Better Plan, Wisconsin

VIDEO: THROWING CAUTION TO THE WIND:

 Wind farms are springing up as easy investments in green energy. Scientific studies have raised serious concerns about the impact they could have on human health. But few are paying much attention.

As Sylvia Squair reports, some doctors and scientists are now joining concerned citizens, urging the government and the industry not to throw caution to the wind.

SECOND FEATURE:

What started out as a welcomed clean energy source has now become a public health issue, Neil Andersen said, and will only get worse when a second identical turbine on the same parcel becomes operational in the next six months.

“We’re seriously thinking about selling our home and getting out of here,” Andersen said. “I have headaches and my head is spinning. My wife wakes up crying her head off. We don’t know what to do.”

Turbine Noise Ruffling Feathers

SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

August 1, 2010 By Aaron Gouveia,

FALMOUTH — Neil and Elizabeth Andersen prefer open windows to air conditioning, but their home is now hermetically sealed despite the warm and breezy weather.

Although Neil, 57, and Elizabeth, 53, have spent more than 20 years enjoying Falmouth’s fresh air and working in their meticulous gardens on Blacksmith Shop Road, they now remain indoors and devote effort to blocking out the constant noise emanating from Wind I, the 400-foot-tall, 1.65-megawatt wind turbine whirling less than 1,500 feet from their front door.

What started out as a welcomed clean energy source has now become a public health issue, Neil Andersen said, and will only get worse when a second identical turbine on the same parcel becomes operational in the next six months.

“We’re seriously thinking about selling our home and getting out of here,” Andersen said. “I have headaches and my head is spinning. My wife wakes up crying her head off. We don’t know what to do.”

On Friday, Neil Andersen said his wife’s doctor told the couple Elizabeth has already suffered at least some hearing damage. She is scheduled to see a specialist in two weeks and was also given a prescription to combat vertigo.

The couple believes the cause of their medical maladies is the noise from the turbine, which they say has left them with dizziness, headaches and many sleepless nights.

The $4.3 million town-owned turbine began whirling in March. Since then, town officials say they have received “sporadic complaints” about noise from a handful of neighbors, usually when wind speeds increase.

‘I have to move away’

The turning blades are visible through the trees from the Andersens’ house. On Thursday, with westerly winds blowing at approximately 12 mph, the sound of the turbine was audible, but tamer than usual, the Andersens said.

Described as alternating between the “sound of a hovering jet that never lands” and a pronounced “whooshing” noise during periods of higher winds, Neil Andersen said he wears noise-reducing headphones while in his yard and has installed fountains in his garden to drown out the noise from the turbine.

Elizabeth Andersen sleeps with multiple fans going and simultaneously listens to a white noise machine. Neil Andersen said the only way he can sleep is to retreat to the basement.

The Andersens have complained to selectmen, the board of health, zoning officials and, on Thursday, even attempted to file a battery complaint against the turbine at the Falmouth Police Station.

The couple is not alone.

Barry Funfar, a 63-year-old veteran and Ridgeview Drive resident who lives roughly 1,700 feet from the turbine, suffered from post traumatic stress disorder before the turbine’s installations, but he said the noise from the windmill is exacerbating his condition.

What’s worse, it is also driving a wedge between Funfar and his wife because she does not want to move from the home they’ve shared for 30 years.

“My doctor tells me there’s no way I’ll be able to cope living next to that windmill,” Funfar said. “I have to face it. I have to move away.”

But Dr. Robert McCunney, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Biological Engineering and a staff physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, spoke in Bourne last month and said studies have not show a link between low-frequency sound from wind turbines and adverse health effects.

McCunney, who did not return a phone call seeking comment, said last month that the “swish, swish” of the blades rotating through the air causes only annoyance among people who live near turbines.

Sound study under way

Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a diagnostic radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, disagrees with McCunney.

Nissenbaum spearheaded a pilot study in Mars Hill, Maine, in which he examined people living within 3,500 feet of 27 1.5-megawatt turbines, and compared them with people of similar demographics who lived three miles away.

He found the 22 people living nearest to the turbines took four times as many new or increased prescription medications, and also suffered higher incidences of sleep deprivation.

“The question then becomes, ‘Do industrial-sized wind turbines placed close to people’s homes result in chronic sleep disturbances?’ The answer is an unequivocal yes,” Nissenbaum said.

Nissenbaum recommended any turbine of more than 1.5-megawatts should be at least 7,000 feet away from homes.

Back in Falmouth, Town Manager Robert Whritenour said he is aware of the noise complaints and the town has taken steps to mitigate the problem.

The Wind I turbine automatically shuts off when wind speeds reach 22 mph, Whritenour said, to reduce turbine noise when it is loudest. The town also hired Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. of Burlington to conduct a sound study, the results of which will be released in the next two weeks, Whritenour said.

According to state Department of Environmental Protection air pollution and quality guidelines, a source of sound violates noise regulations when it increases the ambient sound level by more than 10 decibels.

The baseline noise level varies depending on the location.

Christopher Senie, a Westboro-based attorney representing 14 Blacksmith Shop Road neighbors, said noise tests should have been conducted earlier and he criticized town officials for skirting their own zoning requirements.

Senie said erecting a turbine in an industrial zone should have required a special permit process through the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals. But Senie said town officials mistakenly believe the special act of the Legislature authorizing the town to build and finance the turbine gave them a “free pass” regarding the special permit. “Towns are not exempt from their own zoning laws,” he said.

When asked about the special permit, Whritenour said, “I’m not going to get into that,” and he stressed that the project went through a detailed permitting process and followed all necessary rules “step by step.”

Senie and his clients met with the board of health recently to air their grievances. He wants to create a new health regulation regarding wind turbine noise and submit it to the board, which could then adopt it without approval from town meeting.

Falmouth Health Agent David Carignan said members of the board of health are doing independent research to familiarize themselves with the issue and will consider Senie’s suggestions.

“We’re not saying no to the people who want to talk about it,” Carignan said. “The board has not deliberated on a specific course of action other than to continue to participate in the discussion.”

THIRD FEATURE

Turbines too loud for you? Here take $5,000

“The lady that came said everyone else signed,” said Jarrod Ogden, 33, a farmer whose house would be directly opposite several 300-foot turbines once Shepherd’s Flat is completed. “But I know for a fact that some people didn’t. I’m all for windmills, but I’m not going to let them buy me like that. I think they’re just trying to buy cheap insurance.”

 SOURCE: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com

July 31 2010

By William Yardley,

IONE, Ore. — Residents of the remote high-desert hills near here have had an unusual visitor recently, a fixer working out the kinks in clean energy.

Patricia Pilz of Caithness Energy, a big company from New York that is helping make this part of eastern Oregon one of the fastest-growing wind power regions in the country, is making a tempting offer: sign a waiver saying you will not complain about excessive noise from the turning turbines — the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh of the future, advocates say — and she will cut you a check for $5,000.

“Shall we call it hush money?” said one longtime farmer, George Griffith, 84. “It was about as easy as easy money can get.”

Mr. Griffith happily accepted the check, but not everyone is taking the money. Even out here — where the recession has steepened the steady decline of the rural economy, where people have long supported the massive dams that harness the Columbia River for hydroelectric power, where Oregon has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to cultivate alternative energy — pockets of resistance are rising with the windmills on the river banks.

Residents in small towns are fighting proposed projects, raising concerns about threats to birds and big game, as well as about the way the giant towers and their blinking lights spoil some of the West’s most alluring views.

Here, just west of where the Columbia bends north into Washington, some people are fighting turbines that are already up and running. In a region where people often have to holler to be heard over the roar of the wind across the barren hills, they say it is the windmills that make too much noise.

“The only thing we have going for us is the Oregon state noise ordinance,” said Mike Eaton, an opponent of the turbines.

Oregon is one of a growing number of places that have drafted specific regulations restricting noise from wind turbines. The Oregon law allows for noise to exceed what is considered an area’s ambient noise level by only a certain amount. But what those ambient levels are is sometimes disputed, as is how and where they should be measured.

And while state law limits turbine noise, the state office that once enforced industrial noise laws, housed within the Department of Environmental Quality, was disbanded in 1991, long before wind power became a state priority.

“We have the regulations still on the books, and entities are expected to comply with those regulations,” said William Knight, a spokesperson for the Department of Environmental Quality. “But there really isn’t anybody from D.E.Q. going around to find out if that’s occurring. I’m not sure who you’d call out there in Columbia Gorge.”

Local government is one answer. In May, after testimony from private acoustic experts, the Morrow County Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Eaton, his wife, Sherry, and a small group of other opponents that Willow Creek, a wind farm directly behind the Eatons’ modest house on Highway 74, was indeed exceeding allowable noise levels. The commission ordered the company that operates the site, Invenergy, to come into compliance within six months.

Invenergy quickly appealed — and so did the Eatons and their allies. The county’s board of commissioners also asked the planning commission to clarify its decision. A hearing is scheduled for this month.

“The appeals were all based on the same questions,” said Carla McLane, the county planning director. “What does ‘not in compliance’ mean, and what does it take to be in compliance in six months?”

Opponents say the constant whooshing from the turbines makes them anxious and that the low-level vibrations keep them awake at night. Some say it gives them nausea and headaches. Many other residents say they hear little or nothing at all, and the question of whether windmill noise can harm health is in dispute.

Critics say those complaining about Willow Creek are just angry that they were not able to lease their land to wind developers. Some opponents say they would be happy if Invenergy just turned certain turbines off at night, but others say they want reimbursement for losing their pastoral way of life.

“What we’re really trying to do is get Invenergy to the bargaining table,” said Dan Williams, a builder who is part of the group frustrated with the noise from Willow Creek.

While Invenergy is still dealing with the noise issue even after Willow Creek, which has 48 turbines, has been up and running for more than 18 months, Caithness Energy, the company asking some residents to sign waivers allowing noise to exceed certain limits, hopes it can solve the issue up front. It also has more at stake.

Caithness is building a much larger wind farm adjoining Willow Creek called Shepherd’s Flat. The new farm is expected to have 338 turbines and generate more than 900 megawatts when it is completed in 2013, which would make it one of the largest wind facilities in the country.

Large farms like Shepherd’s Flat are regulated by the state. Tom Stoops, the council secretary for the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, said that large projects must prove they would comply with the noise ordinance and that noise waivers, or easements, were among the solutions. Asked if it was common for companies to pay people to sign such easements, Mr. Stoops said, “That’s probably a level of detail that doesn’t come to us.”

Ms. Pilz, the local Caithness representative, did not volunteer the information that Caithness offers people money to sign noise easements, though she eventually confirmed in an interview that it did. She also would not say how much money it offers, though several property owners said she had offered them $5,000.

“What we don’t do in general is change the market price for a waiver,” Ms. Pilz said. “That’s not fair.”

Some people who did not sign said that Ms. Pilz made them feel uncomfortable, that she talked about how much Shepherd’s Flat would benefit the struggling local economy and the nation’s energy goals, and that she suggested they were not thinking of the greater good if they refused.

“The lady that came said everyone else signed,” said Jarrod Ogden, 33, a farmer whose house would be directly opposite several 300-foot turbines once Shepherd’s Flat is completed. “But I know for a fact that some people didn’t. I’m all for windmills, but I’m not going to let them buy me like that. I think they’re just trying to buy cheap insurance.”

What happens when rules are written by those who stand to gain financially from the outcome?

Wind siting council member Larry Wunsch has been living with a 400 foot tall wind turbine sited just 1100 feet from his door for over two years.

Council Member Dwight Sattler lives about half a mile from the closest turbine to his house. He says he can sometimes hear them, but at half a mile it doesn't bother him.

At half a mile, no problem. At 1100 feet, the noise is bad enough to cause the Wunsch family to put their home up for sale.

Longer setbacks and lower noise limits mean greater protection for rural Wisconsin residents, but less money for those with financial interests.

Should the wind siting council consider what Larry Wunsch has to say when creating siting recommendations for our state?

Or should they follow Wind Sitng Council chairman Dan Ebert's lead and gloss over the issues to speed up the process in order to create guidelines which protect business interests instead of residents of rural Wisconsin?

SECOND FEATURE:

ANOTHER 'CAUSE UNKNOWN' TURBINE BLADE FAILURE IN ILLINOIS

SOURCE: The Times, mywebtimes.com

July 27, 2010 Dan Churney,

Barbara Ellsworth was troubled, but not surprised Saturday morning when she spotted a broken blade on a wind tower near her home.

“We thought, ‘Hah! We knew that would happen.’”

Ellsworth and her husband Mike live three miles south of Marseilles on East 2450th Road, about 1,200 feet from a wind turbine and about 2,500 feet from one of the two towers damaged during the weekend, possibly by high winds. Chicago-based Invenergy Wind operates the string of towers that run through southeastern La Salle County.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE STORY

 PUBLIC COMMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM RESIDENT OF PSC APPROVED GLACIER HILLS PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

To the landowners in the Ledge Wind Project:

If you believe wind turbines are a good fit for a farm operation, a free source of clean energy, and a benefit to your community, I invite you to come to the Glacier Hills Project and witness  the total devastation occuring during construction.

Seeing firsthand what is happening here would turn any responsible landowner's stomach.

Heavy rains have created erosion that will take years to repair.

The number of huge construction equipment and trucks burning fuel is staggering.

Good productive farmland is being ripped apart, and will never be the same.

The level of disgust is even affecting the most loyal supporters of this project.

Hatred of this project is growing worse as each day passes, and we will be forced to live with this for the rest of our lives, all because a few irresponsible landowners, myself included, were taken in by wind developers lies.

All this for chump change.

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

Gary Steinich

Cambria, WI

 SECOND FEATURE

TESTIMONY

Comments submitted by Wisconsin resident, Joe Yunk, to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, July 2010

My name is Joe Yunk; I currently reside at the address of N2630 Townhall Rd in Kewaunee County.

My prior address was North 7905 County Trunk P, Algoma, Wisconsin which was in the Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) wind farm by Rio Creek, Wisconsin. I moved from the Algoma address to my current address on or about October 2009 to get away from the effects of the WPS wind farm.

I have been following the current proposed Element Power LLC (EEP) wind farm development that I now find myself living in.

I want you to know what I went through while living in the WPS wind farm. I am hopeful that this information will help you make the right decisions with regard to any PSCW approvals for any other wind farms in Wisconsin.

I would hate to see other peoples’ lives to be as negatively affected as mine has been as a result of living in a wind farm. There is no doubt in my mind that I will relive the awful experience once again if the EEP wind farm for Kewaunee County is approved.

In 1998 the WPS wind farm construction began about 300 yards from my home. I had built this home in 1980 on 6.5 acres of land which was our home farm that I lived on all my life. I was born on November 28, 1954. I had two turbines within one-half mile, one of those turbines was about 1,300 ft from my house and 600 ft from my property line.

In the summer of 2000, the turbines of the WPS wind farm began operation. Inasmuch as I had lived on this farm all my life, I knew the neighbors well, and it wasn’t long after the turbines began operating our lives began to change.

In conversations with my neighbors, I learned, they too were experiencing constant disturbing noise, shadow flicker and just the constant presence of the turbines. By presence I felt uneasy and irritated by the size and closeness of these 220 ft. turbines.

All the people living in this wind farm were guinea pigs/lab rats, no one knew what we were in for. It was in the fall of 2000 when neighbors and families began to divide over the effects of the wind farm. And that continued throughout the time I lived there.

When the turbines began to operate, a hotline was established directly to WPS to report any problems.

I had beef cattle for about two years prior to the turbines operating and never lost any animals. However, shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I reported this on the WPS hotline and nothing was done. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue.

Because of noise complaints to WPS, within a year, two families’ homes were purchased by WPS and demolished.

Additionally, at the same time WPS was settling nuisance suits with other neighbors. They were offering to buy out my neighbors but offered prices way below market value to stop the complaints.

However, they never offered me any buyout opportunity and I wanted out! It was hard for me to leave my home place of 54 years. Over time, however, living with the constant sleep deprivation and irritation of the noise and flickering I decided to sue WPS to have them pay me fair market value for my home so I could afford to move.

I knew that I might be risking everything I had worked for all my life, but I didn’t care at this point. I didn’t even try to sell my place outright because I didn’t want anyone else to have to live as I did in this wind farm. I really wanted WPS to buy me out and to demolish the home.

I retained an attorney and filed suit with WPS. Shortly after, WPS offered me $110,000 on my property that appraised for $168,000. I decided not to take their offer, but proceed with the suit.

I gave deposition in the summer of 2008, we were scheduled to go trail in September 2009 and WPS offered me a settlement in August of 2009 for $163,000. With this settlement I was responsible for my attorney fees. My attorney advised me to accept this offer. After paying my attorney fees, I ended up with $158,000.

Later, my home and property were listed with a real estate agency for sale by WPS for 30% below the appraised value.

From my experience in living in this wind farm, it is apparent that setback away from property lines is absolutely necessary. I could hear the turbines a mile away from my house. The PSCW’s standard setback from a property line should be 1.5 miles.

Now, my new home and property on Townhall road is within the confines of the EPP proposed wind farm. I`d like to know what you recommend I do now?

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

Annie Hart Cool of Falmouth said a turbine was erected within 1,500-feet of her home and has disrupted her husband’s sleep so severely he’d forced to sleep in the basement. He is an air-traffic controller, she added, and can’t afford to lose sleep. And the turbine is absolutely adversely impacting property values, she said.

“Wind turbines are like living next to a train or a dump,” Cool said. “These are realities, I’m a real person and this is really happening to me.”

 SOURCE: State House News Service, www.wickedlocal.com

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)