Better Plan, Wisconsin

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd:

The complaints of wind farm residents in our state have been routinely met with eye-rolling dismissiveness from wind companies, developers and lobbyists.

Recently, some wind farm residents have noted significant weight gain since the turbines have gone on line.

It's a claim that may seem easy to mock. That is until you look at the science that ties lack of sleep to increased risk of obesity, as this article from London Times as recently done.

The article is followed by abstracts of recently published papers which support these findings.

Does Tiredness Make You Fat?

Source: London Times

Recent research has suggested that a lack of sleep is associated with increased risk of some cancers, heart disease and diabetes. There’s also an increasing consensus that lack of sleep can contribute to obesity. The reason is that our vital hormonal systems regulate and reset the body at night. Our nocturnal functions are vital to our daytime wellbeing.

Sleeplessness makes you fat
Kidney filtration and bowel activity reduce at night. There is little evidence that eating shortly before sleeping, leaving food in an inactive gut, has any ill effect apart from leaving you feeling a bit full in the morning. Though some diet gurus say that eating carbohydrates before bedtime makes you put on weight, it shouldn’t make a difference because your metabolism is working more slowly.

But the hormones that regulate your metabolism and hunger levels do change with sleep. Studies by the National Sleep Foundation in America have revealed that sleep keeps down the levels of an appetite-driving hormone called ghrelin. It also keeps up levels of the hormone leptin, which prevents the body from thinking that it needs more food. In other words, sleep helps you to keep slim, while lack of sleep can contribute to obesity. Experiments indicate that restricting sleep can mean that your body thinks it is short of up to 900 calories a day.

Brain and senses
Our brains career on a rollercoaster of changing activity as we go through the phases of sleep — non-rapid eye movement sleep, which includes light sleep, true sleep and deep sleep, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, which is when we dream. As sleep deepens, most brain cells fire off less rapidly, but in a far more co-ordinated pattern than during waking hours. With sleep, our eye movements change, darting around wildly during REM sleep. Our mouths become dry but our ears remain alert to noise.

Increased immunity
The immune system is more active at night. Experiments have shown that during sleep it releases more proteins called cytokines, which mean that the system can launch co-ordinated attacks on invaders. Research from Stanford University indicates that the immune system fights invading bacteria hardest at night, and least during the day. In fact, there are studies showing that if we don’t sleep, we become more susceptible to infection from colds. Malcolm von Schantz, associate dean at the Surrey Sleep Research Centre, says that this is why asthma attacks — which can be caused by an overreaction of the immune system — are more common at night.

Skin renewal
Our skin changes at night as it receives extra supplies of blood. Research by cosmetics companies suggests that after shearing off layers of surface dead cells in the day, our skin increases the rate of production of new cells in deep sleep. There is some objective evidence too that the skin is improved at night. A study presented to the European Sleep Research Society suggested that people who were sleep-deprived were consistently rated as looking less healthy and attractive, partly because of their skin tone.

Repair and regeneration
The levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, which keep us active during the day, drop in the evening. Instead, the body secretes growth hormones in large amounts, making us grow up until early adulthood. As we get older, growth hormones are responsible for promoting the repair of damaged tissue. The body also produces more melatonin, which helps us to sleep and may also help to protect us against certain types of cancer. Temperature drop Our in-built body clock lowers our temperature by about 1C at night because our body is far more likely to descend into sleep if it is cool. That’s why we tend to feel chilly if we nod off on the sofa. Temperatures fall to their lowest level during the 10 to 30-minute periods of REM when we need to be under a duvet. As morning comes, body temperature rises, which helps us to wake up.

Limb transformation
Several scientists have noticed that limbs, hands and feet tend to become enlarged during sleep. This is possibly because they have become engorged with blood. Our limbs become paralysed during REM sleep, preventing us from acting out our dreams.

Heart and blood
According to the Division of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School, one function of sleep may be to give the heart a chance to rest from the constant demands of waking life. For most of the night, the heart rate decreases and blood pressure drops as blood is pushed around the body with less and less force. During REM sleep, however, the heart rate increases again.

FINDINGS

SOURCE: European Journal of Endocrinology

Sleep and the epidemic of obesity in children and adults

Eve Van Cauter and Kristen L Knutson

Departments of Medicine, MC1027 Health Studies, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA

This paper was presented at the 5th Ferring International Paediatric Endocrinology Symposium, Baveno, Italy (2008). Ferring Pharmaceuticals has supported the publication of these proceedings.

Sleep is an important modulator of neuroendocrine function and glucose metabolism in children as well as in adults.

In recent years, sleep curtailment has become a hallmark of modern society with both children and adults having shorter bedtimes than a few decades ago. This trend for shorter sleep duration has developed over the same time period as the dramatic increase in the prevalence of obesity.

There is rapidly accumulating evidence from both laboratory and epidemiological studies to indicate that chronic partial sleep loss may increase the risk of obesity and weight gain. The present article reviews laboratory evidence indicating that sleep curtailment in young adults results in a constellation of metabolic and endocrine alterations, including decreased glucose tolerance, decreased insulin sensitivity, elevated sympathovagal balance, increased evening concentrations of cortisol, increased levels of ghrelin, decreased levels of leptin, and increased hunger and appetite.

We also review cross-sectional epidemiological studies associating short sleep with increased body mass index and prospective epidemiological studies that have shown an increased risk of weight gain and obesity in children and young adults who are short sleepers.

Altogether, the evidence points to a possible role of decreased sleep duration in the current epidemic of obesity.

FROM The Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics

Childhood Sleep Time and Long-Term Risk for Obesity:

"Shorter childhood sleep times were significantly associated with higher adult BMI [body mass index] values.

This association remained after adjustment for adult sleep time and the potential confounding effects of early childhood BMI, childhood socioeconomic status, parental BMIs, child and adult television viewing, adult physical activity, and adult smoking.

In logistic regression analyses, more sleep time during childhood was associated with lower odds of obesity at 32 years of age. This association was significant after adjustment for multiple potential confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS. These findings suggest that sleep restriction in childhood increases the long-term risk for obesity. Ensuring that children get adequate sleep may be a useful strategy for stemming the current obesity epidemic." [Click here for full text]

SECOND FEATURE:

A LETTER FROM A SCHOOL TEACHER IN TURBINE TOWN

Clear Creek, Ontario.  Quiet, peaceful.  The sound of the lake; the overhead passing of migrating geese; tundra swans in the early spring.  Deer and wild turkeys.  Clear starry skies.  Silent except for the sounds of the crickets and bullfrogs.  The sight of a small country church across the way, the church I remember attending as a young girl with my grandmother.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? That was my retreat of 11 years.  A place I called home, a place I loved, a place I miss. It was my heaven on earth.

My home now sits among huge, massive turbines. Eighteen turbines surround me, all within a 3 km radius of my home.  The closest is 400 metres from my back door.

People often ask me what my problem is with the turbines.  (“They’re not very noisy,” I am told.)

The noise is constant, some days louder than others. It is not noise I enjoy or choose to be around. It is noise I cannot escape.

What most don’t understand is that it is the low frequency waves you cannot hear that are so debilitating to one’s health. These frequencies also drive away the wildlife.  I no longer have deer, geese, swans passing by. These frequencies torment my dogs.  These frequencies keep me awake at night.

Welcome to “Turbine Town” Clear Creek, Ontario.

I live with the movement of shadow flicker created by the rotation of the turbines, coming through my dining room window as I drink my coffee in the morning. I have developed a sensitivity in which now I cannot even tolerate the movement of a small ceiling fan.

The skies where I live are no longer clear but dotted with blinking red lights marking the height of the turbines. When the turbines are down, a constant buzzing noise is emitted from the motionless structures. I have developed tinitus in my ears. I hear and feel the pulsating of the turbines and buzzing in my ears. I also feel the pulsating in my throat and chest.

Two homes have been abandoned where I live because of health reasons related to the effects of the turbines. One of these properties is host to 2 turbines. Many properties are for sale. In fact most of the properties where landowners reside on premises are for sale. Real estate sales in my area are significantly less than other areas in Ontario. Some real estate brokers will not touch a property adjacent to a turbine for fear of future law suit.

Nothing is selling in Turbine Town. Land value has decreased significantly because of the turbines.

There is a dividing of the community.  There are those who have signed leases, many of whom are regretting they were mislead or ill informed regarding the turbines. People are reluctant to speak about the turbine situation. These leases contain “gag orders.”  Many of these people suffer, yet are embarrassed and therefore deny the turbines are the cause of their illness.

I have:

• nausea (often) & dizziness (often)
• significant hearing loss
• itchy eyes
• high blood pressure (recently, an immediate and intense elevation to 180/118, causing severe headache and complete dysfunction)
• heart palpitations
• achy joints
• short term memory loss
• severe sleep deprivation on a regular basis
  

Results of a sleep study I had done showed 214 interruptions in a 6 hour period (note:  6-8 is considered normal; 214 is comparable to someone who has attention deficit disorder). I have very little if any regenerative sleep periods. I have been told that I have developed a sensitivity that does not leave my body when I leave the vicinity of the turbines.  The term used was “toxic”—my body is in a toxic state.

I have an ulcer in my nose that does not heal. I am awaiting an appointment in November with an ears, nose and throat specialist (otolaryngologist).

I often have blood in my urine (never was a problem in the past). I am having problems with my lymph nodes. I have been anaemic because of excessive blood loss. Blood work and other tests do not indicate changes which may cause this hemorrhaging. I have spent time in the emergency room at the hospital because of this.

I once thought my degenerating health was part of the natural aging process. I did not believe the turbines could be the cause of my health issues. I questioned myself as to whether or not it was all in my head. I now believe exposure to the turbines accelerate these processes as well as create other health problems.

I am angry, helpless, and disappointed our government would let something like this happen.  I am appalled at their ignorance and lack of compassion. It saddens me to watch my family and friends suffer from the same effects of the turbines.

It is also very saddening for me to see my dogs suffering. I cannot imagine the distress they must be enduring because of their sensitive hearing. I have not figured out what to do about it.

I spend as much time as I can away from my home, away from my son who is also sleep deprived. We are exhausted and miserable. I often seek refuge with friends, often falling asleep minutes after I arrive. They are very understanding.

I feel like a gypsy.

What was once a beautiful place to live has been destroyed.  And for what? I suggest you think about it long and hard before committing to these huge monstrosities known as industrial wind turbines.
·

TRACY WHITWORTH, School Teacher

Clear Creek, Ontario

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

THE BIG IF

Better Plan takes a closer look at some of the expert testimony on the Glacier Hills Docket.

Today's testimony comes from Jerry Mendl who was hired by Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Glacier Hills wind farm at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.

(NOTE: Mr. Mendl served at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as Director of the Bureau of Environmental and Energy Systems and also as Administrator of the Division of Systems Planning, Environmental Review and Consumer Analysis. Learn more about Mr. Mendl by clicking here)

[download Mr. Mendl's complete testimony by clicking here]

His testimony is frank and full of surprises, the greatest of which is this:

Unless WEPCO fully retires a coal plant, the Glacier Hills wind farm will not reduce Wisconsin's CO2 emissions, and could in fact, increase them. [1] [2] [3] [4][5]

(We were unable to find any indication that WEPCO wishes to completely shut down one of its coal-fired plants, or that they would be obligated by the PSC to do so.)

Other findings from Mr. Mendl's testimony:

WEPCO does not need additional capacity until 2024. Regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024 which it intends to sell. Additional capacity clearly is not needed to serve the projected load and reserve margin. [1] [2]

 Because WEPCO intends to sell the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2 emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. [3]

Unless WEPCO agrees to take a coal-fired plant off line, the net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and selling the excess capacity will be little to no reduction of CO2 emissions. The Glacier Hills wind farm itself won’t reduce CO2 emissions unless WEPCO retires a coal fired plant. [3]

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Another surprise in this testimony involves  shutting down the Glacier Hills wind turbines in the summer in order to maintain profitability by burning coal instead. On page 18 of the testimony we find this:

 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?

A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs [locational marginal price] can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

     As far as Better Plan can tell, WEPCO has no intention of retiring a coal-fired plant and every intention of selling the excess energy. This is understandable in terms of a business plan where profit is the goal.

However if reduction of CO2 emmissions in Wisconsin is the goal, our question to the PSC is this:

What is the benefit of the Glacier Hills wind farm in terms of CO2 reduction to our state if WEPCO does not retire a coal plant?  

If there is no CO2 benefit and if WEPCO has excess capacity until 2024 without the Glacier Hills wind farm, how can the PSC justify granting a Certificate of Public Need and Convinience?

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the lack of reliable CO2 reduction from this project , CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

References from the testimony document: [download complete testimony by clicking here]

[1] P3:1-13. "Reduction in greenhouse gases, including CO2, is an important purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) law that underlies the Glacier Hills proposal. The effectiveness of Glacier Hills project in reducing greenhouse gases can be best ensured if the Commission requires WEPCO (and other utilities in future RPS projects) to plan for corresponding retirements of  existing coal capacity.

4. The opportunity to retire excess capacity exists because WEPCO, even without Glacier Hills, does not need additional capacity until 2024 under the updated forecasts that WEPCO witnesses relied upon for their supplemental testimony. When one adds Glacier Hills and additional wind generation to meet WEPCO’s RPS standard of 662 MW by 2015, WEPCO will not need additional capacity until at least 2026. Thus, it is clear that WEPCO could retire at least 100 MW of existing coal generation."

[2] P.5: 2-22  Q: Will the operation of Glacier Hills result in WEPCO having excess capacity?
A. Yes. According to its application in this docket, as amended by WEPCO’s updated forecast and supplemental direct testimony, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024, regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities.

Q. Does WEPCO plan to sell excess accredited capacity?                                                                            A. Yes. Although WEPCO has not identified specific plans, it has indicated that it intends to sell all capacity over the 14.5% reserve margin prior to each planning year. It has done so for 2009.

[3] P.6:17-20 Q:What effect would WEPCO’s planned sale of excess capacity have on the emission of greenhouse gases from WEPCO’s power plants?

A: If WEPCO sells the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. WEPCO’s EGEAS runs show a decrease in CO2 emissions to supply electricity used by WEPCO’s customers. However, if the purchaser of the excess capacity takes energy at levels equivalent to or greater than that forecasted by WEPCO for its own loads without Glacier Hills, the net CO2 emissions from WEPCO plants would not be reduced and may be increased.

[4] p.14:1-15 In concept, Wisconsin utilities may install renewable resources to meet the RPS objectives and to reduce greenhouse gases, and MISO could then dispatch the resources available without reducing the utilization of Wisconsin coal-fired power plants. In this example, Wisconsin’s CO2 emissions would stay the same, although MISO dispatch would reduce the utilization of power plants elsewhere in the MISO 5
footprint.
Q. Should that be a concern to this Commission? 7
A. Yes, for at least two reasons. First, if MISO dispatch displaces a highly efficient natural gas fired combined cycle plant with generation from Glacier Hills, the effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions will be far less than if MISO displaces a relatively inefficient coal-fired unit with much higher CO2 emissions per kWh.
Second, if CO2 emissions by state are ever used as a benchmark of global climate change performance, Wisconsin would be identified as an underperformer because MISO dispatch produced CO2 in Wisconsin plants, even though the energy was consumed elsewhere.

[5] P.18: 8-16 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!

Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.

Wind developers talk a good line. They tell us there will be no negative health impacts for the residents of the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm. With a setback of 1000 feet, noise won't be a problem, shadow flicker won't be a problem, there will be no loss of value to your home.

Wind developers will tell you that the experts agree....

Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.

If you would like to contact our health department to ask them to investigate  the issue of wind turbine impacts on public health in our state, Click here to visit the Wisconsin Department of Health Services webstite, and Click here to send e-mail

In light of the many questions being raised about negative health effects resulting from inadequate setbacks from wind turbines, we need our health department to step in and research this issue, speak to the hundreds of residents in wind farms in our state and issue a report like the one recently done by the Minnesota Department of Health. Our state has a goal of siting 14,000 wind turbines by 2024. This is an issue that must be taken seriously now.

Click here to download a copy of the report from Minnesota Department of Health, entitled "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines"

Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.

 The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

 The purpose of the final EIS is to provide the decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders with an analysis of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the new wind electric generation facility.

 It was prepared prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission or PSC) with input from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

 This final EIS will be a subject of the hearing to be held for the Glacier Hills project. The Commission’s decision to approve, modify, or deny ATC’s application for this project will be based on the record of the technical and public portions of the hearing.

SAVE THE DATE:

The public hearing will be held at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009, at the Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street, Friesland, Wisconsin.

At the hearing, members of the public may testify about the project or the final EIS. In addition, written comments may be submitted in any of the following ways:

• Written comments submitted at the public hearing.

• Written comments submitted via the Commission’s ERF system by October 28, 2009. The form used to file comments electronically can be found on the Commission’s web page, http://psc.wi.gov/, by selecting the Public Comments button, then selecting Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (WEPCO) Glacier Hills Wind Park, docket 6630-CE-302 from the list provided.

• Written comments may be submitted by mail by October 28, 2009, addressed to:

Docket 6630-CE-302 Comments

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 7854

Madison, WI 53707-7854

 Members of the public who submit comments should understand that those comments will be included in the record on which the Commission will base its decision to approve, modify, or deny Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s application. As such, the comments are subject to objection during the hearing.

If objected to, the comments might not be admitted into the hearing record. Members of the public who have doubts about the admissibility of their comments should plan to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. All comments and a transcript of oral testimony will be posted to the Commission’s website as an open public record.

 The public and technical portions of the hearing will satisfy the WEPA requirements of both the Commission and DNR. A Commission decision on the proposed project is expected January 2009.

Specific questions on the final EIS should be addressed to:

Michael John Jaeger

Public Service Commission

(608) 267-2546

michaeljohn.jaeger@psc.state.wi.us

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: You can help by reading over the EIS [download it by clicking here] and commenting on specific parts of it is one way for the PSC to understand what the concerns are of rural residents in our state. There is no limit to how many comments you can file. Supporting documents are always welcome.

 Better Plan will continue to look closer at the Glacier Hills EIS in the up-coming days.

Download the entire EIS by clicking here

A is for "assume"

near the town of byron, fond du lac county, wisconsin, fall, 2008

"[Industrial wind turbine] noise, on which the ordinance is silent,

was assumed to be captured by the 1000 foot setback"

--Alex DePillis

From the Minutes of the November 4, 1999 Guidelines and Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting.

At the time, DePillis was a state worker employed by the Wisconsin Energy Bureau, Department of Administration.

He now works as a wind developer for EcoEnergy LLC

What are the results of this "assumption" about the 1000 foot setback?

Gerry Meyer carried mail in his community for 30 years.

He lives inside the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm near the town of Byron in Wisconsin's Fond du Lac County. When the turbines went on line near his home in March of 2008, he was surprised by the amount of noise that they made. He began keeping a noise log. (The entire turbine noise log can be downloaded by clicking here)

Let's look at the noise log for September 1, 2008

6:20 AM Loud motor running or humming sound.

7:05 AM I’m hearing turbine #4 in the barn, shop, and at the computer.

[ Turbine #4 is less than 1600 feet from the house]

11:15 AM Wind SW Loud.

4:15 PM Turbine 4 and 6 are making loud jet flying over sounds, ripping the sky apart. It has been loud all day.

9:40 PM This is the loudest night in a long time.

I hear #4, 6, 73, 74a, 3a and and possibly more.

I can hear them at the computer in the front of the house and in the family room in the back of the house with the TV on.

Keep in mind turbine 6 is ¾ mile away. # 73 is 2480’ and 74a 5/8 mile away.

It is very sad our town officials and PSC have allowed this turbine project to affect the health of residents in this area and it will continue in other areas.

11:40 PM I hear turbine jet flying over sound while watching TV in our family room.

This assumption about wind turbine noise made by Alex DePillis and other members of the Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommitee helped the state create guidelines which allowed Chicago-based wind developer Invenergy to site turbines as close as 1000 feet from unwilling participants homes in Fond du Lac and Dodge County.

The result?

Residents in Dodge and Fond du Lac are having trouble sleeping at night due to noise from industrial turbines, and when they want to sell their homes, no one seems interested in buying them.

This photo, taken December 8, 2008 is of a home near the town of Byron that has been on the market for a long time. The price has been reduced but still no offers.

Can you guess why?

Why would the state put so many residents at risk by allowing a committee to set guidelines based on an assumption that a 1000 foot setback would take care of noise problems?

Local governments who recognized the inadequacy of the state's guidelines for siting turbines have created large wind ordinances intended to protect the health and safety of residents. Within the last year, six Wisconsin townships have adopted ordinances with a 2640 foot setback. They didn't just pull that figure out of the air. And they didn't base it on an assumption. So what is it based on?

Here's what we learned from the findings section from the Town of Union's large wind ordinance regarding wind turbine noise.

The complete text of the findings and all documents used to support these findings are cited in the ordinance. (Download the entire Town of Union ordinance by clicking here)

This is just a summary:

The state's current wind turbine noise limit of 50dBA does not adequately protect residents from the adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise.

The town of Union limits large wind turbine noise to a maximum of 35dBA or 5dBA over ambient, whichever is lower, in order to protect residents from adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise based on the following findings:

Large wind turbines are significant sources of noise, which , if improperly sited, can negatively impact the health of residents, particularly in areas of low ambient noise levels.

Large wind turbines emit two types of noise-- 1) Aerodynamic noise from the blades passing through the air, which can generate broadband noise, tonal noise and low frequency noise; and 2) Mechanical noise from the interaction of the turbine components.

A dBA scale is commonly used to measure audible wind turbine noise.

Low frequency noise from large wind turbines is not adequately measured by the state's use of dBA weighting.

Noise is an annoyance that can negatively impact health, producing negative effects such as sleep disturbance and deprivation, stress, anxiety, and fatigue.

Large wind turbines create a noise annoyance that can hinder physical and mental healing and can cause adverse health effects associated with sleep disturbance and deprivation, psychological distress, stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, fatigue, tinnitus and hypertension.

Wind turbine noise can affect each person differently. Some people are unaffected by wind turbine noise, while others may develop adverse health effects from the same noise.

At low frequencies, wind turbine noise may not be heard but rather is felt as a vibration. Medical research reported complaints from people who felt the noise from large wind turbines, similar to symptoms that can be associated with vibroacoustic disease.

The risk for adverse health effects resulting from noise annoyance such as headaches, stress, anxiety, fatigue, depression, pain and stiffness, and decreased cognitive ability associated with sleep deprivation from wind turbine noise increases with increasing A-weighted sound pressures. According to wind turbine noise studies, few respondents were disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise at less than 35dBA. Respondents were increasingly disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise greater than 35dBA.

Wind turbine noise greater than 5dBA over ambient increases the risk for health effects because a change of 5dB is clearly noticeable.

Studies show prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise resulted in adverse health effects at sound levels below those from other sources of community noise, such as road traffic noise. Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and creates a different type of noise having different health impacts than compared to urban, industrial or commercial noise.

Living in a rural environment in comparison with a suburban area increases the risk of residents being impacted by noise from nearby large wind turbines because of the low ambient noise in rural environments. The International Standards Organization recommends community noise limits for rural areas be set at 35dBA during the day, 30 dBA during the evening, and 25dBA at night.

Eye-witnesses living near newly-constructed large wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI, testified at the public hearing held by the Town of Union Plan Commission that they currently experience adverse health effects from the wind turbine noise such as sleep deprivation and disturbance, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Th noise from the wind turbines in the Town of Byron is greater than 45dBA at their residences and can be heard inside of their houses and outside in their yards.

Two Plan Commissioners from the Town of Union visited the newly constructed wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI in June 2008 and confirmed the wind turbines were a significant source of noise. One described the quality and intensity of the noise as sounding like a jet airplane. The other spoke with residents, farmers and a sheriff's deputy in the area who all stated that the turbines were noisy. He also took sound measurements from the home of a resident with a turbine less than 1500 feet from his home. The sound measured between 57 to 67 dBA on June 6-7, 2008.

However, experiences vary. Two other plan commissioners visited wind turbine sites. One visited sites in Byron Township, Lincoln Township and Montfort and found that overall, people were satisfied with the turbines. Two issues noted by this Plan commissioner were tensions between landowners profiting from the wind turbines and those landowners who did not, and poor conditions of roads following the installation of the turbines.

The other commissioner visited wind farms in Iowa. He estimated that approximately 60% of the people he spoke with had positive opinions of the wind turbines and approximately 40% of the people he spoke with had negative opinions of wind turbines.

A fifth plan commission member went to a wind farm south of Rockford, IL. No one was available to talk so he walked around the area. It was a nice day, and windy. He noticed that the windows in the homes surrounding the site were all closed and no one was outside. He stated the noise was similar to a plane going overhead. He stood under a tower and did not feel any unease.

(For the complete text of the Town of Union's findings regarding Wind Turbine Noise Impacts, please download the complete ordinance by clicking here)