Entries in wind farm vibration (4)
8/28/11 Got Turbine Noise? Can't Sleep? Who Ya Gonna Call? AND Town protects itself with ordinance calling for 3,000 foot setbacks from property lines, 35dbA at night, 400 foot turbine height restriction
COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT: Wind project resident pleads for help in another useless email to developers
EMAIL TO: Scott Hossie, CANADIAN HYDRO DEVELOPERS
Gary Tomlinson – Provincial Officer, Ministry of the Environment
FROM: (A resident of Amaranth/Melancthon, Ontario)
DATE: March 16, 2009
“It is 1:00 AM.
I can’t take much more of this Scott. The Turbines were down a lot yesterday as I suppose you were testing again. Even with them looking like they weren’t working the vibration / hum in and around our house yesterday was very loud. Again, I cannot fathom what causes that when it appears everything is not running. You would know better than we.
At dinner last night it was quiet and it was the first time that it felt like the days before these turbines started. I had forgotten what peace was like.
Dennis and I went to bed at 7:20 last night because it was quiet, to try to catch up on our sleep. I prayed that you would leave these things unhooked last night so we could have one full night of rest. By midnight I was awake with the vibration back and very loud. I am so disappointed and back on the couch with the TV on to try to drown it out.
I need an answer and I need to move. I cannot bear this any longer and I will not put up with this for Dennis and our pets either. My head felt like stew when I left the house yesterday to go shopping because the vibration was so strong. I don’t know what it is doing to us but I have the worst headache in the world right now.
I have to go to school all this week. I want you to call Dennis Monday and tell him what is going on. Gary, I am pleading with you to make this vibration in our house stop. It is absolutely maddening.”
Email to: Ministry of Environment Officials
From: a resident of Amaranth/Melancthon, Ontario
Date: Wednesday March 25, 2009 (18:18 :53)
I would like to request a meeting with everyone to solve this ongoing problem at our property. We have vibration in our house virtually every night, some rare nights not.
I have not been lately, and will not email Canadian Hydro anymore as I do not have any faith that they are trying to help us and please note, this lack of correspondence does not suggest that things are any better in our house.
We have done nothing but try to help them figure this out and it appears that all of our input has been for nothing. Either they are refusing to acknowledge that we have a very big problem or they do not know anything about the business they are in and can’t fix it. This would never be allowed to continue in any industrial or commercial workplace. And even then, at least the employees get to go home to a quiet house to rest. Where in the world are the safety standards for the homeowners that have had this forced upon them? This is just insane.
I do not know at which point the body starts to break down with constant vibration going through it when it is supposed to be resting. I hate for my husband, our pets and myself to be the collection of lab rats that figures that one out for them. I have to ask you what you think we would be doing right now if we had children at home? Think about it.
I cannot put our house up for sale and move. Nobody could live here, and that was echoed by S_ _ H_ _ _ _ (employee of the developer) as he sat at our table a month or so ago. What are we supposed to do? We need help, Please….”
From New York State
ORLEANS TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER STRICT POWER ZONING REGULATIONS
AUGUST 28, 2011
By NANCY MADSEN
LAFARGEVILLE — The Orleans Town Council is weighing zoning law amendments that will make its rules for wind turbine placement among the most restrictive in the region.
The town of Henderson banned all wind energy towers in November. Orleans would still allow commercial and residential turbines, but the noise and setback rules would make placing turbines in the town very difficult. A public hearing continued from Aug. 11 will be reconvened at 8 p.m. Sept. 8 at the town offices, 20558 Sunrise Ave. Copies of the law are available at the town office.
The law was written and reviewed by the Planning Board after the town’s Wind Committee made zoning recommendations in October 2009 and a Wind Economics Committee made further recommendations in May 2010.
“The Planning Board wrote it, which basically went with what the committee members had suggested — it’s very strict,” town Supervisor Donna J. Chatterton said. “Pretty much, it’s a stop to having any, but they can change it.”
The proposed law would push turbines away from neighboring property lines, roads, the St. Lawrence River, neighboring town lines, state- and federally regulated wetlands and residential, historic, school and wildlife refuge areas by 3,000 feet or 10 times the diameter of a turbine’s blade sweep area, whichever is greater.
The noise regulation sets absolute levels for daytime, evening and nighttime in both the A-weighted, or basically audible spectrum, and C-weighted, or low-frequency, noise levels. If the background noise is greater than five decibels below the standard, the allowed noise level would be five decibels above the background noise level.
For example, the allowed noise level for daytime, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., is 45 decibels on the A-weighted scale and 63 decibels on the C-weighted scale. But if the A-weighted background noise during that period reaches 44 decibels, the allowed limit would be 49 decibels. If the turbines emit a steady pure tone, which sounds like a whine, screech or hum, the allowed noise limit is decreased by five decibels.
During the evening period, 7 to 10 p.m., the law would allow 40 decibels in the A-weighted scale and 58 decibels in the C-weighted scale. And during the nighttime period, from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., the law would allow 35 decibels in the A-weighted scale and 53 decibels in the C-weighted scale.
Residents within two miles of the project would have a property value guarantee, which requires appraisals before turbine construction and when residents try to sell their properties in the first five years after construction of the wind farm. The developer and property owner would agree on an asking price, based on an appraisal, and the developer would pay the difference between the asking price and sale price.
Other regulations include:
■ The Town Council and Variance and Project Oversight Board must approve change of ownership of the project or the project’s controlling entity.
■ Notification of the project’s pending application to the town is required to be sent to all landowners within two miles of the project’s boundaries.
■ Submission of studies are required on the project’s creation of shadow flicker, visual impact, noise, electromagnetic interference, transportation issues, ice and blade throw, stray voltage and wildlife harm as well as an emergency response plan, current property value analysis, operation and maintenance plan, decommissioning plan, earthquake preparedness manual and cultural, historical and archeological resource plan.
■ Submission of an escrow agreement, proof of liability insurance of $20 million per year and wind speed data from a year prior to construction are required.
■ Turbine and blade height are limited to 400 feet.
■ An annual report from the owner or operator on the operation and maintenance activities are required so that the town can compare the project’s plan and its actual results, and its noise projections and actual noise levels.
The proposed law goes into great detail on how sound measurements should be taken. The council has flexibility on applying fines for lack of compliance with the regulations.
The amendments do not substantially change rules for personal wind towers.
Wind power development critics support the amendments and said the town should not fear the state’s placing turbines against the town’s proposed law under the rejuvenated Article X electricity development law.
“The setbacks are great,” said Patricia A. Booras-Miller of the Environmentally-Concerned Citizens Organization. “They were thinking of Article X, too; there’s a lot of documentation to support their reasons.”
The town feels urgency, too, to pass the law before a new slate of council members is elected in November. The council must act on an environmental review of the law, so the law may not pass at the September meeting.
“We want to go the next step so we can get approved before the end of the year, before our board changes,” Ms. Chatterton said.
There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias.
Phillips-1.pdf (1.19 MB)
9/13/10 Same story, different location: Wisconsin or otherwise: Wind turbines too close to homes equals no sleep
WIND FARMS FROM FAR AWAY: The view from an orbiting satellite
WIND FARMS FROM CLOSE UP: The view from someone living with them:
“I’m getting vibrations, and I haven’t slept in I don’t know how long,” Mrs. Garrow said. “But I don’t think anybody’s looking out for our interest.”
TURBINE NOISE CONCERNS RAISED
September 13, 2010
By Michelle Besaw
Vibrations disturbing, some Town of Clinton residents say.
CLINTON — Noise was the big issue during the Wind Facilities Planning Board’s recent public hearing, and it wasn’t the noise coming from the 40-plus people packed into the Town Hall.
The meeting, which was set to address local concerns with variance requests from Horizon’s Marble River wind farm project, focused on noise issues surrounding Noble’s wind farms and the fear that this project will only bring the same problems.
Chad and Rose Garrow shared a complaint that the noise study done on the current turbines was unfair due to reported battery malfunctions.
“I’m getting vibrations, and I haven’t slept in I don’t know how long,” Mrs. Garrow said. “But I don’t think anybody’s looking out for our interest.”
Richard Green of Churubusco said he can feel the sounds from the turbines, citing the low range and the repetitiveness.
“It’s a constant noise that you can feel in your body.”
But Burlington, Vt., resident Martin Lavin, who owns 1,350 acres in Clinton, said he deals with noise from passing cars and loud college students at his home.
In Horizon’s original project proposal, Lavin was to have eight turbines on his property, but “we lost them all” in the scaled-back proposal, which calls for taller, yet fewer turbines.
“But I’m still in support of the project,” he said.
Jennifer Ruggles of Churubusco argued that Lavin’s example of noise was a result of his choices.
“You chose to buy a house in a city. We chose to buy a house in the country. We did not choose to move next to these things. I have 35 acres, and I can still feel (the noise). This noise came to us.”
Green said that of the landowners with turbine contracts, 49 are not town residents and just 24 are.
“The income isn’t going to town residents. They don’t have to live with the windmills.”
The town’s wind lawyer, Daniel Spitzer, suggested that the Wind Board summon a Noble representative and call a special public meeting to respond to residents’ noise complaints and address the enforcement of the noise laws.
Horizon’s variances request that it build turbines exceeding 400 feet, increasing their height to 492 feet, which raises concerns with Customs and Border Protection Supervisor Richard Bowman.
“I’ve flown around the ones that are 400 feet, and those are pretty up there,” he said, adding that the turbines’ proximity to the border is also of concern.
“We fly as low as the tress, depending on what we have to work on.”
Ruggles shared Bowman’s border concern.
“It is getting worse at our border, not better. We really should consider safety of the community before money.”
But Spitzer said the new proposal removes most of the turbines from the wetlands area, which are in the northeast area nearest to the border.
The proposal reduces the number of turbines to be built in the towns of Clinton and Ellenburg from 109 to 74.
In return, they’re replacing them with taller, more powerful turbines, generating 0.9 megawatts more than the originals, going from 2.1 to 3, which allows them to reduce the footprint of the project.
The total electrical output would remain the same as the original proposal.
Janice Padula of Plattsburgh owns land in the town but will not have turbines.
“But I am in very big support of this project,” she said.
Padula is a wind professor at Clinton Community College and supports wind energy, calling the turbines “majestic.”
“When I hung my very first load of laundry, I thought, wow, I’m going to put a turbine up here someday.
“I really know these people are reputable. Don’t throw out the project because of someone else,” she continued, referring to residents’ issues with Noble’s turbines.
“I really believe in the reputation of Horizon.”
Nancy Neubrand, a student of Padula’s, said renewable energy is necessary today.
“Wind is free. We need to get into renewables. We’re using substantial resources.”
Will Rogers of Clinton agreed.
“We need to go to renewable or be at the mercy of the Mideast.”
The Wind Facilities Planning Board will have a public meeting at 7 p.m. Monday, Sept. 20, at the Fire House, 1301 Clinton Mills Road.
They committee will review Horizon’s application for variances.
MORE FROM VINALHAVEN:
STATE MUST PROVIDE SOME RELIEF TO NEIGHBORS OF WIND TURBINES
Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.
By Alan Farago
I am one of the neighbors of the Vinalhaven wind turbines, misled by turbine supporters in 2008 and 2009 that "ambient sounds would mask the noise of the turbines." As I write these words, the noise from the wind turbines churns in the background.
Some locals dismiss the noise complaints, saying that Vinalhaven had a diesel power plant for years. But to live near excessive noise is not the reason I chose to own property here.
Also, as I have become familiar with wind turbine noise, it is more and more clear that there is a fundamental difference between turbine noise and other forms of industrial disturbances.
Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.
The jury is out on the first point, but not on the second. The constant noise from the turbines, even at 3,000 feet, has taken away a valuable part of my investment and a key part of my family's well-being.
At the public meeting in Vinalhaven, I asked a question: when would the natural quiet be restored and when would my property values be protected? There was no answer from the project supporters. Silence.
A year after the Vinalhaven turbines were greeted with wide public acclaim, the turbine neighbors find themselves, through no fault of their own, in an extraordinarily difficult and expensive effort to demonstrate that the wind turbines do exceed state regulations.
It is wrong and it is unfair to impose both the noise and the uncertainty of resolution - or if there will ever be resolution - on a few nearby homeowners.
They say, "The noise will be minor," or "the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves will cover the sound." That is simply not true.
Consultant: Vinalhaven wind turbine noise exceeds limit
“Anybody with a set of ears can come sit on my porch. You can clearly tell the difference between wind in the trees and the sound of the turbines. They don’t cancel each other out.”
SOURCE Bangor Daily News, www.bangordailynews.com
September 12, 2010
by Abigail Curtis
VINALHAVEN, Maine — The three wind turbines that were designed to lower and stabilize the unpredictable electric bills of Vinalhaven and North Haven islands also have brought some sleepless nights to those who live closest to their giant blades and the noises they make.
The controversy over the noise levels between Fox Islands Wind officials and some islanders began soon after the turbines went on line last fall, but last week, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection received a letter from its wind turbine noise consultant that seems to back up the project’s unhappy neighbors.
“There exists a significant body of consistent meteorological and sound data indicating sound levels greater than applicable limits,” Warren L. Brown, who also serves as the University of Maine’s radiation safety officer, wrote Wednesday in a detailed letter. “Substantial changes are recommended for FIW nighttime operations.”
Brown reached his conclusions after reviewing a noise complaint submitted by Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, a loose association of those who are negatively affected by the turbines, and also after reviewing sound and other data from the Fox Islands Wind project.
For Cheryl Lindgren, who lives less than half a mile from the turbines, Brown’s words came as welcome news, though the department has yet to make a decision based on them.
“It’s gratifying, it’s hopeful. It’s also been a lot of work having to do all this to get people to acknowledge that we have a problem,” she said Sunday in a telephone interview. “We’re hoping we can work together now to get some kind of compromise — that we can get some dialogue going, and that they will respond to the needs of the people who are suffering with this.”
But George Baker, the CEO of the Fox Island Wind electric company and vice president for wind at the Island Institute, said Brown’s findings might not be conclusive.
“He’s looked at a bunch of data that our sound consultant has put together. Our sound consultant analyzed exactly the same data and found us to be in compliance,” Baker said Sunday in a telephone interview. “There’s something going on here, and we don’t know exactly what it is, between the experts, and how they are analyzing and interpreting exactly the same data.”
According to Baker, the differences might stem from the way the experts treat ambient sound from various sources, especially the wind in the trees. State sound regulations “have a hard time” dealing with wind turbines, he said.
“If we were an industrial facility, you would turn on the facility on a still, calm day [and measure its noises],” he said. “Unfortunately, our little community wind farm doesn’t operate on still, calm days. It operates on windy days. … When the wind is blowing in the woods, it makes a lot of sound.”
Lindgren, however, says this argument is full of hot air.
“[Baker] keeps talking about the ambient sound. It’s a little disheartening,” she said. “Anybody with a set of ears can come sit on my porch. You can clearly tell the difference between wind in the trees and the sound of the turbines. They don’t cancel each other out.”
Baker said the turbines are turned down by 2 decibels at night in order to meet the state sound requirements.
“If, when experts get through sorting out this question of compliance, and it’s determined that we are out of compliance, we’ll just turn them down a little more at night,” he said. “We’re absolutely committed to compliance.”
But that solution might not sit well with some islanders, he suggested, who have benefited from a 15 to 20 percent reduction in their electricity costs since the turbines starting moving.
A survey completed a month ago by Fox Islands Electric Coop members showed that the majority of respondents were in favor of slowing down the turbines in order to reduce sound no more than state regulations require.
“The project remains very, very widely supported on the islands,” he said.
Lindgren, however, pointed out that electricity costs dipped nationwide last fall, not just on Vinalhaven and North Haven islands. And, after nearly a year of being woken up by the noisy turbines, she’s both frustrated and disappointed.
“We believed in ‘green energy’ as being all good. That’s not always true,” she said. “When corporations get involved, it’s not always from the heart. … I think the whole population could turn off a couple of light bulbs and we’d be in the same place.”
6/18/10 What's on the docket for the Wind Siting Council? Bad Vibrations: Wisconsin biologist weighs in on wind turbine siting guidelines.
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.
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
· 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
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.