Better Plan, Wisconsin

  WHAT'S THE PROBLEM THE WIND INDUSTRY SAYS IS NOT A PROBLEM?

Presentation to the Hammond (NY) Wind Committee

BY NINA PIERPONT, MD (JOHNS HOPKINS)
PHD (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
MS (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
BA (YALE: BIOLOGY)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, NY

July 5, 2010

My name is Nina Pierpont. I am a physician in Malone, NY, and author of a book called Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment, published in December 2009.

My M.D. is from the Johns Hopkins University. My PhD, in population biology, is from Princeton University. Population biology has extensive overlap with epidemiology. In fact, one of my doctoral committee members, Robert May, is a prominent theoretical epidemiologist, who subsequently became president of the Royal Society of London and scientific advisor to the Queen of England. He pronounced my Wind Turbine Syndrome study to be "impressive, interesting, and important."

A PhD in science is a research degree. I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.

I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects, to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from Johns Hopkins to actually gather the information.

A good patient history, we were taught (and my experience has borne out), provides a doctor with about 80% of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structured clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects.

My bachelors degree, also in biology, is from Yale University. I am a board-certified pediatrician and have had postgraduate training in behavioral medicine. I have been a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University School of Physicians and Surgeons.

Wind turbine syndrome.

I introduced this term in testimony before the Energy Committee of the New York State Assembly in 2006. The National Academy of Sciences cited my testimony in their 2007 report, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, and asked for more information about the physical effects I described.

A syndrome, medically, is a consistent collection of signs and symptoms. This is what I observed in people exposed to large, 1.5 to 3 MW wind turbines constructed since 2004. The first purpose of my study was to document the consistency of symptoms or problems among affected people, and to show, by a simple, practical method, that these symptoms are due to wind turbines.

I will come back to this in a moment. The second purpose was to examine why, given the same exposure, some people are more affected than others.

I did not, and could not given my limited resources, study what proportion of people are affected or how much exposure is needed to affect people. However, I have some preliminary data on proportion of people affected.

I called my study a case series. I knew it was more than a case series, however, and described what else I did with regard to subject selection and data gathering. Recently an interested epidemiologist has provided the terminology for what I actually did. I chose families who had at least one severely affected adult family member, and who had done two things: first, they had gone away from their homes and the wind turbines and seen their symptoms go away, and had come back and seen the symptoms return, generally several times. In epidemiology this is called a "case-crossover" design. It's very useful in situations like this one when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.

Second, I chose families who had spent or lost a lot of money to get away from the turbines, by selling their homes for reduced amounts, renting or buying a second home, renovating their homes in an attempt to keep out the noise, or outright abandoning their homes. I know of active legal cases in at least three states and two provinces in which the homeowner, after home abandonment, is suing either the wind turbine company or a state regulatory agency for recompense. In epidemiology, this is called a "revealed preference measure." The people who are suffering show by their actions that their health problem is worth more than the many thousands of dollars they have lost in trying to escape the exposure, and thus distinguishes their experiences from what might be dismissed as subjective or fakery.

My study had 38 subjects, in 10 families located in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Italy. I have interviewed further families in the US and Canada and have a larger case-crossover study paper in preparation.

The symptoms caused by turbine exposure are as follows:

1. Sleep disturbance, with a special kind of awakening in a state of high alarm. This applies to both adults and children. Severe sleep deprivation.

2. Headaches. Exacerbations of migraines, brought on by either noise or by light flicker. This refers to the strobe-like effect in rooms when turbine blade shadows repetitively pass over a window. People without a history of migraine also got severe headaches from turbine exposure.

3. Pressure and pain in ears and eyes. Tinnitus or ringing in the ears. Distortions of hearing. Buzzing inside the head.

4. Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness, and nausea, essentially seasickness on land.
Pierpont to Hammond (NY) Wind Committee July 5, 2010 Page 2 of 4

5. Sensations of internal pulsation or movement, in the chest or abdomen, associated with panic-like episodes, in people who had no previous episodes of panic. These episodes occurred while awake or asleep, awakening the affected people from sleep.

6. Problems with memory and concentration. Irritability and loss of energy and motivation. School and behavior problems in children. Increased aggression in both adults and children.

In the book, I document these symptoms for all study subjects, in 66 pages of structured, before-during-after accounts divided for each subject into organ systems or functions, such as sleep, headache, cognition, mood, balance and equilibrium, ears and hearing, eyes and vision, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, etc.—before-during-after for each category.

It is critical that I interviewed people as much about their past medical history as about their current symptoms, to distinguish which symptoms were actually due to the exposure, and to identify the subjects’ risk factors for experiencing certain symptoms.

I then examined the relationships between medical factors before exposure and the tendency of subjects to have certain symptoms during the exposure, using simple and straightforward statistics. This was one of the reasons that I collected information on all family members, not just the most affected, so that I would have some equally exposed but less affected people in the sample, who had been gathered according to a consistent rule (collect data on all family members without regard to symptoms present or absent).

I found strong and statistically significant relationships:

1. Between the panic-internal pulsation symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity,
2. Between severe headaches during exposure and pre-existing migraine disorder, and
3. Between tinnitus during exposure and previous inner ear damage from noise or chemotherapy.

Equally as significant, I found no statistical association between pre-existing mental health disorder and the tendency to get panic-like episodes during exposure.

From these results I hypothesize about physiologic mechanisms for the effects, using an extensive review of the literature on low-frequency noise effects and on the neurophysiology of the balance system. This part, on how the wind turbines may be exerting their effects, is hypothetical. It is a proposal that inner ear specialists find it very interesting, but it is still hypothetical.

What is not hypothetical is that the turbines cause the symptoms (case-crossover design) and that the degree of illness caused is of such magnitude that people spend or forfeit many thousands of dollars to avoid the exposure (revealed preference data).

To get a preliminary idea of the proportion of people who may be affected, local affected residents around the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, Australia counted the numbers of households with affected people who had made their symptoms publicly known, the numbers of households that had abandoned their homes, and the total number of households within a radius of 3.5 km, the maximum distance at which there were affected people in this setting.

There were 153 total households. Two households had moved completely and a third was staying elsewhere because of their symptoms, or about 2% of households moved. An additional 19 households, another 12%, were affected but remained in their homes despite their chronic insomnia, etc.
Pierpont to Hammond (NY) Wind Committee July 5, 2010 Page 3 of 4

My study has attracted attention. The American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations published a critique without reading the study, since its paper was released within days of my book’s publication. The British Wind Energy Association has also issued a critique.

Carl V. Phillips, a Harvard-trained PhD in public policy and epidemiology, states that these and other industry-commissioned critiques "don’t represent proper scientific reading" of the evidence that there is a problem, my study among them.

Quoting from his testimony last week before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, "The reports that I have read that claim there is no evidence that there is a problem seem to be based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does and what does not count as evidence." He explains in a more detailed written report "why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers" at first glance, "don’t represent proper scientific reading." He points out that "the conclusions of the reports don’t even match their own analyses. The reports themselves actually concede that there are problems, and then somehow manage to reach the conclusion that there is no evidence that there are problems."

One industry critiques states that people become ill around wind turbines by power of suggestion, and that I was the person doing the suggesting. I was not: people became ill, made their decisions, and temporarily left their homes or moved out or renovated their houses before I ever found them. I found them because they had in some way made public what they had done.

When I found myself interviewing people who had not connected certain symptoms to the turbines and had not spent significant time away from their homes, I did not offer interpretations or advice or persist in questioning in those areas, nor did I include these families in the study.

The adults in the 10 families in my study are all practical, regular people. There are three fishermen, two teachers, two nurses, a physician, a home health aide, a farmer, a professional gardener, a computer programmer, a milk truck driver, and a number of homemakers. There were several retired disabled people. People like this don't disrupt their lives and spend or forfeit thousands of dollars for imaginary illness.

Again, the “revealed preference measure” shows us what is not purely subjective or fakery in the accounts of illness.

With regard to my mechanistic proposals, these have been taken up by the cochlear physiology laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Professors Alec Salt and Timothy Hullar have just published a paper in the journal Hearing Research regarding physiologic mechanisms by which the low-frequency noise affects the inner ear, both the cochlea (hearing organ) and the vestibular (balance) organs.

One possible mechanism is by low-frequency noise inducing endolymphatic hydrops, or increased pressure and distortion of membrane positions and tension within the inner ear (as in Meniere’s disease). There are also differences in the functioning of inner and outer hair cells in the cochlea that may prevent us from hearing low-frequency noise that is indeed having a physiological effect on the ear.

Dr. Salt had already found effects of low-frequency noise on the inner ear experimentally, and explicitly incorporates references to wind turbine low-frequency noise and to my research in his paper.

This being an area of active research and new findings, one cannot rely on the out-of-date assumption that if people can’t hear a sound, it cannot have any other effect on them—one of the premises wind industry consultants rely on to assert that the low frequency noise produced by wind turbines is at too low a level to have any physiological effects. This premise is out of date.

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

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What does shadow flicker look like?

Below are three recent videos taken in Fond du Lac and Dodge County showing shadow flicker.

The first video is from a wind project home in Fond du Lac County which gets shadow flicker in the morning and in the evening. Family members in this home have the option of pulling down all the shades or going into the basement until it passes. Remaining in a room being hit by shadow flicker is not an option.

Click on image below to see shadow flicker filmed on May 4th, 2010 in Butler Ridge wind project near Iron Ridge Wisconsin in Dodge County

Click on image below to see shadow flicker in the Invenergy Forward Energy project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County

SECOND FEATURE:

WIND FARMS WILL HARM HEALTH, ACCORDING TO DOCTOR

SOURCE: Barton Chronicle

Chris Braithwaite

May 12, 2010

MONTPELIER — A doctor who has studied the health effects of a commercial wind power project in northern Maine brought his conclusion to the State House Friday morning, May 7.

“There is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3,500 feet of a ridge line arrangement of 1.5 megawatts or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.”

The conclusion is in a statement distributed at Dr. Michael Nissenbaum’s press conference, held in the middle of one of the busiest days of this year’s legislative session.

Click on the image above to watch a presentation by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum on wind turbines and health impacts.

His statement is of local interest because, in terms of both size and distance, it would apply to the proposed wind project on Lowell Mountain.

Green Mountain Power is seeking permission to erect up to 24 towers with a capacity of 2.5 or 3 megawatts each. And GMP has said the towers would be at least 3,000 feet from the nearest homes. (Exceptions are the home of the resident who would host most of the project, and a hunting camp that GMP overlooked until it was drawn to the company’s attention.)

For projects on a ridge line, Dr. Nissenbaum said Friday, turbines should be 7,000 feet from homes, at a minimum. (That would be well over a mile, which equals 5,280 feet.)

The doctor said his findings, which are disputed by the wind industry, are based on interviews with 22 of about 30 adults who live within 3,500 feet of a ridge line arrangement of 1.5 megawatt turbines in Mars Hill, Maine.

As reported in this newspaper, people who live near that project began to complain about the noise it made shortly after it began to operate.

Of those 22 people, Dr. Nissenbaum found, 18 reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, nine reported new chronic headaches, 13 reported stress, and 17 reported persistent anger. More than a third reported new or worsened depression, and all but one of them said the quality of their life had been reduced.

Such problems did not appear in a parallel study of a control sample of 27 people living about three miles away from the project, Dr. Nissenbaum reported.

The problem, the doctor said, is that would-be wind power developers employ sound engineers who use standard instruments to measure sound levels in the normal range that the human ear detects most easily.

“The devil is in the details,” said the doctor, who for two years has focused on the physics and potential for adverse health effect of the energy emission related to industrial wind turbines. That statement comes from an introduction to Dr. Nissenbaum distributed by Energize Vermont, the group that brought him to the press conference, and to a forum in Rutland the day before.

While the experts work in terms of pure stead sounds, the doctor said, the turbines emit a complex tone which “is registered as louder than a pure tone, and is more effective in waking you up.”

Using a recording to demonstrate, he said that the turbines emit a pulsing sound, which again can affect he listener more than a steady tone.

Low-frequency sounds seem ominous to people, he said. “As humans we’re evolutionarily wired, and there’s some indication that low-frequency noises indicate threats.”

Low-frequency sounds can cause structural elements in houses to vibrate, and amplify the effect, Dr. Nissenbaum said.

He showed a photo of a tent in the backyard of a home that sits in the middle of a large wind project in Ontario. The resident moved into the tent so shoe could sleep, Dr. Nissenbaum said. That would make no sense, he added, unless being inside the house made the sound worse. He quoted from the resident’s journal: “The house is humming again tonight.”

The woman moved away fromt he project after the wind developer bought her home. Her story was detailed in the Chronicle in December 2009. [Also see: "Low-frequency sound, stray voltage, are suspects in ill effects of wind turbines".]

People who can’t sleep get sick, Dr. Nissenbaum said, and some people find the throbbing sound of wind turbines particularly annoying — “a plane that never lands.”

“Annoyance leads to sleep deprivation illness as day follows night,” the doctor said.

The worst part of it, he added, is when people are offered psychological help to deal with their problems with wind turbine noise. Such people don’t need a psychologist, Dr. Nissenbaum said, “they need the turbines placed farther away from their home.”

One of the few legislators at Friday’s press conference was Representative Rachel Weston, a Democrat from Burlington.

She said she had moved to the city from a small town, and gradually grown accustomed to a variety of urban sounds.

People can get habituated to some sounds, Dr. Nissenbaum said. “But there’s something unique about wind turbine noise that prevents habituation. There is something unique about those lower-frequency noises.

The doctor was talking about individual perception, Ms. Weston argued, not about science.“It’s not about my perceptions,” she said. “It’s about the physiology of my body.”

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on Friday, 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

Will residents of Wisconsin wind projects be heard?

SPOILER ALERT: Because of the composition of the WSC , the Research Nerd predicts the interests of the wind developers, utilities, and wind lobbyists will win out over the protection of the people and bats and birds of rural Wisconsin who will be living with the fallout of wind development.

Unless--- by some miracle---the PSC Horton Hears a Rural Wisconsin Who. The PSC Commissioners, particularly Lauren Azar, have made it clear that the do want to hear from you.

If you'd like to make your voice heard, CLICK HERE to leave a public comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket. What you post will become public record. There is no limit to the number of posts you can make. You are free to post opinion, articles, documents, and video links. Anything that you would like the wind siting council to consider.