCW understands the value of options when evaluating energy projects. Therefore, it must be understood that since a neighbor to a wind turbine project loses options for future use of their property when setbacks are inadequate, they lose real value. Lost options include not being able to build a residence, sell the property for residential development or even build their own wind turbine. Setbacks should not create “no-build” zones for future residences on nonparticipating parcels. Such action is, in fact, the “taking of property without due process”.

4. Setbacks should be established to protect safety and health of both participating and nonparticipating residents. The draft rules with different setbacks for different residents suggest a degree of ambiguity as to what setback is needed for health and safety for any person. The draft rules which include setback differences as well as the short setbacks reinforce the need for studies in the field so that science and statistical analysis provide the answers.

5. Setbacks should be determined for each wind structure to meet standards for maximum allowable sound levels and shadow flickering and to provide safe distances from ice shedding and structural failure or turbine blade breakage and throw-off. The draft seems to use some unknown criteria.

6. Since modeling predictions have a degree of error, minimum setbacks are still needed. But when modeling shows greater setbacks, those should be used.

7. Also, the option for residents to waive the setbacks drafted in Table 1 suggests a lack of a sound scientific basis for setting the setbacks in the first place. In addition, when the PSCW cannot determine the right setback for everyone’s safety and health, as it seems, it is not appropriate to allow a waiver process.

8. There is a body of studies and experiences which suggests “1/2 mile from residences” is needed for safety and health reasons. Even older publications suggested “1/4 mile” will solve the majority of issues which means the draft rules are ignoring the trend of evidence suggesting that greater setback distances are needed. From 2007 through 2009, seven experts or expert groups have recommended setbacks of 1.5 to 2.4 kilometers which is 0.93 to 1.5 miles. Again, conducting studies at Wisconsin’s existing wind turbine complexes is the only responsible path before setting setback criteria.

9. A health effect similar to motion sickness which affects some people and not others also needs studying to determine setback criteria.

.14 Noise Criteria

1. The towns are not recommending a specific sound level because the establishment of such standard needs to be based on thorough epidemiological studies. The towns suggest considering different sound levels for daytime and nighttime and the suitability of an ambient plus 5dB standard. Sound levels in the draft rules are set much higher than recommended by many recent studies.

The following references are offer.
Document ETSU-R-97 used as a standard for years in the United Kingdom specifies no greater than 35-40dB LA90 or background + 5dB for evening hours and 43dB LA90 or background + 5dB for nighttime. A new peer-reviewed report dated April 2010 by Dr. Hanning reviews a number of recent studies and standards. Some experts are now pointing out that ETSU-R-97 has proven inadequate and one suggestion is to lower the nighttime to 33-38dBA.
Stigwood in 2008 states that sound levels established for smaller turbines (less than 330 feet) are not accounting for noise phenomena of larger turbines which cause excessive amplitude modulation, more low frequency noise and greater disturbance inside buildings.

New Zealand’s new standard published March 2010 limits sound levels to the greater of 40dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above background with certain conditions requiring 35dB LA90(10min) or 5dB above background.

As referenced in another filing by our towns, the World Health Organization (WHO) has just published a very significant report entitled “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure during nighttime. The report does not address the specific sound phenomena of wind turbines so Wisconsin needs to do those types of studies. WHO sets the limit for annual average nighttime exposure to not exceed 40dB outside at a residence.

Experts, Thorne and van den Berg (2010), wrote, “We believe annoyance and loss of amenity will be protected when the wind turbine noise limit would be 30dBA L95 in conditions of low wind speed at the dwellings and modulation restricted to 3dB.
Dr. Hanning concludes that to protect receptors from annoyance and sleep disturbance, a level of 35dBA is appropriate with the absence of excessive modulation.

2. Based on evolving evidence and the gap between the PSCW’s draft rules and updated standards in other jurisdictions with more wind turbine history, scientific field studies on human effects in Wisconsin’s existing wind complexes are essential before setting standards. If not done now, the PSCW must error on the safe side to not put people at risk.

3. Sound level limits are needed to protect participating residents as well as non-participating residents. Higher limits for participating residents will set the stage for even more difficulty for those homeowners to sell or even rent their properties and potentially lead to rural blight.

4. Standards need to address low frequency noise and infrasound which are beginning to be better understood and appear to have significant roles in sleep disturbance and negative health impacts. These sound types appear to be even more of an issue in stable air conditions.

A new peer-reviewed study by Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis was announced on June 9, 2010 and will be available soon. The authors indicate that infrasounds which are not audible cause physiological effects on humans. They point out that the A-weighting measurements of wind turbine noise underestimate the influence of this noise on the inner ear. They stress their study does not conclude that infrasound causes people’s symptoms but they call for scientific studies because of the likelihood of a causal effect.

5. In January 2010, the UK National Health Services, the world’s largest publicly funded health service, stresses the urgent need for studies on wind turbine noise effects which use control groups. They were reacting to a joint report by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations and were concerned about the report’s deficiencies.
In 2007, a report came out of the New University of Lisbon and the Center for Human Performance which stated, “These results irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments what can lead to the development of vibro-acoustic disease (VAD) in nearby home dwellers”. VAD can be a disabling disease.

6. Multiple wind turbines can synchronize sound waves and create stronger impulses to rattle windows and metal sheds. High levels of infrasound can also cause this. Sound levels of 60dBA at frequencies below 10 HZ have been measured at distances of ½ mile and greater. It appears that modeling tools are not predicting such accurately.

7. It is not known by the towns whether any D/O of an existing wind turbine complex in Wisconsin has done post-construction verification of their sound level models beyond just doing spot comparisons at locations where they have resident complaints. Recent studies suggest some modeling has proven to grossly underestimate sound levels. Again, a need to take the time to conduct field studies is required for credible decision-making for siting standards.

8. Properly set standards for health and safety should not be able to be waived. There may be minors and other occupants in the affected residence who need protection. Evidence shows different people often vary in their sensitivity to the health issues from noise. Also, a layperson is usually not capable to waive a safety standard for future occupants.

.15 Shadow Flicker

1. Landowners don’t want any shadow flicker on non-participating residences. Some object to it on their yard because of the amount of time they spend outside.

2. Using existing residences as impact targets for shadow flicker modeling potentially could create large “no-build/no-sell” zones on non-participating parcels.

3. Mitigation after the fact is a necessary provision but still is not a satisfactory solution. Mitigation by providing blinds or planting trees to block the view are not considered satisfactory by those affected. Again, D/O’s must be required to field test their models now in existing wind turbine complexes and make the appropriate corrections to the models if they have not done so.

.16 Signal Interference

1. Over-the-air internet services should be included in the siting rules. Such commercial systems using unlicensed (but legal) radio spectrum are in service today.

2. Requirements to mitigate interference are not adequate especially in these days of digital transmissions. The requirement must be to eliminate interference.

3. The towns’ farmers want to know what consideration has been given to whether wind turbines will impact global positioning systems used for different farm operations.

.17 Stray Voltage

1. The requirement to “work to rectify” opens the door for dragging out the solving of any problems indefinitely. Language needs to require a timely solution.

2. More technical requirements should be included as a minimum such as filter devices to prevent existing harmonics on the electric distribution or transmission system from transferring to the wind turbines’ cable connector installations. Bare neutrals should not be allowed as part of these cable connector systems.

3. If it is necessary to involve the electric distribution utility, the D/O should reimburse the utility for their time and expenses. Utility ratepayers should not have to pay to accommodate wind developers anymore than they do.
.18 Construction and Operation

1. Under paragraph (3), the turbine foundation design shall be reviewed by a licensed Professional Engineer with certified soil testing results to verify adequacy. This has been an issue with inexperienced or small developers who thought it was adequate to use a “typical foundation” picture in a manufacturer’s marketing brochure.

2. In certain geological areas, consideration and evaluation of risks to groundwater are essential. Not only the foundations but, more importantly, the cable connector trenches can create pathways for contamination from farm operations. Some sites will not be appropriate for turbine structures or connector trenches. The rules must support professional expert decision-making in these cases where risks to health and safety are best known locally. Attempts to write rules for general situations will ignore serious threats.

3. In sensitive areas, such as southern Brown County, trenches will likely intercept karsts, sinkholes and shallow bedrock which will create new no-spreading zones for manure, a process essential for farmers. If D/O’s run trenches across farm fields, the whole trench line could create new pathways to groundwater. There is some discussion that it may be necessary to prohibit manure spreading within 200 feet of cable trenches in geologically sensitive areas which could essentially take much farm land out of production. The state rules must accommodate such complex situations and allow requirements specified by experts. A requirement to route cables along tree lines or fence lines of participating landowners should be permitted. But this would not be a solution if the tree lines or fence lines are adjacent to non-participating properties.

4. Similarly, certain geological situations require knowing the depth and nature of the soil under the bottom of the trench. The rules must allow for requiring soil borings in trench lines as appropriate.

5. The DNR has proposed new restrictions for towns and landowners to reduce non-point pollution and storm water control. The wind siting rules need to allow for protections for methods used to satisfy the DNR requirements. Sometimes, this may be as simple as restoring road ditches and their grasses. Related to this, the rules need to specify procedures for locating and repairing drain tile systems in use by many farmers. D/O’s should be required to pay for any damage to the tile system whenever discovered.

6. If not done, there should be consideration for standards when a turbine foundation will be near or in bedrock. It is anecdotal but it has been indicated that a number of feet of backfill, i.e. 8-11 feet, should separate the foundation from the bedrock to prevent vibrations from transmitting through the bedrock to nearby structures.

7. A minimum amount of general liability insurance should be specified since usually the D/O uses a limited liability company to limit assets at risk.

8. Under paragraph (5), there should be a requirement for the D/O to send an acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint to the complainant.

III. Political Subdivision Procedure

.32 Political Subdivision Review of a Wind Energy System

1. Towns should be able to require compliance to their existing ordinance procedures for construction projects such as road damage bonds, building permits, etc.

2. A cap on town fees or reimbursements could potentially result in an inadequate review process. As drafted, the fee would be only $50 on a $50,000 project and $3,000 on a $10,000,000 project.

3. It should be clear that a town may require the D/O to pay for an independent third-party engineering/environmental inspector to be on-site for any excavation, blasting, backfilling and sensitive construction procedures. The inspector would report to the town, county, landowners and, if desired, the DNR and PSCW. This is especially necessary in certain geological areas.

.33 Political Subdivision Provisions

1. A question arises with the provision whereby a town may require the D/O to offer agreements to nonparticipating residence owners. If compensation is offered and the residence owners then become participating owners because of the receipt of compensation, would then the reduced setbacks apply to those residences if the final rules still had different setbacks for participating residences and nonparticipating residences?

2. It should be made clear that requiring an escrow in an interest-bearing account is considered to be reasonable for proof of financial responsibility.

3. Post-construction filing requirements in (3) should include maps showing the underground facilities, not just the turbine structures.

4. A political subdivision should be allowed to require the D/O to use an “on-demand” lighting system approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. These new systems eliminate light pollution from aircraft warning lights by turning the lights on only when an aircraft is detected heading towards the wind turbine installations.

IV. Commission Procedure

.40 Detailed Application Requirements

1. There appears to be a typo where “s. PSC 128.30(1)(j)” is referenced in the first paragraph.
.41 Commission Review

1. Under (8), the political subdivision is required to enter a decision within 20 business days. That may be difficult with town notice and quorum requirements and may require a special meeting. Thirty business days would be reasonable.

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

Click on the images above to hear nighttime turbine noise and see what shadow flicker looks like. The Wind Siting Council draft rules say 20-25 hours of this each year is permissible on non-participating homes. If there is more than this, the developer or operator will give you window blinds.

Read the daily diary of the family that lives in this house by clicking here.

Dissent delays wind council’s progress

SOURCE: The Daily Reporter

 June 22, 2010

Second Feature:

HEARINGS SET ON WIND PROJECT SITING RULES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

June 22, 2010

By Thomas Content

Public hearings are planned next week on a proposal aimed at adopting uniform siting rules for wind power projects in the state.

The public hearings and a rulemaking are part of a process launched by the state Legislature when it passed a uniform siting law last year. The legislation essentially delegated to the Public Service Commission decisions on the thorny and controversial questions raised by supporters and opponents of wind power projects at hearings in the Legislature last year.

Questions that must be resolved include how far a wind turbine must be placed from a nearby property or home, and what maximum noise standards should be. The PSC has released an initial proposal for public comment, and an advisory council created by the legislation is also studying the issue.

Public hearings will take place Monday in Fond du Lac, Tuesday, June 29 in Tomah and Wednesday in Madison. Hearings will begin at 1 and 6 p.m. each day. More details about the hearings can be found here.

The legislation was aimed at replacing a patchwork of different rules and moratoriums that have been imposed by counties and towns around the state for small wind power projects.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

 AN EXCEPT FROM A POST TO THE DOCKET FROM A WISCONSIN BIOLOGIST:

I posted a previous comment on the PSC website about concerns of Infrasound generated by of the wind turbines. Since posting that comment, I have been contacted by a woman who lives in Byron.

The wind turbines went up over a year ago there, and she has not had good sleep since. She experiences a constant hum and a vibration in the floors of her house that prevents her from sleeping at night.

She said that between the lack of sleep, flicker and noise from the generators, she might as well be living in downtown Chicago. She is a breast cancer survivor and is worried that all of this will cause her cancer to recur. She also stated that Invenergy sold the wind farm to a utility, WE Energies, who denies responsibility because they did not build the wind farm. They will not even listen to her complaints unless she can put some numbers on the problem.

I was also contacted by Healthy Wind Wisconsin, a group that is trying to get resolution of complaints from people living in wind farms.

They told me of a man near Fond du Lac who raises chickens. Since the turbines went up, his adult chickens are sick, and he has seen deformities in his chicks.

The deformities seen by the farmer are similar to those reported in a study done by the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (Shannon et al, 1994). In this study, fertilized eggs were exposed to different levels and frequencies of whole-body low frequency vibration. The results revealed increased mortality and birth defects caused by the vibration.

As a biologist, I am concerned.

Chick development is used as a model of human embryonic development. Are there implications for people living in the wind farm who want to have children? According to "Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee" people in the Lincoln Township (Kewaunee) wind farm have reported an inability to conceive. There have also been serious birth defects in calves, and cows spontaneously aborting in that wind farm.

Are people in the wind farms experiencing problems with low frequency vibration?

According to G.P. van den Berg (2004) "Although infrasound levels from large turbines at frequencies below 20 Hz are too low to be audible, they may cause structural elements of buildings to vibrate." This is borne out in the wind farms as some people complain of hums and vibrations in the floors and windows of their homes and in other structures. If the floor is vibrating, the residents are experiencing whole body vibration.

Infrasound waves are not readily absorbed by matter, so they pass through us. Some people in wind farms say they can feel the sound waves moving through them. As sound moves through any object, it moves the molecules around it. At appropriate frequencies, the sound waves can set up resonances and cause vibrations.

If the infrasound or low-frequency sound waves can resonate and vibrate windows in a home as they pass through them, it is easy to visualize how they may vibrate membranes, tissues and organs in the human body as they pass into and through the human body.

From Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects (2007) Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST):

"Low-frequency vibration and its effects on humans are not well understood. Sensitivity to such vibration resulting from wind-turbine noise is highly variable among humans.

Although there are opposing views on the subject, it has recently been stated (Pierpont 2006) that "some people feel disturbing amounts of vibration or pulsation from wind turbines, and can count in their bodies, especially their chests, the beats of the blades passing the towers, even when they can`t hear or see them."

More needs to be understood regarding the effects of low-frequency noise on humans." I`ve heard that the vibrations can be felt in one`s body much in the same way as the "deep base" can be felt at a rock concert when standing close to a speaker.

In addition to the acoustic vibrations, the giant spinning wind turbines also produce low-frequency vibrations which travel through the earth, seismic vibrations, in the form of Rayleigh waves.

A study done by P. Styles (2005) reported "We have clearly shown that both fixed speed and variable speed wind turbines generate low frequency vibrations which are multiples of blade passing frequencies and which can be detected on seismometers buried in the ground at significant distances away from the wind farms even in the presence of significant levels of background seismic noise (many kilometers)."

These results were obtained for turbines much smaller than the 400-500 foot giants that will go up in southern Brown County, and for much smaller arrays. The amount of vibration increases by a factor of 10 for every 100 turbines.

From Frey et al., 2007:

"In coursework description of "Whole Body Vibration" Prof Alan Hedge of Cornell University writes: "Vibrations in the frequency range of 0.5 Hz to 80 Hz have significant effects on the human body.

Individual body members and organs have their own resonant frequencies and do not vibrate as a single mass, with its own natural frequency.

This causes amplification or attenuation of input vibrations by certain parts of the body due to their own resonant frequencies.

The most effective resonant frequencies of vertical vibration lie between 4 HZ and 8 Hz. Vibrations between 2.5 and 5 Hz generate strong resonance in the vertebrae of the neck and lumbar region with amplification of up to 240%.

Vibrations between 4 and 6 Hz set up resonances in the trunk with amplification of up to 200%. Vibrations between 20 and 30 Hz set up the strongest resonance between the head and shoulders with amplification of up to 350%. Whole body vibration may create chronic stresses and sometimes even permanent damage to the affected organs or body parts.""

The vibrations residents experience in the wind farms, whether acoustic or seismic in origin, can amplify in internal structures and organs in their bodies. Since some people complain of disturbing amounts of vibration in their bodies in wind farms, and structures vibrating in their homes, there can be no doubt that wind farms create vibration problems.

What might the health effects of this vibration be?

In the study mentioned earlier, increased embryonic mortality was the main outcome of whole-body low frequency vibration of fertilized chicken eggs, but some of the experimental chicks showed deformities.

In biology, agents that cause birth defects are called teratogens. Each teratogen produces a specific range of effects in a species. You can think of the drug thalidomide which had the specific effect of causing people to be born without limbs. The experimental observations of low-frequency vibration teratogenic effects in animals are:

· In chickens: crossed beaks, missing eyeballs and missing bony structures in the skull. Some disorientation and muscular weakness and malformed feet were also seen in experimental chicks (Shannon et al, 1994)

The problems with animal reproduction reported in the wind farms in Wisconsin are lack of egg production, problems calving, spontaneous abortion (embryonic mortality), stillbirth, miscarriage and teratogenic effects:

· In chickens: Crossed beaks, missing eyeballs, deformities of the skull (sunken eyes), joints of feet/legs bent at odd angles (Jim Vollmer, personal communication)

· In cattle: missing eyes and tails (updated Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee)

It is disturbing to me that in chickens and cows in separate wind farms (separated by 50 miles) similar teratogenic effects are being observed, namely missing eyeballs. Based on the correlation of effects seen experimentally and those seen in the wind farm in chickens, these defects may be due to low frequency vibration.

Jim Vollmer, the farmer who owns these chickens, reports that the tin structures on his farm buildings vibrate. If the infrasound/ low- frequency sound is strong enough to vibrate structures on his farm as it passes through, what is it doing to the delicate connections and circulation inside the developing chicken embryos, and inside people, as it passes through them?

Some of the other health effects that have been reported in the Kewaunee wind farm (and other wind farms) could also be explained by low frequency vibration. From updated "Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee " (betterplan.squarespace.com):

Animal health problems in the Srnkas' formerly award-winning herd include cancer deaths, ringworm, mange, lice, parasites, cows not calving properly, dehydration, mutations such as no eyeballs or tails, cows holding pregnancy only 1 to 2 weeks and then aborting, blood from nostrils, black and white hair coats turning brown, mastitis, kidney and liver failure. . . .

Mr. Srnka and neighbors report serious health effects on not just dairy cows. Health problems in residents include
· sleep loss
· diarrhea
· headaches
· frequent urination
· 4 to 5 menstrual periods per month
· bloody noses: Mr. Srnka had cows bleed to death from uncontrollable bleeding from the nostrils
· inability to conceive

According to scientific literature, low frequency vibration could result in the urge to urinate (Frey et al, 2007) , menstrual irregularities, embryonic mortality (Penkov, 2007), which may be interpreted as inability to conceive or spontaneous abortion, birth defects in animals, and kidney problems in animals (Skilianov et al, 2005). All of these effects have been reported in the Kewaunee wind farm.

Many of the remaining health problems in this wind farm could be explained by infrasound/ low- frequency sound exposure or vibroacoustic disease, which is caused exposure to low frequency sound waves over long periods of time.

According to Alves-Pereira and colleagues (2007), The clinical symptoms of vibroacoustic disease (in people) are:

Stage 1- slight mood swings, indigestion and heartburn, mouth or throat infections and bronchitis.

Stage 2- chest pain, definite mood swings, back pain, fatigue, fungal, viral and parasitic infections, inflammation of the stomach lining, pain and blood in urine, conjunctivitis and allergies.

Stage 3- psychiatric disturbances, small nose bleeds, varicose veins and hemorrhoids, duodenal ulcers, spastic colitis, decrease in visual acuity, headaches, severe joint pain, intense muscular pain and neurological disturbances.

In experiments done on rats, low frequency sound has been shown to cause severe trauma to the cells lining the respiratory tract (Oliveira et al., 2001) and the delicate brush cells lining the respiratory tract fuse together.

Infrasound has been shown to damage numerous systems, including the liver and testes, of laboratory animals under experimental conditions , and some effects on people have been noted at 100 decibels. From Infrasound Toxicology Summary, 2001:

"When male volunteers were exposed to simulated industrial infrasound of 5 and 10 Hz and levels of 100 and 135 dB for 15 minutes, feeling of fatigue, apathy, and depression, pressure in the ears, loss of concentration, drowsiness, and vibration of internal organs were reported.

In addition, effects were found in the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system. Synchronization phenomena were enhanced in the left hemisphere.

Visual motor responses to stimuli were prolonged, and the strength of effector response was reduced. Heart rate was increased during the initial minutes of exposure.

Depression of the encephalic hemodynamics with decreased venous flow from the skull cavity and was observed. Heart muscle contraction strength was reduced. Respiration rate was significantly reduced after the first minute of exposure." Reference 29, Karpova et al.,1970.

Given this, it does not surprise me that people in the wind farm complain of malaise, lack of concentration, vibration, and cardiovascular effects, among others. Infrasound at very low frequencies has measured nearly 100 decibels in a 17 turbine wind farm (van den Berg, 2004).

What levels of infrasound have been recorded in the middle of a 100 unit wind farm comprised of GE 1.5 MW turbines? At what threshold are effects of infrasound seen with continuous exposure? We need answers.

Is the level of low- frequency sound in a wind farm sufficient to result in vibroacoustic disease?

An investigation of a home in a wind farm revealed that the home had levels of Infrasound and low- frequency vibration conducive to the formation of vibroacoustic disease (Alvez-Pereira et al 2007, In-Home Wind Turbine Noise is Conducive to Vibroacoustic Disease posted on www.wind-watch.org). More investigations like this need to be done, as not all homes in a wind farm will be affected equally by these agents.

In people with occupational exposure to low frequency sound, it can take 10 years to reach stage 3 vibroacoustic disease. Therefore, to know the full health effects of wind turbines, we need to look at older wind farms as well.

In a complex generating 150 megawatts of electricity, there will be some electrical pollution. Wind turbines create "dirty electricity" which has been implicated in a variety of symptoms (Havas, M. 2006).

David Colling of Ontario, who has studied the dirty electricity created by wind farms, describes the effects on people as being "like living inside a microwave." The effects are reduced with buried cables, but there are still effects, especially around substations. (See David Colling`s You Tube videos on electrical pollution and wind turbines)

If not carefully constructed, electricity from the turbines can overload rural power grids, back up into people`s homes and barns, and into the ground, creating ground currents.

All electricity generated has to complete a circuit and flow back to the site of production through the neutral return wire. There are grounding rods on the neutral return wires, so that some current can constantly flow down the grounding rods and through the earth back to the substation, more when the wire is overloaded or corroded.

A Minnesota study found that up to 70% of the neutral current returns to the substation via the earth, in some areas, in the form of ground current.

Dr. Duane Dahlberg has stated "Dairy operators are frequently required by state codes to construct equipotential planes in their barns as a means of avoiding electric shocks for the cows. Unfortunately the equipotential plane is a good conductor which attracts a greater percentage of the ground currents, causes the cows to be exposed to greater continuous currents, and frequently increases stray voltage effects . . . On dairy farms, current in the ground is associated with behavioral, health and production effects in cows."

These effects have occurred in Mr. Srnkas cattle in the Lincoln Township wind farm.

100 turbines (with dangerous levels of rotor shaft voltages, up to 1200 volts) and 80 miles of cable carrying up to 150 megawatts of electricity will need to be grounded also, resulting in more current in our ground to get into homes.

The electricity generated has to find its way back to the wind farm, a portion of which will travel through the ground in currents and become concentrated in the wind farm as it makes its way back. Ground currents enter our homes through plumbing and other conduits creating magnetic fields.

Wertheimer, Savitz, and Leeper published a paper in 1995 that showed an association between cancer and conductive plumbing in residences, suggesting an increased cancer risk for persons with elevated magnetic fields from ground currents.

The utility can contribute to electrical pollution in another way when they connect the neutral on the primary side of the transformer serving a farm to the neutral on the secondary of the transformer. The National Electrical Code (NEC), which covers farm wiring, requires that the secondary neutral be hard wired to a building`s water system, structure and electrical ground rod. So, if the transmission line neutral is overloaded, more current from the electrical transmission neutral flows into the plumbing and structures on the farm.

Here in Wisconsin currents can be measured flowing through the grounds of the transmission lines, as opposed to California where much larger neutral cables are used and current cannot be measured at the ground.

Electricity from the neutral or from ground currents flowing through plumbing can result in EMF and contact currents. According to a study done by Douglas (1993), the electric current flowing through water pipes and other grounding paths may be the largest magnetic field source in the home other than appliances.

Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) has been linked to the formation of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrigs disease) and is considered "possibly carcinogenic" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

A study in Turkey demonstrated that men who worked around low frequency EMF had higher levels of genotoxic effects in their lymphocytes. Genotoxic events are mutations which may result in cancers or other adverse outcomes. Children are especially susceptible to the effects of EMF (Kheifets, 2005); exposure above 0.4 µT has been linked to the formation of childhood leukemia (Ahlbom et al, 2001, Angelillo and Villari, 1999).

Rates of childhood cancer have been found to be increased for children living within 600 meters of electrical transmission lines at time of birth (Draper et al, 2005). Experts have argued that we should do all we can to reduce exposure to EMF in children and fetuses (Carpenter and Sage, 2008). Building 150 megawatt electricity generating complex around families seems unwise to me. It would make more sense to put wind farms in unpopulated areas.

Exposure to more than one of these agents at a time, as occurs in wind farms, may result in especially detrimental health effects.

From the research literature it appears that the combination of both whole body vibration and low frequency noise is particularly dangerous. Low frequency sound alone is not genotoxic, but when combined with vibration, chronic occupational exposure has genotoxic effects (Silva et al., 1999, 2002).

This result has been replicated in laboratory animal experiments, demonstrating the mutations are definitely due to the combination of whole body vibration and low frequency noise. Again, genotoxic effects can result in cancer, and cancers have occurred in cattle in the Lincoln Township wind farm. Yet, to my knowledge, no one has studied genotoxic events in wind farms, or even the mortality rates in herds or people in the wind farms.

When I first looked at the list of symptoms being reported from the wind farm in Lincoln Township, I doubted such seemingly disparate symptoms could all be caused by wind turbines. A survey of scientific literature revealed plausible explanations for them based on exposures to infrasound/low frequency sound, vibration and electrical pollution.

We may all be exposed to some of these agents each day, but we know wind farms create these forms of pollution, increasing the dosage (and duration) of exposure for people living inside the wind energy complex.

The scientific literature tells us of detrimental health effects from prolonged occupational exposure to these agents including vibroacoustic disease, genotoxic effects and embryonic mortality. People and animals in the wind farms seem to be suffering the very effects the science would predict for overexposure to these agents.

Many research studies demonstrate that the detrimental effects of exposure to these agents increase in severity with increasing time of exposure.

It concerns me that there are no scientifically-established safe levels for continuous exposure to this combination of agents.

In occupational exposures people can go home after 8 hours of work and have 16 hours for their bodies to actively recover from the exposures, 64 hours on the weekend.

People in a wind energy complex don`t get that break from exposure.

Safe levels are likely to be considerably lower for the elderly, those with underlying health problems, pregnant women, children and fetuses.

The standards we have also do not take into consideration the compounding of effects which can result from exposure to multiple agents at one time. Based on the chicken embryo studies, any level of exposure to low frequency vibration may pose some risk to developing embryos, as no threshold effect was observed (Shannon et al., 1994).

We have reports of animals in the wind farms here in Wisconsin with reproductive problems. Scott Srnkas cows suffer spontaneous abortion, problems calving, birth defects such as missing eyeballs and tails - all since the wind turbines.

Jim Vollmer has seen changes in his chicken`s reproduction - lower hatch rates and birth defects such as missing eyeballs and crossed beaks.

Ann Wirtz has reported reproductive problems in her alpacas. Since the wind farm became operational, they have not been able to accomplish a live birth - pregnancy always results in miscarriage or stillbirth. There are other reports of chickens no longer laying eggs, and there may be more reports of reproductive effects of which I am not aware.

People living in the Lincoln Township wind complex have reported an inability to conceive. It appears, from the scientific literature, that vibration is a reproductive hazard which can result in miscarriage, stillbirth and other changes in the reproductive system of women (Balichiyeva, 1993, Marinova, 1976, Penkov, 2007, Seidel, 1993).

In rats it can reduce the blood flow to the reproductive organs (Nakamura 1996). What happens to little girls growing up in the wind farms, experiencing the continual "deep base" type vibration that people feel in their bodies and the microseismic vibrations? Are their reproductive organs affected? What about their egg cells experiencing the low frequency sound and vibration, a combination which could be genotoxic? Girls are born with all the egg cells they will ever have.

To my knowledge, no one has even studied the fertility rates or rates of birth defects in people and animals in wind farms, or in people exposed to wind farms. We need concrete scientific proof that the vibration, acoustic and electrical pollution created by wind farms will not cause disease, birth defects or infertility in anyone, before continuing to build them.

I`ve heard arguments for wind energy stating that it reduces coal emissions and therefore also reduces birth defects caused by those emissions.

Based on the reports out of the wind farms, there could be far worse reproductive consequences in people or animals (infertility, spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, stillbirth, and birth defects) as a result of wind energy than there ever was from coal emissions or nuclear power in this country.

This needs to be studied. In Europe vibration exposure is recognized as a potential reproductive hazard (EU Directive 92/85/EEC), and vibration or EMF exposures can result in reproductive problems in people, or animals under experimental conditions (Al-Akhras, 2008, Brown et al., 1992, Hardell and Sage, 2008, Kim et al, 1999, Lahijani et al, 2007, Penkov , 2007, Seidel, 1993, Uysal et al, 2004).

On many levels wind farming raises concerns, but none more than the health complaints of residents of wind farms.

One cannot read the updated report from Lincoln Township without being concerned. The problems being reported are not just nuisances. When complaints arise in the wind farms, people, homes and farms should be monitored for low frequency sound/infrasound, vibration and electrical pollution.

If this were done on a regular basis, we would know what levels and combinations of these agents may cause health effects, but since health complaints have been ignored, and studies have not been done, those levels are not defined.

People living in the wind farms need rights and protection.

As it stands, complaints are often ignored. There should be requirements for health care practitioners to report all health problems in wind farms, for investigations into complaints and for resolution of problems -not at the resident`s expense.

If neighbors suffer ill effects, turbines should be shut down until the problems are resolved.

It is beyond my comprehension that an individual farmer is allowed to make a decision to put up a power plant with a giant industrial turbine, atop a skyscraping tower, without community approval. The community suffers burdens and hazards because of that decision. It should be a decision of the entire community whom it affects.

If wind turbines are coming to the area, organizations such as Healthy Wind Wisconsin recommend documenting everything - property value, the views from one`s property, the wildlife that frequents one`s home, well water quality, noise levels on a clear calm night, health records, electrical pollution, and more. They recommend this because more problems and more lawsuits are anticipated as this virtually unregulated industry continues to grow.

The residents of a wind farm are not just being "stressed out" by the wind farm, there are physical forces acting on their bodies as a result of the wind farm, physical forces that may do permanent damage. If we were putting up nuclear power plants, and we had reports of animals around them not able to successfully reproduce or being born without eyeballs, and also had some people reporting an inability to conceive, we would halt any new construction until it had been studied. In wind farms, this is exactly what we are seeing.

I realize there may be technical difficulty in ascertaining the amount of vibration set up inside one`s body, but I am asking you to invoke the precautionary principle and suspend wind farm development until the reproductive effects of wind farms, here in Wisconsin, have been studied. If you move forward before studies have been done, people`s reproductive rights may be violated.

In March, when Governor Doyle signed a bill banning BPA in baby bottles and cups for children, he stated "It seems to me that if there is a question of (safety), the balance we should strike is on protecting our children."

I agree with Governor Doyle. I want my children protected. And people in the wind farm want to have children. Elderly people, stay-at-home moms, children, and babies are in these wind farms 24/7 being bathed in low frequency sound/infrasound, vibration and electrical pollution.

If we are going to err in the siting of wind turbines, it should be on the side of safety for the people.

Thank you for your consideration,

Lynne Knuth, Ph.D.

P.S. I attended the recent meeting with the Brown County Board of Health and Board of Human Services.

I wish everyone in this state had been able to hear the testimonials of the people who are suffering in industrial wind projects here in Wisconsin.

We live in the best country in the world, a country that cares about people, founded on the principle that all men are created equal and have equal rights under the law.

Each life is equally valuable.

To hear that the wind siting council referred to people suffering in wind farms as "collateral damage" is disturbing.Collateral damage may be unavoidable in military operations, but it is not acceptable in day to day life.

The life of each person suffering in a wind farm is as valuable as the life of each legislator living in Madison.

I`d like to see them switch places; then we`d get some wind farm legislation that makes sense.

If people are going to suffer because of a new technology, we do not move forward with it, but instead we come up with a better solution. There are better solutions to our country`s problems.

I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Lynne Knuth, PhD

Reedsville, WI

References:

Ahlbom IC, Cardis E, Green A, Linet M, Savitz D and Swerdlow A. ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2001, Dec; 109 Suppl 6:911-33.

Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 1999; 77 (11): 906 - 915

Al-Akhras MA Influence of 50 Hz magnetic field on sex hormones and body, uterine, and ovarian weights of adult female rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008; 27(2):155-63.

Alves-Pereira M. Castelo Branco NA. Vibroacoustic disease: biological effects of infrasound and low-frequency noise explained by mechanotransduction cellular signalling. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007 Jan-Apr; 93(1-3):256-79. [Progress in biophysics and molecular biology]

Balichiyeva DV. Vibration in parental occupation as a risk factor in the health and development of offspring. Reprod Toxicol 1993 Sep-Oct;7(5):492-3

Briese V, Fanghänel J, Gasow H. Effect of pure sound and vibration on the embryonic development of the mouse. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1984; 106(6):379-88.

Brown KM, Doynov PG, Barber MK, Litovitz TL, Litovitz TA. Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on chicken embryogenesis. Toxicologist 1992 Feb;12(1):100

Carpenter DO, Sage C. Setting prudent public health policy for electromagnetic field exposures. Rev Environ Health. 2008 Apr-Jun;23(2):91-117.

Celikler S, Aydemir N, Vatan O, Kurtuldu S, Bilaloglu R. A biomonitoring study of genotoxic risk to workers of transformers and distribution line stations. Int J Environ Health Res. 2009 Dec;19(6):421-30.

Coleman M, Beral V. A review of epidemiological studies of the health effects of living near or working with electricity generation and transmission equipment. : Int J Epidemiol. 1988, Mar; 17(1):1-13

Dolk H, Busby A, Armstrong BG, Walls PH. Geographical variation in anophthalmia and microphthalmia in England, 1988-94. BMJ. 1998, Oct 3; 317(7163):905-9; discussion 910. [BMJ (Clinical research ed.)]

Douglas, John. 1993. "Survey of residential magnetic field sources". EPRI Journal, April/May 1993, pp 19-25

Duane A. Dahlberg, Ph.D. Ground Currents An Important Factor in Electromagnetic Exposure.

Frey, B.J., and P.J. Haddon. Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health. www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com. Feb, 2007.

Hardell L. Sage C. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother. 2008, Feb; 62(2):104-9.

Havas M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68.Abstract

Electric Transmission Lines Individual Rights vs Utility Rights of Public Domain
By Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University.2005.

Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E. The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics. 2005, Aug; 116(2):e303-13.

Kim YW, Cho JY, Lee JS, Kang SH, Cho MK, Kim YM. Evaluation of fetal abnormalities in mice continuously exposed to 60 Hz electromagnetic fields for 6 months. Teratology 1999 May;59(5):29A-30A

Lahijani MS, Nojooshi SE, Siadat SF. Light and electron microscope studies of effects of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields on preincubated chick embryo. Electromagn Biol Med. 2007; 26(2):83-98. [Electromagnetic biology and medicine]

Li P, McLaughlin J, Infante-Rivard C. Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and the risk of brain cancer in the offspring. Cancer Causes Control. 2009, Aug; 20(6):945-55. [Cancer causes & control : CCC]

Luo Q, Yang J, Zeng QL, Zhu XM, Qian YL, Huang HF. 50-Hertz electromagnetic fields induce gammaH2AX foci formation in mouse preimplantation embryos in vitro. Biol Reprod. 2006, Nov; 75(5):673-80.

Marinova G, Svetoslavova E, Mateeva E. Industrial vibrations and their repercussions on the basic functions of the genital system in women Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 1976; 15(1):74-8. [Akusherstvo i ginekologiia]

Nakamura H, Ohsu W, Nagase H, Okazawa T, Yoshida M, Okada A. Uterine circulatory dysfunction induced by whole-body vibration and its endocrine pathogenesis in the pregnant rat. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;72(4):292-6.

Oliveira MJ, Pereira AS, Castelo Branco NA, Grande NR, Aguas AP. In utero and postnatal exposure of Wistar rats to low frequency/high intensity noise depletes the tracheal epithelium of ciliated cells. Lung. 2001; 179(4):225-32.

Pearce MS, Hammal DM, Dorak MT, McNally RJ, Parker L. Paternal occupational exposure to electro-magnetic fields as a risk factor for cancer in children and young adults: a case-control study from the North of England.
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007, Sep; 49(3):280-6.

Penkov A. Influence of occupational vibration on the female reproductive system and function.

Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2007; 46(3):44-8. [Akusherstvo i ginekologiia]

Seidel, H. Selected health risks caused by long-term, whole-body vibration. AM J Ind Med. 1993, Apr:23(4):589-604

Silva MJ; Carothers A; Castelo Branco NA; Dias A; Boavida MG. Sister chromatid exchange analysis in workers exposed to noise and vibration. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1999, Mar; 70(3 Pt 2):A40-5.

Silva MJ; Dias A; Barreta A; Nogueira PJ; Castelo-Branco NA; Boavida MG. Low frequency noise and whole-body vibration cause increased levels of sister chromatid exchange in splenocytes of exposed mice. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 2002; 22(3):195-203

SAVE THE DATE: The PSC will be holding public hearings for the wind sitting rules on

Monday, June 28 @ 1PM & 6PM in Fond Du Lac at the City Hall on 160 S. Macy Street

Tuesday, June 29 @ 1PM & 6PM at Holiday Inn in Tomah on 1017 E. McCoy Blvd.

Wednesday, June 30 at the PSC in Madison on 610 North Whitney Way, 1pm and 6pm

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has scheduled several hearings throughout the state regarding the creation of statewide wind turbine regulations.

The new regulations apply to wind farms that will generate less than 100 Megawatts of power. Specifics about turbine height, noise and distance setbacks, shadow flicker, signal interference and when residents and government agencies must be notified about proposed projects are included in the 53-page document.

To view the document, go to www.psc.wi.gov, enter docket number 1-AC-231 into the case search bar and download the document titled “Notice of Hearings” with the Public Service Commission reference number 131882.

Comments are due on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at noon and must be mailed to: Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission, Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 7854, Madison, Wis., 53707-7854.

Comments can also be faxed to (608) 266-3957 and are due by Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at noon.

Online comments can be submitted at http://psc.wi.gov using docket number 1-AC-231.

In March of 2008 the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project went on line in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin. The setback from non-participating homes is 1000 feet. Two months later this home in the project goes up for sale.

LISTED MAY 29, 2008: For Sale: Country home on five wooded acres. 1900 square feet, four bedrooms, 3.5 baths, central air, new roof, sky lights in kitchen, deck, family room with wood burning fireplace, vaulted ceilings, first floor laundry, excercise room, whirlpool tub in master bath, 3.5 car garage, your own nature trail through black walnut woods behind the house

 

MAY 29, 2008: Asking $219,000  No buyers.

WINTER of 2009: Asking Price: $179,900. No buyers.

SPRING of 2010: Asking Price: $158,900. No buyers.

JUNE 4, 2010: After 740 days on the market, SOLD for $129,000

Second Feature

Though the wind industry claims the proximity of wind turbines to a home has no effect on property values, real estate broker and Wind Siting Council member Tom Meyer disagrees. He believes the presence of wind turbines does have a negative impact on property values.

He also believes that wind developers should be licensed before they get you to sign a contract that will tie up your land for the next 40 years.

Here's why:

[The following document can be found on the Wind Siting Council Docket, # 1-AC-231]

Prepared by Tom Meyer For Wind Siting Council Meeting June 9, 2010

Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 452 Real Estate Practice

The State of WI has a history of protecting the consumer of real estate services and holding real estate brokers accountable.

The ability to provide a limited practice of law is afforded to brokers by a 4-3 vote of the 1960 WI Supreme Court (The Dinger Case). This right is closely regulated and serves the public well for 60 years.

The legislature and the real estate industry in WI has worked cooperatively to modify Wisconsin’s agency law over those years to enhance the business models available to the WI consumer and raise the level of service and skill provided to the consumer by the licensee.

The activities of persons employed by, or acting on behalf of Turbine Developers, are substantially real estate brokerage services. The services are provided to the Lessor (the landowner) on behalf of the Lessee, (the wind energy developer).

Sign them up

A term commonly used in describing the door to door approach to obtaining leases where land owners “host” a turbine(s) is “Sign them up”.

While sign them up is not a legally defined term, what is being signed is a legally binding contract: a lease. What happens prior to the land owner signing the lease is “negotiation”, another legally defined term. See subsection 452.01

Atypical Lessee – Lessor Relationship

The lease instrument in Wind Energy Development is drafted by the LESSEE—the developer, not the landowner.

The more familiar practice in everyday real estate experience where a landowner leases property to another party is the reverse of what happens in wind energy development.

In siting wind turbines, the developer goes to the landowner.

The developer comes to the property with a vast amount of knowledge and preparation.

There is virtually no advanced notice and no opportunity to brainstorm with other landowners.(In fact we are told by Wind Siting Council members with wind energy interests that it is not favorable to their profit margins to have owners come together to discuss terms prior to signing contracts.)

The developer arrives with a contract and a sales presentation. The wind energy persons have stated that it is common for a family owned farm operation to be struggling financially in Wisconsin, and the promise of $4000 annual payments is attractive.

Protection for the Wisconsin Citizens who consider wind energy development leases

Providing a seven (7) day window of opportunity for the landowner to have the lease reviewed by legal counsel is a good start to protecting Wisconsin residents.

Considering the practice of soliciting lease agreements is a limited practice of law and not incidental to the work of the wind energy developers, it seems prudent for the wind energy developers to be Wisconsin licensed real estate brokers.

Advantage to the Public of Wind Turbine Developers being licensed real estate brokers:

 An avenue of recourse through the Real Estate Board

 Better disclosure of representation

 Minimum level of competence for persons negotiating real estate transactions

 Statutory defined duties of a broker:Fair and honest treatment. Reasonable Care and skill. Disclosure of material adverse facts. Confidentiality. Provide accurate market conditions. Accounting. Objective presentation of the lease.                                                                             
 Supervision standards for employees limiting who may discuss lease terms with the consumer

Administrative Rules

RL 15: Maintain copies of documents---Assures the public records of agreements and business practices are available for investigation

RL 16 Use of approved forms and legal advice—RL 16.05 prohibits the licensee from giving legal advice concerning rights and obligations. Will help with landowners being coerced into thinking their agreements are confidential.

RL 17 Protects the consumer from receiving real estate service from a non-licensed person.

RL 24 Conduct and ethical practices---Agreements are in writing, accurate representation of interests,

RL 25 Continuing Education—Keep the wind energy developer current with real estate laws

Provided by Tom Meyer, Wisconsin Real Estate Broker

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules. The deadline for comment is July 7th, 2010.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket