Entries in wind health effects (4)
7/20/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: Madison, we have a problem: Epidemiologist says ample evidence of turbine related health effects. AND Wisconsin Health Department denies request to do study of local wind project residents AND What's so different about wind turbine noise?
Executive Summary
A summary of the main conclusions of my expert opinion, based on my knowledge of epidemiology and scientific methods, and my reading of the available studies and reports, is as follows:
• There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. Some of the most compelling evidence in support of this has been somewhat overlooked in previous analyses, including that the existing evidence fits what is known as the case-crossover study design, one of the most useful studies in epidemiology, and the revealed preference (observed behavior) data of people leaving their homes, etc., which provides objective measures of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena. In general, this is an exposure-disease combination where causation can be inferred from a smaller number of less formal observations than is possible for cases such as chemical exposure and cancer risk.
• The reported health effects, including insomnia, loss of concentration, anxiety, and general psychological distress are as real as physical ailments, and are part of accepted modern definitions of individual and public health. While such ailments are sometimes more difficult to study, they probably account for more of the total burden of morbidity in Western countries than do strictly physical diseases. It is true that there is no bright line between these diseases and less intense similar problems that would not usually be called a disease, this is a case for taking the less intense versions of the problems more seriously in making policy decisions, not to ignore the serious diseases.
• Existing evidence is not sufficient to make several important quantifications, including what portion of the population is susceptible to the health effects from particular exposures, how much total health impact wind turbines have, and the magnitude of exposure needed to cause substantial risk of important health effects. However, these are questions that could be answered if some resources were devoted to finding the answer. It is not necessary to proceed with siting so that more data can accumulate, since there is enough data now if it were gathered and analyzed.
• The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence. Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis.
Important editor's note: The last page of Dr. Phillips document, which contained references to his work, was omitted. He has provided us with the missing information as follows:
Roberts M, Roberts J. Evaluation of the scientific literature on the health effects associated with wind turbines and low frequency sound. Exponent Inc. Prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission Docket No. 6630-CE-302 (the identity of the actual client for whom this was prepared is not disclosed in the document). October 2009.
Waye K. Effects of low-frequency noise on sleep. Noise and Health 6(23):87-91, 2004.
Dr. Phillips will post any other errata at this link as the need arises.
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
Different sound sources vary in their sound level, frequency content and temporal character. These differences are most easily described by example. First, there are steady state noise sources. A good example would be an active highway. The sound level at a listener location away from the highway may vary somewhat from moment to moment, but by small amounts. But by and large human observers perceive highway sound as near constant in amplitude.
Second, there are transient sources. These are sources present only for brief periods of time. Good examples are passing trains or aircraft. These sources rise gradually in amplitude as they approach the listener and then decay as they depart.
A third class of sound source is the impulsive one. These sources can be repetitive or random in nature. Repetitive impulse sources would be jackhammers and pile drivers. The basic difference between the two examples is the rate at which the impulses occur. A random impulsive source would be the operations in a machine shop where hammering or metal fabrication takes place. In all of these examples any one impulse lasts for only a very small fraction of a second, and the onset and offset of the impulse is very rapid.
Finally, we come to the wind turbine source. Unlike any of the previous sources described, it is neither steady state in the classic sense, nor is it transient, nor is it impulsive. Instead, it produces a distinctive broadband "swoosh-boom" sound4 with each passing blade of the turbine. Each whoosh effectively modulates the sound level, with a more gradual onset than an impulsive sound, and a less gradual one than the transient sources I mentioned. For the typical three-bladed turbine in the 1-megawatt output range the blade passage rate is nominally one per second. One can sound out the observed sound in the typical second-counting style... "whoosh" one thousand, "whoosh" two thousand, "whoosh" three thousand, and so on. So long as the wind is blowing at sufficient speed to drive the turbine the sound will be generate for lengthy periods of time without interruption.
The hours of operation of wind turbines are not dictated by diurnal patterns of human activity like many other anthropogenic sources. They are able to operate when wind conditions are favorable, day or night. This means they may become a factor during both waking and sleeping hours.
The repetitive sound character is unique and unlike any other source found in residential communities. As such it is easily identifiable. It does not blend in to other background sources that are continuous in nature.
Wind turbine noise is most prevalent in rural areas. By their very nature, large-scale wind turbine installations require vast areas of open land. Hence, any potential sound masking effect from urban and suburban sources is unlikely to be present. This means that their sound will be audible at lower levels in the rural environment. It further means that rural noise standards should be applied to these installations as opposed to suburban or urban ones where nighttime sound levels, for example, can be 15 to 20 decibels higher.
Download File(s):
HorojeffReportFinal.pdf (275.71 kB)
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind health effects
|
Comments Off
7/7/10 A second opinion: Brown County Doctor's testimony regarding turbine related health impacts.
Click on the image above to hear a sworn statement regarding turbine related impacts to human health. Dr. Herb Coussin's June 30, 2010 testimony to the Public Service Commision, June 30, 2010
TRANSCRIPT
EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Let me swear you in.
HERB COUSSONS, PUBLIC WITNESS, DULY SWORN
EXAMINER NEWMARK: Have a seat. Just state your name and spell your last name for us.
DR. COUSSONS: It's Herb Coussons, C-O-U-S-S-O-N-S.
EXAMINER NEWMARK: I'm going to start the timer. Go ahead.
DIRECT TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT
DR. COUSSONS: I'm Herb Coussons, M.D. I'm a physician. I live in the town of Wrightstown in Brown County and I have been practicing in Green Bay for eight years, in private practice for 15 years, women's health and primary care, mainly.
I also have an interest -- a special interest in spatial disorientation because I'm an aerobatic and commercial pilot.
I've studied the literature and listened to the testimony of both affected and non-affected residents of the wind turbine projects, and I'm concerned that any setbacks of less than half a mile will have adverse consequences on the people that live near them, primarily because of noise --with noises in those shorter setback ranges over 45 and approaching 55 decibels.
I believe that based on currentliterature and testimony of others that any levels above 40 decibels will cause chronic sleep disturbance in up to 50 percent of the people that live close to them.
By increasing the setback, noise deteriorates over distance, and this would alleviate some of these problems.
I've heard Dr. McFadden speak from the Wind Siting Council, and I agree that there is no causal evidence now to directly link turbines to health problems, but I do know that noise such as that measured as audible and dBC will disturb sleep.
And exhaustive literature support shows that extensive disturbed sleep does have an adverse impact on health, primarily in the areas of hypertension, cardiac disease, weight gain, diabetes, lowered immunity, increased problems with falling asleep, accident rates, and maybe even poor school performance.
I'm afraid that so far what I've read from the PSC, the Siting Council, and the legislature has been willing to proceed without finding out if there is truly a causal relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.
Sample studies such as home sleep studies, like those done for sleep apnea patients, can provide some direct evidence of people living in wind turbine areas currently. Evaluations such as lab and sleep data on both wind and control patient -- patients that suffer from wind problems as well as those who live outside of turbine areas can also provide much needed information.
Otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same experiment as other wind projects in Wisconsin, around the United States, and the world.
I'm also concerned that by stating that there is no proof of adverse health consequences, as Dr. McFadden has in his presentation, that we give the media, the less informed in the wind industry, license to lie about safety.
In the Brown County Board of Health meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial. When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their relationship and, if so, what can be done about it.
In the Brown County Board of Health meeting, Invenergy, a wind developer in the state, stated that due to studies in Wisconsin, wind was safe and beneficial.
When paired with Dr. McFadden's conclusions, there seems to be no argument against the industrial wind turbines. But there are no good trials that support their statement or the safety of industrial wind turbines.
It is equally wrong to claim safety based on the literature. It was misleading and there is more case report data showing deleterious effects than beneficial case reports.
In the drug industry, the manufacturers of drugs are required to provide safety information at their own expense prior to releasing drugs in the market. The FDA and governmental oversight regulates this, and I think that the same model could be used with the wind industry as well, as the expense to have some of these studies may be overwhelming for our governmental agencies.
Not only do the health issues concern me, but the economics of wind energy do not make sense. In Europe, Canada, and now the U.S., government subsidies and increased power rates are the only way to make it a viable industry. Reports from Europe continue to caution the U.S. to not go down the road of heavily subsidized alternative energy pathways.
I may disagree with that and I may believe that subsidies are an acceptable cost, but human health is not an acceptable cost.
The effect on adjoining property rights and values is also disturbing. I own 40 acres in Brown County and live there. My sister and brother-in-law put a house on the market in southern Brown County and had an accepted offer on the house pending the sale of another home. As soon as the groundswell of words about the wind industry came, they withdraw their offer, and in the past six months, they've had no lookers.
In conclusion, the wind industry itself in the Beech Ridge project said that setbacks up to a mile would mitigate complaints from sound and shadow flicker. The World Health Organization said sound sleep -- on sound sleep and health stress that a plausible biologic model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of a causal chain. Thank you.
EXAMINER NEWMARK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER AZAR: Judge, I want to ask a few questions. I don't usually do that.
EXAMINER NEWMARK: We haven't been doing that yet.
COMMISSIONER AZAR: Okay. Then never mind.
DR. COUSSONS: It's fine with me.
EXAMINER NEWMARK: I have been asking a few questions of witnesses, so I can allow that
for now.
COMMISSIONER AZAR: I just have a question with regards to epidemiological studies, which is what I've been hearing a lot about thus far, and the fact that there's a lack of evidence in epidemiological studies.
DR. COUSSONS: Right.
COMMISSIONER AZAR: If you could describe sort of how -- how do I even ask this question? I would imagine there needs to be a lot of folks that are affected for something to essentially hit on the radar with regards to an epidemiological study.
DR. COUSSONS: Possibly, but not necessarily. I mean -- and you know, it depends on, well, if you have a thousand people in our community, and if I use that for an example -- or I'm not sure how many live in the Fond du Lac area, but that development down there. But if you3 have a thousand people and in self-reported comments or publications or surveys or things like that, if 15 or 35 or 45 percent are self-reported that's still not an epidemiologic, you know, study as far as a cause-and-effect type of thing.
But it's almost impossible to design that kind of study, because how can you sort of blind someone that they're living in this noise environment? You know, it's very impossible. And so from a medical standpoint, you know, after talking with Dr. McFadden, I feel like self-reported is all that we have to go on.
But if we do self-reported and try to get some objective data, like home sleep studies in their natural surrounding about people that do report problems, do the same types of studies on people in the area that don't report problems, and then back up a mile, a quarter -- you know, a half a mile, five miles and do the same studies, you can show some kind of link to noise and sleep disturbance.
It would take 20 years to show cardiac effect, you know, or hypertension or weight gain or diabetes, and we don't have time for that. We don't have the time or the money or resources to do it.
But I think a short-term study based on distance, some objective data with some self-reported data would be -- I think it would be very telling on adding some validity to some of these people's concerns. And maybe even small numbers. Maybe 20 or 40 people in each group.
COMMISSIONER AZAR: Great. Thanks.
EXAMINER NEWMARK: All right. Thank you very much.
DR. COUSSONS: Thank you.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Herb Coussins, Jevon McFadden, Public Service Commission wind, wind farm complaints, wind farm contract, wind farm noise, wind farm safety, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind health effects, wind setbacks, wind siting
|
Comments Off
3/26/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: We Energies picks builders for Glacier Hills AND First Open Meeting of Wind Siting Council Monday, March 29, 2010 AND today's homework assignment
Butler Ridge Wind Farm in Dodge County
We Energies picks builders for Glacier Hills
SOURCE: The Daily Reporter
March 25, 2010
We Energies has selected The Boldt Co., Appleton; Michels Corp., Brownsville; and Edgerton Contractors Inc., Oak Creek, to build the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County. (Photo by Joe Yovino)
We Energies has selected three Wisconsin contractors to build the Glacier Hills Wind Park.
The three contractors are The Boldt Co., Appleton; Michels Corp., Brownsville; and Edgerton Contractors Inc., Oak Creek. The project to build a wind farm in Columbia County is scheduled to begin in May or June.
VISIT THE DAILY REPORTER’S PROJECT PROFILE PAGE ON THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK <http://dailyreporter.com/glacier-hills-wind-park/>
The project’s construction budget will be between $335 million and $413.5 million, depending on which type of turbines is used and the number of turbines in the farm, said We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey.
In April, the utility will nail down the number of turbines and their locations, he said.
SECOND FEATURE
SOURCE: Public Service Commission
Docket # 1-AC-231
MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council 1-AC-231
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Pecatonica River Conference Room (Lower Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin
Monday, March 29, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
1) Greetings:
Overview of process and expectations, time line
Introduction of Commission staff working with Council
Open meeting requirements
Administration of Oath
2) Self-introductions by members of Wind Siting Council
3) Election of officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary
4) Administrative:
Reimbursement of expenses
Schedule of Future Meetings
Designated substitutes
Instructions regarding use/enrolling in Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF)
Overview of rule-making process and additional Act 40 requirements
5) Review of Draft Rules Outline/topics
Explain how developed
Topics/items that are unclear
Topics/items not in outline which council recommends for inclusion
6) Discussion of how to proceed with future work
7) Next steps/Adjourn
This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Do Your Homework:
Visit the PSC docket for the siting council frequently to see the latest posts, and add comments of your own for PSC staff members to read and consider as they prepare summaries for the Commissioners.
If you want to be sure your comments are read by the commissioners themselves you'll have post your comments again during the later hearing phase so they will be considered testimony.
Visit the siting council docket by CLICKING HERE to get to the PSC website In the box that says "Link Directly to a Case", type in this docket number 1-AC-231
REQUIRED READING:
For those who are following the creation of the PSC siting guidelines, we'll be posting a series of documents and news stories for review.
Officials cover up wind farm noise report
The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high - 43 decibels - that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.
The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible "beating" noises as they spun.
It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.
It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them.
Among those affected is Jane Davis, 53, a retired National Health Service manager, who has had to abandon her home because of the noise.
It lies half a mile from the Deeping St Nicholas wind farm in south Lincolnshire whose eight turbines began operating in 2006.
"Our problems started three days after the turbines went up and they've carried on ever since. It's like having helicopters going over the top of you at times - on a bad night it's like three or four helicopters circling around," she said.
"We abandoned our home. We rent a house about five miles away - this is our fourth Christmas out of our own home. We couldn't sleep. It is torture - my GP describes it as torture. Three hours of sleep a night is torture."
The HMP report was commissioned by the business department whose responsibilities for wind power have since been taken over by Ed Miliband's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
The decision to stick with existing noise limits became official guidance for local authorities ruling on planning applications from wind farm developers.
It has also been used by ministers and officials to support the view that there was no need to revise official wind farm noise guidelines and that erecting turbines near homes posed no threat to people's health and wellbeing.
In 2007 Mike Hulme of the Den Brook Judicial Review Group, a band of residents opposing a wind turbine development close to their houses in Devon, submitted a Freedom of Information request asking to see all draft versions of the study.
Officials refused the request, claiming it was not in the public interest for them to be released. Hulme appealed to the information commissioner's office, which has ordered Miliband's department to release the documents. The drafts show the HMP originally recommended that the night-time wind turbine noise limit should be reduced from 43 decibels to 38, or 33 if they made any kind of swishing or beating noise - known as "aerodynamic modulation".
The HMP researchers had based their recommendations on evidence. They took noise measurements at houses close to three wind farms: Askam in Cumbria, Bears Down in Cornwall and Blaen Bowi in Carmarthenshire.
They found that the swish-swish signature noise of turbines was significantly greater around most wind farms than had been foreseen by the authors of the existing government guidelines, which date from 1996. They also found that the beating sound is particularly disruptive at night, when other background noise levels are lower, as it can penetrate walls.
In their draft report the HMP researchers recommended that "Consideration be given to a revision of the night-time absolute noise criterion", noting that this would fit with World Health Organisation recommendations on sleep disturbance.
However, an anonymous government official then inserted remarks attacking this idea because it would impede wind farm development. He, or she, wrote: "What will the impact of this be? Are we saying that this is the situation for all wind farms ... I think we need a sense of the scale of this and the impact."
The final report removed any suggestion of cutting the noise limits or adding any further penalty if turbines generated a beating noise - and recommended local authorities to stick to the 1996 guidelines.
Hulme said: "This demonstrates the conflict of interests in DECC, because it has the responsibility for promoting wind farm development while also having responsibility for the wind farm noise guidance policy ... meant to protect local residents."
Ron Williams, 74, a retired lecturer, lives half a mile from the Wharrels Hill wind farm in Cumbria. He has been forced to use sleeping pills since its eight turbines began operating in 2007.
"The noise we get is the gentle swish swish swish, non-stop, incessant, all night," he said. "It's like a Chinese torture. In winter, when the sun is low in the sky, it goes down behind the turbines and causes flickering shadows coming into the room.
"It's like somebody shining car headlights at your window ... on and off, on and off. It affects us all. It's terrible. Absolutely horrible."
Lynn Hancock, 45, runs a garden maintenance business. She has suffered disruption since 2007 when the 12-turbine Red Tile wind farm began operating several hundred yards from her Cambridgeshire home.
"Imagine a seven-ton lorry left running on the drive all night and that's what it's like," she said. "People describe it as like an aeroplane or a helicopter or a train that never arrives. It's like it's coming but it never gets here."
Such problems are likely to increase. Britain has 253 land-based wind farms generating 3.5 gigawatts, but this is expected to double or even triple by 2020 to help to meet targets for cutting CO2 emissions.
Want more? CLICK HERE to read Today's 'Wind Turbines in the News'
OR on the links below to read the stories at their source
3/25/10 Ice, big winds hobble wind farm
SOURCE: Nova Scotia News- The Chronicle Herald
"Extreme winds, along with cold temperatures and a buildup of ice, crashed three test towers and halted power production at RMSenergy’s wind farm in Pictou County, said company president Reuben Burge in an interview in Halifax on Wednesday.
The heavy ice conditions stopped the blades from turning, resulting in a 20 per cent loss of production in January and February, he said.
Disease and wind turbines menace bat populations
SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, Ontario
" A University of Calgary bat mortality study, conducted between 2006 and 2008, determined that the vast majority of bats found dead below turbines near Pincher Creek, Alberta, suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure – called barotrauma – that occurred when the animals got close to turbine blades.
The study showed that 90 per cent of the bats examined after death showed signs of internal hemorrhaging consistent with barotraumas, while only about half of the bats showed any evidence of direct contact with the blades."
CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY
The BPRC Research Nerd
in We Energies wind, glacier hills wind wisconsin, psc siting council, wind farm noise, wind farm wisconsin, wind health effects, wind power wisconsin, wind setback, wind shadow flicker, wind siting reform wisconsin
|
Comments Off
3/15/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: Can't buy me love: How much wind developer money does it take to ruin a community? AND Neighbors talk to neighbors about living with wind turbines AND Do 400 foot wind turbines sway in the wind?
Wind project resident quote of the day:
"My landscape has changed drastically. Open space, one of the remarkable qualities of this tall-grass prairie converted to corn production, is gone. We are now in a forest of blinking, whirling, whining, flashing towers."
Click on the image below to watch a video of shadow flicker around and inside of a home in Northern Illinois. This video has no sound.
Wind turbines stir up bad feelings, health concerns in DeKalb County
Proponents point to reduced dependence on foreign oil, say no evidence of physiological harm
By Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter
March 14, 2010
Donna Nilles said she has experienced migraine headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker from 22 turbines she can see from her home. She says that red lights atop the turbines have turned the night sky into "an airport" and that her six horses are terrified by noise from the turbines.
"I want out of this state, out of this county as soon as I can," she said.
Months have passed since anyone has waved hello to one another in Waterman or Shabbona in rural DeKalb County. Some people claim they've even stopped going to church to avoid having to talk to former friends.
"It's gone. The country way of living is gone," declares Susan Flex, who lives in Waterman with her husband and their nine children.
The animosity stems from the greenest of energy sources: a wind farm.
The turbines started arriving last summer, at a rate of two a day, their parts trucked in on flatbeds. Today 126 turbines dot the county, with another 19 just over the border in Lee County. They have been making enough electricity since December to power 55,000 homes, roughly twice the needs of Oak Park.
DeKalb County's efforts appear to be in line with President Barack Obama's push for the U.S. to produce 25 percent of its energy needs with renewable resources by 2025. Illinois has added more wind power last year than all but four states.
Yet the story playing out just an hour and half from Chicago is one of policy-meets-reality. While the idea of creating power from the wind sounds ideal, the massive structures that have gone up have dramatically affected the people who live there, country life and the landscape.
Each turbine stands about 400 feet tall from the tips of their blades to the ground — roughly the height of the Wrigley Building in Chicago. Infighting over the turbines has pitted families against landowners, farmers against friends, and even family members against one another.
Proponents are landowners and farmers who say they want to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. They also point out that the money leasing land for a turbine is more than what they collect renting to corn and soybean farmers.
The turbines, which are assessed at a million dollars each, represent the largest investment made in the county, said Ruth Anne Tobias, DeKalb County Board chairman. And the expected annual tax revenue is unprecedented: $1.45 million.
Steve Stengel, a spokesman for turbine-owner NextEra Energy Resources, a unit of FPL Group, whose holdings include Florida Power & Light Co., said $50 million in payments is expected to be made to landowners over the 30-year life of the project.
But such windfalls haven't assuaged people who claim the turbines have harmed their health. They say noise from turbines is disrupting sleep, and they blame the strobe-like flashes produced by the whirling blades in sunlight — "shadow flicker" — for everything from vertigo to migraine headaches.
A group of 36 people who live near the turbines has sued DeKalb County and 75 landowners who leased land for the turbines. They claim the county illegally granted zoning variances and want the turbines taken down. NextEra is seeking to dismiss the suit based on "vague allegations of hypothetical harms."
Ken Andersen, a county board member who voted to allow the turbines to be built, says he is trying to understand the people voicing concerns. One man, he said, called at 6 a.m. and told him a turbine that sounded like a 747 jet engine was keeping him awake. Andersen said he got out of bed and drove over to listen for himself.
"I went to this man's yard," Andersen said. "I made more noise walking across the crunchy snow.'' The turbines, he said, "were making their whoosh, whoosh, whoosh noise.''
There is debate over whether there are links between the turbines and health problems. In December, an expert panel, which included doctors, hired by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association, national trade associations for the industry, concluded there is "no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects."
But Dr. Nina Pierpont, a board-certified pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., who has spent the last four years studying so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome, insists not enough studies have been conducted to rule out any connection between turbine noise and flicker shadow with health complaints.
Pierpont said low-frequency sounds from turbines can throw off a person's sense of balance and cause unconscious reactions similar to car sickness. Sleep can also be disrupted. She said the feeling is similar to when people awake in fear, with a jolt and a racing heart.
Ben Michels' friends say he may have the worst of it. Five turbines stand in a line behind his home, the nearest 1,430 feet away; the county restricts turbines from being any closer than that.
"I never had problems sleeping," said Michels, a Vietnam War veteran. "I went to the Veterans Administration and they put me on sleeping pills. They had to continually upgrade them because they weren't working."
Michels, who has raised goats for 20 years and averaged one death per year, said nine have died since December. Autopsies didn't reveal anything physically wrong with them. But he said veterinarians told him the goats may have suffered from stress. "Common sense tells me, it's got to have something to do with the turbines," Michels said. Other farmers say the turbines have spooked their horses and other animals.
NextEra, which has more than 70 wind farms in 17 states and two Canadian provinces, is used to such controversies, Stengel said.
"As you move to more heavily populated areas, you would see more — I don't want to say opposition — but you would certainly have more people having questions and issues that needed to be resolved," Stengel said.
DeKalb County, with a population of more than 100,000, is more densely populated than some areas where wind farms are located. NextEra chose the area, in part, for its proximity to Chicago, which benefits from the power those turbines produce, said John DiDonato, vice president of Midwest wind development for NextEra.
NextEra said 147.5 megawatts of energy produced by the DeKalb-Lee wind farm is distributed in 13 states and the District of Columbia, including Chicago and DeKalb County. Another 70 megawatts is sold to a consortium of 39 municipal electric utilities, for customers in and around northern and central Illinois.
Because the power from the turbines flows to areas of the greatest need, little goes to where it's produced. That irony was highlighted on Christmas Eve when the lights went out in Waterman and Shabbona due to an ice storm and didn't turn back on again for four days in some places. Meanwhile, the turbines kept cranking power to homes and businesses hundreds of miles away.
Mark Anderson, who lives in Park Ridge and hosts two turbines on investment property he owns in Waterman, said the turbines protect farmland from urban sprawl.
For David Halverson, who leased land for two turbines in Malta, said it's a matter of national policy — not giving U.S. dollars to foreign oil.
"I am so pro-wind that I would let them put them up for nothing," Halverson said.
There's also the economics. Each turbine, which takes up about 3 acres total, pays Halverson about $9,000 per year, he said. That compares with the going rate of about $180 per acre per year to lease farmland in DeKalb County, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Yet not everyone who could have profited from the turbines did so.
Ken and Lois Ehrhart originally agreed to allow NextEra to run a power line through their property in Shabbona but then changed their minds. Leasing part of their 320 acres would have provided money to pay off a large hospital bill.
"I says nothing doing," recalled Ken Ehrhart, who raises soybeans, wheat and corn. "We're not the highfliers for all the modern ideas."
Now Ehrhart said he is sure he made the right decision. Ehrhart said he also suffers headaches and nausea from shadow flicker from nearby turbines.
Opponents say it's difficult to fight what has been held up as an answer to the planet's energy needs.
"This is a very politically correct thing going on right now, and to say you're opposed to a renewable energy source is like saying you don't like mom and apple pie," said Steve Rosene, who lives in Shabbona. "I used to go out in my front yard in a swing and just watch the sunset," he said.
Mary Murphy, who hangs her clothes on the line instead of using the dryer, recycles and describes herself as a green person, says the turbines represent "green money" not "green energy."
Others are so fed up they're ready to pack up.
Donna Nilles said she has experienced migraine headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker from 22 turbines she can see from her home. She says that red lights atop the turbines have turned the night sky into "an airport" and that her six horses are terrified by noise from the turbines.
"I want out of this state, out of this county as soon as I can," she said.
SECOND FEATURE:
'Lee County Informed' hosts wind turbine forum
Ashton Gazette, www.ashtongazette.com
March 12 2010
“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.
Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.
ASHTON — A group of more than 100 area residents gathered at the Mills and Petrie Building on Saturday afternoon to hear the negative impact of having wind turbines in the area. A group of representatives from the DeKalb area, as well as attorney Rich Porter spoke to those gathered for more than two hours.
DeKalb residents who have been battling with wind turbine companies since 2003 said their presentation was to educate the citizens on the adverse effects they’ve personally experienced. The group has continued their efforts since the turbines went online in December and are seeking litigation.
“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.
Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.
Hinshaw & Culbertson Attorney Rich Porter who opened the informational meeting with a presentation called, “Don’t Get Blown Over By a Wind Farm,” said a study has compared the noise to a leaky faucet in the middle of the night.
Though the panel of DeKalb County residents admit some of their complaints don’t occur around the clock, they said problems are affecting their everyday lives.
Others like rural Waterman resident Ron Flex said the turbines have made he and his family physically ill since being turned on. Flex said his wife became nauseous the first day they were turned on. Something he attributes to the shadow flicker from the rotating of the propellers.
Shadow flicker occurs when the sun is at an angle to produce a large shadow from the propeller of a wind turbine as it rotates around. The repetition of the shadow fading in and out is considered an annoyance.
Noise seemed to be an overwhelming complaint from each of the speakers.
Porter said that even though no noise seems present when standing below one, the turbines create a noise short distances away and can sometimes be amplified when inside a home.
Also included in the list of complaints with the turbines are lower property values, speculation about tax revenue, the inability to negotiate the contracts with the companies, and negative effects on livestock and other wildlife.
Porter urged local officials to adopt special use ordinances that deal specifically with wind turbines.
“You should be doing something about your ordinances,” he said. “There are a variety of developers circling your county.”
Speakers also urged attendees to educate themselves whether they were considering allowing the turbines on their properties.
Porter warned the crowd to be very skeptical of what they hear about tax revenue being a major benefit for schools. Taxation for the turbines as currently exists expires in 2011 and he warned there is always the possibility of them becoming tax exempt because of their portrayal as green technology.
Speaker and DeKalb County resident Tammy Duriavich added that people need to stop labeling areas with turbines as wind farms and view them as industrial.
“If you can’t plant it, harvest it, breed it…it’s not farming,” she said.
Duriavich explained the group doesn’t oppose renewable energy, but said she believes the turbines are not a good example of efficient green technology because of how much land they take out of crop production and for various other reasons.
“We’re not against renewable energy,” she said. “We just think it could be done responsibly.”
Several elected officials from the area were present to hear what they had to say.
Attempts by Brad Lila, of Renewable Energy Sources in Ashton, to point out differences between the companies were cut short. Presenters claimed the audience was there to hear the other side of the story.
THIRD FEATURE
Do turbines sway in the wind?
WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"
3/14/10 My, what big feet you have: Look at the size of that carbon footprint
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, wildlife wind farm, wind contract, wind developer, wind energy, wind farm noise, wind health effects, wind power, wind shadow flicker, wind wisconsin
|
Comments Off