From Ohio

CAN TURBINES GENERATE HEALTH PROBLEMS?

By LOU WILIN,

SOURCE www.thecourier.com

October 5, 2011 

Sleep disturbance, memory and concentration problems, headaches, dizziness and nausea, and ringing or buzzing in the ears are among their troubles,

Living close to wind turbines can hurt your peace of mind, job performance and health, according to some health experts and researchers.

“If you’re within a mile, you’re asking for trouble,” said Alex Salt, an otolaryngology professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Air Energy TCI, a company which plans to erect wind turbines between Arcadia, Fostoria and New Riegel, would locate some within one-third of a mile of a home, the company’s development manager, Rory Cantwell, said Tuesday. He said Air Energy’s standard exceeds the state standard by more than 500 feet.

“(Wind turbines) don’t emit enough noise to do any permanent damage,” said Brett O’Connor, operations director for TCI Renewables in North America, the parent corporation of Air Energy. “All thoroughly peer-reviewed, properly conducted scientific analysis has concluded that there is no impact to human health.”

But Salt, who has studied the ear for 37 years, said wind turbines can, and do, cause some people problems. He has company.

In her book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., tells about some neighbors of wind turbines experiencing ear and health problems.

Sleep disturbance, memory and concentration problems, headaches, dizziness and nausea, and ringing or buzzing in the ears are among their troubles, Pierpont said. Those problems can lead to further health deterioration, said Pierpont and Salt: high blood pressure and heart palpitations.

“There are really distinct effects on susceptible people,” Pierpont said. “You just can’t function in this. It’s like you’re wading through mud mentally. You’re sick.”

Susceptible are those older than 50; those with migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, and existing inner ear damage from, say, exposure to industrial or military noise; and toddlers and early school-age children, she said.

Wind turbines produce low-frequency sounds, which the industry says cause no trouble because people do not hear them.

“That’s absolutely false,” Salt said. “The ear is designed so you don’t hear low-frequency sounds, but it isn’t insensitive to them. Those sounds are still going in and they are still being transfused. Even though you don’t hear it, it wakes you up.”

Salt said people over time have adapted to not notice their own body’s low-frequency sounds, like breathing and heartbeat. But when it comes to wind turbine sounds, sooner or later the brain notices they come from outside the body, and that’s when the trouble starts, Salt said.

For some, the trouble starts within a few weeks. For others, it happens immediately.

“People have difficulty describing the problem they’re having. It’s not a sound you’re hearing. It’s an uncomfortable feeling in your ears,” Salt said. “It’s a perceiving. You’re not hearing. It’s a fullness or a stuffiness in your ear.”

“It’s an odd feeling,” he said. “It’s close to motion sickness.”

Unfortunately, by the time residents experience problems, the wind farm has set up shop and enlisting its help is difficult, said Carmen Krogh, a board member for the Society for Wind Vigilance in Killaloe, Ontario. Wind turbines are more pervasive in Ontario than in Ohio.

“Once the turbines are established, it’s hard to get any kind of resolution to health troubles,” she said.

The health of those affected can deteriorate while they battle for years with a wind turbine company, Krogh said. Some people have abandoned their homes, rented elsewhere or moved in with a relative, she said.

FROM DEKALB ILLINOIS:

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE: Life with Dekalb Turbines: the diary of a family in a wind project.

FROM AUSTRALIA:

DOUBT OVER GREEN ENERGY'S CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH

 SOURCE The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au

 March 4,  2011

Graham Lloyd, Environment editor,

Wind turbines are closing in on four generations of the Quinn family who still live at Mt Bryan in South Australia’s picturesque and productive Mt Lofty Ranges.

Rosemary Quinn, 74, says she spends her nights locked inside the 1900s stone house she has occupied for 55 years. She shuts the windows and sets the ceiling fan on high to cover the noise of the wind turbines 2km away.

Quinn’s son Bill and his wife Jenny are about to gamble their 200ha property in a Federal Court challenge to the expansion plans of wind farm developer AGL.

Bill Quinn’s daughter Deb, 32, who works for businesses that profit from the wind farm developments, is worried about the future of her daughter, Jacqueline, and what long-term exposure to nearby wind turbines may mean.

The Quinns are not alone.

They are part of an increasingly vocal army of people in rural settlements who believe they have become collateral damage in Australia’s rush to embrace wind as an alternative energy to combat climate change.

Stories such as the Quinns’, and much, much worse, are scattered through the more than 1000 submissions to a Senate inquiry into the effect of wind farm developments on rural communities.

The inquiry by the Senate community affairs committee has certainly received many submissions of support for wind-farm developments to meet the federal government’s 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. Local community and sporting groups have praised the donations they have received.

But alongside the positive feedback are stories of gag orders, split communities, strongarm tactics and details of awful physical symptoms that people feel sure are the result of living in the auditory and sun-flicker shadow of wind turbine developments that are sweeping the rural landscape.

Family First senator Steve Fielding, who pushed for the Senate inquiry, says: “This is not a question about the viability of renewable technologies. It is to have a look at any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity.”

He says the Senate committee has approached the inquiry with an open mind, but “certainly there are people whose health has deteriorated to the stage that they have had to move out at a complete loss to themselves”.

Public hearings will be held in Canberra on March 25, Ballarat on March 28, Melbourne on March 29 and Perth on March 31.

Glenn Brew of Evansford in Victoria, near the controversial Waubra wind farm, has told the committee he was beginning to think he had a brain tumour until he discovered that other farmers in the area were experiencing headaches similar to his when they were close to the turbines.

Steven Hilary, 50, also of Waubra, has told the committee he is convinced the turbines pose a serious health risk.

“On April 22nd at 4am I suffered a heart attack and to date I have been continually suffering blood pressure issues, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, nausea, unbearable tinnitus and disrupted sleep patterns that led to numerous ambulance trips to hospital,” he wrote.

The Senate inquiry clearly has opened a can of worms: affected rural residents believe city dwellers with a penchant for green power have been happy to ignore the situation. Despite what opponents may say, this is not a community backlash that can be dismissed as being rooted in climate change denial or greed.

When Rosemary Quinn first heard wind turbines were coming to her area she visited the already established wind farm developments at Yorke Peninsula and Cape Jervis to have a look.

“I thought they were a terrific invention and we really needed to get all this green power,” she says.

“People now just say I have got a set against them and if they passed us a lot of money it would be all right, but I had a sermon in church this morning that money doesn’t matter. I don’t want their money, I just want some peace and quiet in the last months of my life.”

Sarah Laurie, a South Australian GP who has become a rallying point for people concerned about health effects from living near wind turbines, also cannot be written off as a stalking horse for big coal or the nuclear industry, as her detractors would suggest.

Laurie has worked among South Australia’s Aboriginal communities on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, where her husband still works as a travelling dentist.

She is a progressive with rooftop solar panels on her Crystal Brook property, and has alienated some friends by asking inconvenient questions about the green revolution. “I still am supportive of wind turbines in the right place,” Laurie says.

“I believe it is a siting issue primarily and we need to get the information in order to site the turbines safely.

“We have a window of opportunity now to get this right. If we don’t I am concerned there is an unfolding public disaster.

“This is not a NIMBY [not in my back yard] issue,” Laurie says. “I don’t think they should be in anybody’s back yard.”

All Laurie is requesting is that rigorous tests, independent of the industry or concerned residents, be carried out. Laurie knows her research, which catalogues a series of health effects among those living near wind turbines, will always be considered tainted by the fact there is a proposal for a wind farm near her own property.

But her findings mirror the results of other research that has also struggled for official recognition from the wind industry and government agencies.

The international research can be traced to British doctor Amanda Harry, who was introduced to a couple living near a wind farm in Cornwall in 2003.

Harry’s research was followed up by South Gippsland GP, David Issa, who surveyed residents living 1.5km to 2km of the Toora Wind Farm in Victoria.

Meanwhile, in Canada, pharmacist Carmen Krough, a senior pharmacist with Health Canada, joined with Bob McMurtry, an ex-dean of a medical school in Ontario, to form a Society for Wind Vigilance in 2009 after experiencing symptoms while staying near a wind turbine development.

As the Ontario Society for Wind Vigilance was being formed, Yale University graduate Nina Pierpont published her survey results, which described a pattern of symptoms that developed or were exacerbated by the turbines, and which disappeared when the subjects left their homes, only to return again when they returned.

She coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe the symptoms that included sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate and panic attacks. Pierpont recommended more research be undertaken into the effect of infrasound, or very low-frequency sound waves.

The wind industry has rejected all the international research and the need for further research into the effect of infrasound. But it has been prepared to buy out some affected property owners with non-disclosure clauses that prevent the sellers from talking about their experience with turbines.

Laurie says the widespread use of confidentiality clauses has made it difficult for land holders who have agreed to host turbines, or those who have been bought out, to provide first-hand accounts of any health effects to researchers.

The Clean Energy Council, the peak body representing Australia’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, told the Senate inquiry that wind energy was an integral part of the renewable energy mix.

It said a survey commissioned by the NSW government in mid-2010 found 80 per cent of residents were supportive of wind farms being built in their local region and more than 60 per cent supported them at 1km to 2km from their residence.

The council cited a National Health and Medical Research Council statement that “there is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects”. There is also a World Health Organisation statement: “There is no reliable evidence that sounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effect.”

The council said the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations had established a scientific advisory panel comprising medical doctors, audiologists and acoustic professionals from the US, Canada, Denmark and Britain, which found labels such as “wind turbine syndrome” were not a recognised medical diagnosis but reflective of symptoms associated with annoyance.

The Clean Energy Council’s points are echoed by the main wind turbine companies in their submissions to the Senate inquiry.

All lean heavily on the statement by the NHMRC. But the NHMRC report does not give wind turbines the clean bill of health that the industry claims. In correspondence to Peter Mitchell from Victoria, who set up the Waubra Foundation with Laurie, the NHMRC said it acknowledged there were opposing viewpoints regarding wind turbines and their potential effects on human health.

“It is important to note that these views are presented by a variety of groups or people, including those with vested interests,” the NHMRC said. “It is important to note that the review, its conclusions and recommendations are based on published scientific evidence at the time of writing and may be updated in future to take into account new evidence as it emerges.”

FROM ONTARIO

WIND POWER FOES LOSE LEGAL BATTLE

SOURCE: The Globe and Mail

March 4, 2011

By Richard Blackwell

Anti-wind power activists in Ontario have suffered a major legal setback, as a panel of judges ruled the province has the right to determine how closely turbines may be placed to homes.

In a decision released Thursday, three judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said the provincial government’s regulations that spell out the minimum distance – usually 550 metres – are legitimate.

Lawyers for Ian Hanna, a resident of Prince Edward County, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, had argued at a hearing in January that regulations in Ontario’s Green Energy Act that govern how far turbines must be from dwellings are illegal. If the court had agreed, new wind development in the province could have come to a standstill.

The ruling was a relief for the wind power industry. If it had gone the other way, “it would have created a tremendous amount of uncertainty, ” said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

He said the turbine setbacks were determined through an extensive consultation process, and they are among the most stringent in North America. The association’s position is that there is no direct link between wind turbines and human health.

Mr. Hanna's argument was based on the premise that Ontario did not take proper account of the possible negative impact to human health when it established the minimum turbine setback.

Essentially, he argued, there is no medical evidence that the setback is safe, and that by publishing regulations without sufficient proof, the province breached the “precautionary principle” in its own environmental bill of rights. That principle says the government has to show an activity is safe before it is approved.

But the judges disagreed, saying that “the health concerns for persons living in proximity to wind turbines cannot be denigrated, but they do not trump all other considerations.”

Ontario’s Environment Ministry correctly followed the process outlined in the environmental bill of rights, and conducted sufficient consultation before coming up with its regulations, the ruling said.

The judges also noted that anyone in the province can challenge specific proposed wind projects in front of an environmental review tribunal, and if they can prove that the 550-metre setback is not sufficient, the tribunal can stop the project or increase the setback.

Mr. Hanna said Thursday that he will consider an appeal of the ruling and will continue to fight on behalf of those who think more research must be done into the health effects of wind turbines. “I’ve met too many people who are really suffering from living too close to turbines,” he said. “I’ve seen what it can do to them … I couldn’t walk away.”

Mr. Hanna’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie, said there are some positive aspects to the court ruling. The decision made it clear that Ontario’s environmental bill of rights must be taken into account when regulations are set, he said, and it opens the door to other legal challenges to government decisions related to wind energy. “Given the amount of public interest and concern around this issue, it would be very surprising if this was the last legal challenge,” he said.

Ontario’s Environment Minister John Wilkinson said the province’s setback rules are based on 40 years of peer-reviewed science. But he said the ministry “is always open to new research.”

FROM OHIO & ILLINOIS

WIND FARM FALLS FLAT

SOURCE: The Daily Standard, www.dailystandard.com

March 2, 2011

By Shelley Grieshop,

Mel Haas of DeKalb County, Ill., said a nearly identical situation occurred in his agricultural area nearly eight years ago – and the turbines were still built.

“They came here in 2002-2003 and told us if the community didn’t want this, they would move on,” and they did, Haas said in a phone interview this morning.

However, NextEra officials returned and in January 2010 began operating a wind farm with 126 turbines – many of which surround his rural home in Shabbona.

Haas said he has a message for the people in Mercer County: “Watch your back. Stay vigilant on this issue.”

ST. HENRY – NextEra Energy Resources announced Tuesday it is pulling the plug on a locally-proposed wind farm project out of respect for the area’s rich religious history.

Representatives of the Florida-based wind development company told The Daily Standard they changed their minds about constructing 40 to 70 wind turbines in the region after learning how much residents value the southern Mercer County-based “Land of the Cross Tipped Churches.”

“The last couple months we’ve had discussions with community leaders and area clergymen, and we’ve come to understand and appreciate the whole Cross Tipped Church region,” NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

“We’ve listened to the community and heard what they had to say … and we agree with them.”

The Land of the Cross Tipped Churches highlights the roots of Catholicism in the area and in 1979 was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The tourist attraction includes 65 churches, former convents, schools and rectories, as well as cemeteries and other sites across Mercer, Auglaize, Darke and Shelby counties.

An informational open house scheduled by NextEra for Thursday in St. Henry has been canceled. Stengel said the event was nixed because of the flooding problems residents are experiencing.

“We don’t want to seem insensitive to the communities,” he said.

Stengel said NextEra “still likes Mercer County” as a wind farm site and is now focusing its attention in the north and northwest sector. Wind test towers will be erected in that area “when appropriate sites are selected,” he said.

The four test towers NextEra has in southern Mercer County will stay in place and continue to collect valuable data, Stengel said. NextEra director Scott Scovill said all leases penned between the company and area landowners are binding and will be honored.

News about NextEra’s decision to abandon the project brought joy and relief to those who had been opposing the development in the St. Henry, Maria Stein, Fort Recovery and Minster area.

“If they’re going to go ahead and make that move, we have to give credit where credit is due,” said Jim Niekamp of St. Henry, a spokesman for Citizens Against Turbines (CAT). “We have to give them credit for listening. It’s what we all hoped for.”

Niekamp said many people feared the proposed giant wind turbines would dwarf the church steeples that identify the region’s heritage. He feels the issue has caused many people to realize the value of “what lies in our own backyard.”

The Rev. Tom Hemm, pastor of the St. Henry cluster of Catholic churches, met with Next-Era officials several times in recent weeks as a representative of the Precious Blood Society. NextEra had unsuccessfully sought to lease land from St. Charles Center in Carthagena – a facility owned by the Precious Blood, he said.

“Our role as the Precious Blood community was to be neutral,” Hemm said, adding the organization supports alternative energy ideas. “We listened and heard excellent reasons from both sides.”
Hemm said his hope all along was that community members embraced the moral values embedded in their heritage.

“I wanted to be sure the values represented by those crosses – mutual respect and a willingness to listen – were being lived by the community,” he said.

NextEra representatives said they haven’t given up hope on establishing their own roots here.

“We wouldn’t be in Mercer County if we didn’t think there was an opportunity here,” Stengel said.

Although happy about the move, Niekamp is skeptical. Mel Haas of DeKalb County, Ill., said a nearly identical situation occurred in his agricultural area nearly eight years ago – and the turbines were still built.
“They came here in 2002-2003 and told us if the community didn’t want this, they would move on,” and they did, Haas said in a phone interview this morning.

However, NextEra officials returned and in January 2010 began operating a wind farm with 126 turbines – many of which surround his rural home in Shabbona.

Haas said he has a message for the people in Mercer County: “Watch your back. Stay vigilant on this issue.”

Stengel confirmed Haas’ version of the company’s actions, but said the company “re-engaged” and ultimately built the wind farm in a different location within the county after market conditions improved.

WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:

 Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.

Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations.  Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.

When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.

The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.

Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.

The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.

Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.

PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.  The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.  

EXTRA CREDIT READING LIST

 

THE DIRTY COST OF CLEAN WIND

 Source: THE DAILY MAIL

CLICK HERE to read the whole story

"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft rules for siting wind turbines in our state. The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes.

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

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

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

Residents sue wind companies

SOURCE: michigansthumb.com

HURON COUNTY — Citing a loss of property value and quality of life as a result of the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development, 16 Huron County residents filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the wind project’s various companies.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The defendants and plaintiffs

Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.

The majority of the plaintiffs previously filed complaints to the county regarding the Michigan Wind I development. Also, over the past year, many of them have attended county board of commissioners and planning commission meetings about this issue.

Though the complaints have been discussed in numerous meetings, there still is no complaint resolution at the county level — something that’s upset many. County officials, however, have said the board of commissioners soon will have a complaint resolution process in place.

Plaintiffs, during previous meetings, also have asked the county to amend its wind zoning ordinance so others in the future are not negatively affected as they say they have been.

According to records from the Huron County Clerk’s Office, all but four of the plaintiffs were part of a petition submitted in October 2005 that contained 1,846 signatures and asked for a review of the wind overlay zoning amendment, which was adopted by the county in the summer of 2005.

“We are simply trying to protect those people without contracts with the wind companies, those people who will not benefit in any way from the wind turbines — but who will have to live with the turbines for years to come,” said Angela Weber in a press release Residents for Sound Economics and Planning (RSEP) issued when the petition was submitted.

At the time RSEP submitted the petition to Huron County Clerk Peggy Koehler, the group claimed it was not an attempt to stop a wind park from being developed in the Ubly area. Instead, it was intended to create “better and more fair zoning for all citizens of Huron County,” according to a statement the group issued in October 2005. The issue ended up in court, as RSEP sued Koehler in November 2005 because she determined the petitions submitted by the group were inadequate. Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock ruled in favor of the county clerk.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC then proceeded with the development of Michigan Wind I, which consists of 42 turbines and encapsulates more than 150 parcels owned by 96 different landowners.

The project was sold to John Deere Wind Energy in October 2008, and the park officially went into commercial operation a few months later.

That’s when the plaintiffs state the quality of their life and property values began diminishing.

Count I: Private nuisance

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”

Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include: • Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.

Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.

The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.

“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.

Count II: Public nuisance

“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”

In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.

“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.

Count III: Negligent design of wind farm

The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.

That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.

Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.

The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”

Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.

Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation

The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.

“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.

“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.

Suit does not name any government entity

According to the Huron County Clerk’s Office, there have been no lawsuits filed against any government entities relating to any Thumb area wind park.

In the lawsuit against the wind companies, the plaintiffs are being represented by Craig W. Horn, of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner, P.L.C. in Saginaw. Despite numerous attempts, Horn was unavailable for comment as of press time.

Ken Golden, Deere & Company Strategic Public Relations director, on Friday told the Tribune: “By company policy, Deere & Company does not make comment on pending litigation.”

The defendants have 28 days from the May 11 filing date to respond to the complaint, and then a hearing date will be scheduled, according to the Huron County Circuit Court Office.

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

 

SECOND FEATURE: ANOTHER CHAPTER OF "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY"

The following is a candid quote from an article in Renewable Energy World Magazine which outlines current difficulties faced by wind developers.

 Wind Farms: Are All the Best Spots Taken?

 “Another problem is that landowners have become increasingly savvy about the value of their property.

Farmers are driving harder bargains with wind developers for purchase or lease of their land.

A decade ago 'nobody knew what a fair price was, but as long it was not a dollar less than the guy down the road, they thought it was fair.

Now with the internet and more awareness of what these terms and conditions are, it has leveled the playing field', said Jim Tynion, a partner with the law firm Foley & Lardner, where he is chair of the Energy Industry Team.”

READ FULL TEXT HERE

"Evidence does not support the conclusion that wind turbines cause or are associated with adverse health outcomes" 

"Gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact that wind energy may have on human health"

-Dr. Jevon McFadden, "Wind Turbines, a Brief Health Overview", slide 76 Prepared for the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council. Dr. McFadden delivered a shorter version of this presentation to the council on May 17th, 2010

 

Ontario Health and Environmental Officials Agree: On-the-ground sound measurement is needed near wind farms.

SOURCE: The Acoustic Ecology Institute, aeinews.org

 May 28 2010

Over the past week or so, two reports from Ontario have spurred a fair amount of notice and comment among those following wind development issues.  

First, the provincial health office responded to the public’s concerns about health problems reported by some wind farm neighbors, framing its answer carefully and narrowly:  ”According to the scientific evidence, there isn’t any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” said Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer, as reported by the Vancouver Sun.

 It is no real surprise that the sound levels near wind farms aren’t loud enough to directly cause physiological damage or effects, though it seems clear that annoyance and sleep disruption may well contribute to health effects; the report acknowledges the likelihood of some annoyance, and notes too that while low-frequency sound is below generally perceptible levels, some people who hear these frequencies better than most may be bothered.

 While the report itself is brief and lacks the detail of the recent industry-funded AWEA/CanWEA report, which reached the similar conclusions in the same narrowly-focused task, King’s report frames the results with two crucial but under-reported observations:

 

By way of introduction, the report explicitly states a simple fact that is rarely acknowledged: “Little information is available on actual measurements of sound levels generated from wind turbines and other environmental sources.

Since there is no widely accepted protocol for the measurement of noise from wind turbines, current regulatory requirements are based on modelling.”  Indeed, sound models are used to determine what distance a turbine needs to be from nearby homes in order to meet local statutory noise limits (which stand at 40dB in Ontario).

And in its final words, the report stresses the corollary to this observation: “The review also identified that sound measurements at residential areas around wind turbines and comparisons with sound levels around other rural and urban areas, to assess actual ambient noise levels prevalent in Ontario, is a key data gap that could be addressed.

An assessment of noise levels around wind power developments and other residential environments, including monitoring for sound level compliance, is an important prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether epidemiological studies looking at health outcomes will be useful.”

Actual rural ambient noise levels are often very low, so that wind farm noise becomes bothersome at lower levels than industrial or transportation noises prevalent in urban and suburban areas; and, as noted in the body of the report, most of the case studies and other reports of health effects lack any clear information on how loud the turbine sounds are in the homes of those being affected.  

So while this report is in large part another seemingly definitive, yet stubbornly partial, assessment of the health effects reported near wind farms, it also lays the groundwork for much-needed on the ground assessment of noise patterns around wind farms.

On a similar note, Ontario Ministry of Environment officials confirmed this week that they do not have the capability to record or assess the noise near wind farms where noise complaints arise.

 According to the Windsor Star, “Although hundreds of wind turbines have already been built in Ontario, Michael Parker, district manager for the environment ministry, said staff have not yet been given noise-monitoring equipment. The ministry is responsible for ensuring that wind turbine noise reaching a residence doesn’t exceed 40 decibels, he said.

 If a complaint about turbine noise is made to the ministry, two environment officers are sent to the area to listen for the noise and contact the turbine owner, Parker said, noting that the ministry could still intercede with turbine owners even without hard data on the noise levels.

In some cases, turbine speeds have been scaled back or the turbine shut down completely.”  

In January, the Ministry of Environment issued two Requests for Proposals seeking advice and technical standards to use in assessing wind farm noise.

The RFPs said that “The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of a measurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits,” noting that ”Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges.”

At that time, the Ministry acknowledged that its “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms…do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact.”

SECOND FEATURE:

When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?

When an official who stands to make some money says it is not and just 'leaves it at that'

Click on the images below to watch news stories about what happens when those who make the rules anticipate financial gain.

For those of us following the proceedings of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council, this is an issue very much on our minds. It is impossible not to notice a clear majority of the council members have direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the siting guidelines they are helping to create. CLICK HERE TO SEE WHO IS ON THE COUNCIL

VIDEO SOURCE: http://www.wnem.com