Better Plan, Wisconsin

From Canada:

ONTARIO WIND POWER BRINGING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES

By John Nicol and Dave Seglins,

SOURCE: CBC News, www.cbc.ca

October 1, 2011

The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.

The CBC has documented scores of families who’ve discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

Ontario’s rapid expansion in wind power projects has provoked a backlash from rural residents living near industrial wind turbines who say their property values are plummeting and they are unable to sell their homes, a CBC News investigation has found.

The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.

The CBC has documented scores of families who’ve discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

“I have to tell you not a soul has come to look at it,” says Stephana Johnston, 81, of Clear Creek, a hamlet on the north shore of Lake Erie about 60 kilometres southeast of London.

Johnston, a retired Toronto teacher, moved here six years ago to build what she thought would be her dream home. But in 2008, 18 industrial wind turbines sprung up near her property and she put the one-floor, wheelchair-accessible home up for sale.

“My hunch is that people look at them and say: ‘As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don’t want to be surrounded by those turbines.’ Can’t say that I blame them.”

Johnston says she has suffered so many ill health effects, including an inability to sleep — which she believes stem from the noise and vibration of the turbines— that she now sleeps on a couch in her son’s trailer, 12 kilometres away, and only returns to her house to eat breakfast and dinner and use the internet.

Industry rejects claims of lower land values

Meanwhile, the industry rejects claims of lower land values.

“Multiple studies, and particularly some very comprehensive ones from the United States have consistently shown the presence of wind turbines does not have any statistically significant impact on property values,” says Robert Hornung of the Ottawa-based Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA).

While acknowledging a lack of peer-reviewed studies in Ontario, Hornung says CANWEA commissioned a study of the Chatham-Kent area, where new wind turbines are appearing, and found no evidence of any impact on property values.

“In fact,” says Hornung, “we’ve recently seen evidence coming from Re/Max indicating that we’re seeing farm values throughout Ontario, including the Chatham-Kent area, increasing significantly this year as wind energy is being developed in the area at the same time.”

However, Ron VandenBussche, a Re/Max agent along the Lake Erie shore, said the reality is that the wind turbines reduce the pool of interested buyers, and ultimately the price of properties.

“It’s going to make my life more difficult,” says VandenBussche, who has been a realtor for 38 years. “There’s going to be people that would love to buy this particular place, but because the turbines are there, it’s going to make it more difficult, no doubt.”

Kay Armstrong is one example. She put her two-acre, waterfront property up for sale before the turbines appeared in Clear Creek, for what three agents said was a reasonable price of $270,000.

Two years after the turbines appeared, she took $175,000, and she felt lucky to do that — the property went to someone who only wanted to grow marijuana there for legal uses.

“I had to get out,” said Armstrong. “It was getting so, so bad. And I had to disclose the health issues I had. I was told by two prominent lawyers that I would be sued if the ensuing purchasers were to develop health problems.”

Realtor association finds 20 to 40 per cent drops in value

Armstrong’s experience is backed up in a study by Brampton-based realtor Chris Luxemburger. The president of the Brampton Real Estate Board examined real estate listings and sales figures for the Melancthon-Amaranth area, home to 133 turbines in what is Ontario’s first and largest industrial wind farm.

“Homes inside the windmill zones were selling for less and taking longer to sell than the homes outside the windmill zones,” said Luxemburger.

On average, from 2007 to 2010, he says properties adjacent to turbines sold for between 20 and 40 per cent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from the windmills.

Power company sells at a loss

Land registry documents obtained by CBC News show that some property owners who complained about noise and health issues and threatened legal action did well if they convinced the turbine companies to buy them out.

Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.

In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.

The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer’s “living environment” and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer’s “complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities.”

The energy company admits the impacts may include “heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation.”

TransAlta, the company that took over for Canadian Hydro, refused to discuss the specific properties it bought and then resold at a loss in Melancthon. But in an email to CBC, spokesman Glen Whelan cited the recession and other “business considerations” that “influence the cost at which we buy or sell properties, and to attribute purchase or sale prices to any one factor would be impossible.”

Province says no change to tax base

Ontario’s ministers of Energy, Municipal Affairs and Finance, all in the midst of an election campaign, declined requests for an interview.

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs says his ministry has no studies or information about the potential impact wind turbines are having on rural property values.

However, last February, before an environmental review tribunal in Chatham, Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter said: “We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values.

“That’s what makes them sick is that, you know, they’ll get less money for their properties, and that’s what’s causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that.”

When Energy Minister Brad Duguid declined comment, his staff referred CBC News to the Ministry of Finance, which oversees MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation), which sets values on land for taxation purposes. They indicated that MPAC has no evidence wind turbines are driving down assessed values.

However, CBC found one household in Melancthon was awarded a 50-per-cent reduction in property tax because the house sat next to a transformer station for the turbines.

Losing the rural life

Almost all the people interviewed by the CBC rue the division between neighbours for and against the turbines, and said what they have lost is a sense of home and the idyllic life of living in the countryside.

Tracy Whitworth, who has a historic home in Clear Creek, refuses to sell it and instead has become a nomad, renting from place to place with her son, to avoid the ill effects of the turbines.

“My house sits empty — it’s been vandalized,” says Whitworth, a Clear Creek resident who teaches high school in Delhi. “I’ve had a couple of ‘Stop the wind turbine’ signs knocked down, mailbox broken off.

“I lived out there for a reason. It was out in the country. School’s very busy. When I come home, I like peace and quiet. Now, we have the turbines and the noise. Absolutely no wildlife. I used to go out in the morning, tend to my dogs, let my dogs run, and I’d hear the geese go over.

“And ugh! Now there’s no deer, no geese, no wild turkeys. Nothing.”

For the octogenarian Johnston, the fight is all more than she bargained for. She sank all her life savings, about $500,000, into the house, and she says she does not have the money to be able to hire a lawyer to fight for a buyout. But she is coming to the conclusion she must get a mortgage to try the legal route.

“I love being near the water and I thought, what a way to spend the rest of my days — every view is precious,” she said, as tears filled her eyes. “And I would not have that any more.

“And that is hard to reconcile and accept.”

Getting a mortgage on her house might not be that easy. CBC News has learned that already one bank in the Melancthon area is not allowing lines of credit to be secured by houses situated near wind turbines. In a letter to one family situated close to the turbines, the bank wrote, “we find your property a high risk and its future marketability may be jeopardized.”

Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD. (Johns Hopkins) PhD. (Princeton) interviews Falmouth resident Neil Andersen who has been having a strange ailment plague him ever since a Vestas 1.65 Megawatt turbine went up in his neighborhood July 2010. The interview takes place in September 2011. Neil feels the turbine is destroying his life. Dr. Pierpont inquires about his symptoms and his ability to carry on a normal life now.

From Canada 

WIND FARM HEALTH RISKS DOWNPLAYED: DOCUMENTS

By Dave Seglins and John Nicol,

SOURCE CBC News, www.cbc.ca

September 22 2011 

“It was terrible—we’d go nights in a row with no sleep,” said Ashbee. “It was a combination of the loud noise—the decibel, audible noise—and also this vibration that was in the house that would go up and it would go down.”

Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment is logging hundreds of health complaints over the province’s 900 wind turbines but has downplayed the problem, according to internal ministry documents obtained by CBC News.

According to 1,000 pages of internal government emails, reports and memos released under Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act, the government scrambled to figure out how to monitor and control noise pollution.

The documents were released after a lengthy and costly battle waged by Barb Ashbee. Ashbee and her husband Dennis Lormand say they suffered a series of ailments after wind turbines began operating near their home in Amaranth, near Shelburne, northwest of Toronto. The area is now home to 133 wind turbines — the largest industrial wind farm in the province.

After being told theirs was the only complaint in the area, Ashbee and Lormond learned that MOE officials at the Guelph District Office had been tracking more than 200 complaints dating back to 2006 when the wind farm first started operating.

Their home was bought out by Canadian Hydro Developers (now Transalta) in June 2009, one of six homeowners who sold their houses to the utility company.

Each seller had to sign confidentiality agreements. But the Lormands have risked legal repercussions by breaking their silence and speaking exclusively to CBC News this week. They said they want to warn the public about what they claim are the dangers of living near wind turbines and the supposed breakdowns in government monitoring.

“We were silent. I wouldn’t say boo to anybody. But the longer this goes on, nobody’s doing anything! And now we have an (Ontario) election two weeks away. Nobody understands what’s going on out here.”

Sleepless nights sparked activism

“It was terrible—we’d go nights in a row with no sleep,” said Ashbee. “It was a combination of the loud noise—the decibel, audible noise—and also this vibration that was in the house that would go up and it would go down.”

The couple moved into their home in December 2008 just as the wind farm became operational. But they said they immediately noted a loud swooshing noise from nearby turbines and a persistent, unexplained hum resonating in their home.

Ashbee said she called the power company and the environment ministry night after night and was initially told by government enforcement officers that hers was the only complaint in the area.

“We were told [the wind company] was running in compliance, that there were no problems.

“We’d just have to get used to it.”

But she said the Ministry of Environment (MOE) was misleading her, and that there had been hundreds of complaints.

Ashbee launched a lengthy battle using Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act and eventually received more than 1,000 pages of internal MOE correspondence.

Acccording to the documents, government staff downplayed the problem while scrambling to understand and control wind turbine noise pollution.

MOE officers warn supervisor

According to the documents, MOE field officer Garry Tomlinson was slow to process Ashbee’s noise complaints. But he began trying to conduct his own noise monitoring tests when confronted with many more complaints and consultants reports by Canadian Hydro Developers that revealed noise violations.

Tomlinson consulted acoustics specialists at Ryerson University and within the MOE. He concluded and warned his supervisors that the ministry “currently has no approved methodology for field measurement of the noise emissions from multiple [turbines]. As such there is no way for MOE Field staff (and I would submit anyone else) to confirm compliance or lack thereof.”

Tomlinson also gave a tour to two assistant deputy ministers Paul Evans and Paul French on May 1, 2009, advising them of the problems they were encountering.

Ministry officials at the Guelph office, including manager Jane Glassco, attended community meetings in Melancthon and Amaranth townships in the summer of 2009, where Glassco acknowledged people were “suffering” and that many were claiming to have been forced out of their homes due to noise pollution.

By 2010, other staff at the Guelph office were warning officials at the ministry headquarters in Toronto that the computer modelling used to establish Ontario’s wind turbine noise limits and safe “set back distances” for wind turbines was flawed and inadequate.

Cameron Hall a fellow field officer at the MOE in Guelph wrote to his managers warning that the province was failing to properly account for the “swooshing sounds.”

CBC News presented some of the ministry documents to Ramani Ramakrishnan, a Ryerson University professor and acoustics specialist who has written several reports and conducts noise pollution training for MOE staff.

Ramakrishnan has recommended to the MOE that wind turbines in rural areas should have far stricter limits but says if the province enforced the regulations – it would have a major impact on wind farms around the province.

“First implication,” Ramakrishnan says, “is that the number of wind turbines in wind-farms would have to be reduced considerably and wind-farm developers would have to look for localities where they are not impacting the neighbourhood.

“A five-decibel reduction in acceptable noise is quite noticeable and perceptible” and the MOE field staff are recommending up to 10 decibel reductions in some cases.

Ashbee, who is returning to her old job as a real estate agent, said there are several people near turbines who won’t speak for fear that their land values will go down.

Her husband Dennis doesn’t blame the wind turbine company:

“It’s our government that backs it up. It’s the government that’s making people sick and forcing them out of their homes. And it’s all being suppressed.”

CBC News repeatedly requested an interview with Ontario’s Environment Minister John Wilkinson, who is also engaged in a provincial election campaign seeking re-election as MPP for the riding of Perth-Wellington. Those requests were denied.

Transalta, who took over the company that bought out the Ashbee-Lormand home, told CBC News in a statement that such confidentiality agreements are standard, designed to protect the privacy of both sides. Neither the company nor the couple would discuss the $300,000 price listed on local land registry records as being the amount for which the couple’s home was transferred to the power company.

Document highlights

Ashbee and Lormond learned that MOE officials at the Guelph District Office had been tracking more than 200 complaints dating back to 2006 when the wind farm first started operating.

MOE officials repeatedly told the couple in early 2009 that the power company (Canadian Hydro Developers) were in compliance with the law yet the company’s own consultants report sent to the MOE concluded noise pollution from the turbines was generally higher than Ontario’s limits.

MOE field officers in Guelph in 2009 scrambled to learn more about how to properly record and test audible noise levels and low frequency sound. They warned superiors that Ontario’s noise pollution models are filled with errors, that they lacked a proper methodology for monitoring (and thus enforcing) noise levels from turbines.

MOE field officers and the acoustics specialists they hired repeatedly warned the province in 2009 and 2010 that there needed to be stricter noise pollution limits in rural areas, and in wind turbine environments where there is cyclical or tonal “swooshing sounds.”

FAMILY SUES WIND FARM ALLEGING HEALTH DAMAGE, FALLING PROPERTY VALUES

By John Spears, Business Reporter,

SOURCE Toronto Star, www.thestar.com

September 21 2011 

A rural family near Chatham have launched a lawsuit against a nearby wind farm, claiming it has damaged their health and devalued their property.

Lisa and Michel Michaud, and their adult children, have launched the lawsuit against the Kent Breeze wind farm, which was developed by a unit of Suncor Energy Services.

They are seeking an injunction that would shut down the operation, as well as damages totaling $1.5 million plus other costs.

Their statements have not been tested in court; they could be challenged by the defendants, and amended or deleted.

The lawsuit follows a decision earlier this summer from Ontario’s environmental review tribunal, which allowed the wind farm to proceed.

But the tribunal said its decision was not the last word on the controversy over wind farms.

“The debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans,” the two-member panel wrote in its decision.

“The evidence presented to the tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents,” it said.

“The question that should be asked is: What protections, such as permissible noise levels or setback distances, are appropriate to protect human health?”

The Michauds live on a 12.5 acre property near Thamesville, with a house and barn they built themselves. Michel Michaud runs a home renovation company. The couple and their children, in their 20s, also raise goats, chickens, turkeys peacocks and ducks. They plan to start a bed and breakfast.

But they say the wind farm, which started up in May with eight large turbines, has changed their lives.

The closest turbine is 1.1 kilometre away, but the Michauds say a “tunnel effect” from the row of turbines stretching into the distance compounds the impact on their property.

Current Ontario regulations allow turbines within 550 metres of a dwelling.

The Michauds say the wind farm exposes them to “audible and inaudible noise, low frequency noise and light flicker that negatively affect their health, cause vertigo, annoyance, sleep disturbance, despair and exhaustion.”

Michel Michaud says the turbines also affect his ability to concentrate, causing him to make mistakes at work.

“We want our lives back,” Lisa Michaud said in an interview.

NEXT STORY

From England:

TURBINE NOISE DESTROYING OUR LIVES

SOURCE North Devon Journal, www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk

September 22, 2011 

“There is no option of keeping the window open any longer. It is just too noisy to sleep – we were told they would be silent.

People living near the new Fullabrook wind farm claim their lives are being “destroyed” by the noise generated from each of the 22 turbines.

The residents, some who live only 400m from the structures, say they can no longer sleep as a result of the intrusive sound.

But despite numerous registered complaints about the noise at Fullabrook, North Devon Council (NDC) is unable to act until the whole site is complete and commissioned, which may not be for another three weeks.

Once the site is commissioned officers from the council will visit Fullabrook to monitor the sound levels in order to ascertain whether they meet the requirements set out by the Secretary of State.

Jeremy Mann, head of environmental health and housing services at NDC said: “I can confirm that a number of the residents near to the wind farm have now expressed concern regarding the noise levels.

“The operator has strict noise limits imposed on their operation and is required to give evidence to the council of their compliance with these controls when the site is no longer working intermittently.”

In the meantime several residents feel they are trapped living with the noise because if they tried to move house few people would be interested in buying a property next to a wind turbine.

Nick Williams lives at Fullabrook itself with six of the turbines near his house. He claimed the wind farm had destroyed the area he lives in as well as his life.

He said: “It is like having tumble dryers in my bedroom and so I mostly have to sleep on the sofa in my front room – why should I be forced out of my bed?

“I can’t afford to double glaze the whole house – why can’t the people behind the turbines use this community fund to triple glaze all our houses? I have also had to buy a digital box for the television because the turbines interrupt the signal so badly it is impossible to watch.”

Another resident, who wanted to remain anonymous, has lived at Halsinger for over 23 years and can see three turbines from her kitchen window. She said: “I can feel the sensation from the blades turning through my pillow when I am trying to sleep at night.

“There is no option of keeping the window open any longer. It is just too noisy to sleep – we were told they would be silent.

“And I have some chickens, I can’t prove it is related, but they laid eggs everyday before July (when the turbines started to be tested) but since then we have had just two laid.”

Kim Parker owns a stables with 15 horses at Pippacott and she believes the noise is a problem because it is unpredictable.

She said: “Most of the horses have got used to it now but it is not a constant sound so often unnerves them. Then they are jumpy and constantly looking up to where the noise is coming from.”

A spokesman for ESB International, which owns the site, confirmed it was working closely with the district council and that remedial steps could be taken if, once tested, it was found noise levels exceeded the limit.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH A VIDEO OF THE MICHAUDS TELLING THEIR STORY

NEXT STORY

From Illinois

VIDEO SOURCE: WREX.COM

CHINA'S GOLDWIND PLANS $200 MILLION U.S. WIND FARM

SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal

By BRIAN SPEGELE

"If a Chinese wind developer sees an opportunity in Illinois, we're going to embrace them with open arms," Gov. Quinn, a Democrat, said in an interview on Monday.

BEIJING—Wind-turbine maker Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. plans to build a $200 million wind farm in Illinois—the latest attempt at clean-energy collaboration between China and the U.S. even as disputes over renewable-energy technology continue.

"The United States is a key component of Goldwind's international growth," Xinjiang Goldwind Chairman and Chief Executive Wu Gang said in a prepared in a statement. "Goldwind has generated a competitive global footprint, and we are focused on continuing that momentum, continuing to demonstrate our technology advantages and continuing to build out our global supply chain."

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama hopes it can reinvigorate the country's sluggish economy and spur job growth in part by bolstering the U.S. renewable-energy industry. But some people in the industry say Chinese companies undercut U.S. rivals on price because they get generous subsidies from the Chinese government. Under pressure from the Obama administration, China in June agreed to end many subsidies for its domestic wind-power-equipment manufacturers.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, on a trade mission to China, said criticisms of global expansion efforts by Chinese renewable companies were overstated. Just as the U.S. wants China to open its markets to foreign companies, Illinois shouldn't close its market to Chinese companies like Xinjiang Goldwind, he said.

"If a Chinese wind developer sees an opportunity in Illinois, we're going to embrace them with open arms," Gov. Quinn, a Democrat, said in an interview on Monday.

Xinjiang Goldwind spokesman Yao Yu said half of the parts and components for the Illinois wind farm would be supplied by U.S. manufacturers, such as Broadwind Energy Inc. of Naperville, Ill. The 109.5-megawatt wind farm will be located about 100 miles west of Chicago and is expected to be connected to the grid around June, Mr. Yao said.

The project will create a dozen permanent jobs and more than 100 construction jobs in the state, according to the governor's office.

Disputes over wind-power technology continue. U.S.-based American Superconductor Corp. said last week it filed suit against China's Sinovel Wind Group Co., the country's largest wind-turbine manufacturer. The suit relates to an American Semiconductor employee in Austria who is being held in that country and faces criminal charges that he stole American Semiconductor software that controls turbines and sold it to Sinovel. Sinovel has denied wrongdoing.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to participate Thursday in a Beijing round table on technology for capturing carbon dioxide.

MANITOWOC COUNTY BOARD VOTES AGAINST WIND TURBINE MORATORIUM

by Sarah Kloepping,

SOURCE: Herald Times Reporter, www.htrnews.com

September 21, 2011

MANITOWOC — The Manitowoc County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted against creating a moratorium on large wind turbines in the county.

The motion for the moratorium, which would have temporarily prevented construction of turbines with a capacity of more than 100 kilowatts, failed 14-8, with two supervisors absent and board chairman Paul Tittl abstaining because he owns stock in Broadwind Energy.

The ordinance was brought forward after the towns of Cooperstown, Mishicot and Two Creeks submitted petitions requesting the county enact a moratorium to allow time for the state Public Service Commission to establish statewide rules on the installation and use of wind energy systems or for a period of one year, whichever came first.

Town of Mishicot Board member Dean Anhalt said numerous residents have complained that wind turbines near their homes are affecting their well-being. Headaches, nausea, pressure in the ears and chest are some of the symptoms he said residents are experiencing.

“They’re worried about the health of themselves and their families,” he said.

Supervisor Paul Hansen said while he understands health concerns, he didn’t support the moratorium because he wants to see the scientific evidence about the effects of wind turbines to make a decision.

“There are health concerns for every type of energy we currently produce in this country,” he said. “There are concerns with coal plants. There is concern with gas and oil. There are nuclear concerns. We live on a planet where we make a judgment whether or not to accept that risk.”

Supervisor Kevin Behnke said he is in favor of the moratorium because it would prevent the county from having to redo its process for approving wind turbine construction in the future.

“The ordinance specifically only asks that we wait until the state comes up with their standards … because more than likely their standards are going to supersede any standards that we have in our current ordinance,” he said. “I’m not anti-wind.”

Kerry Trask, Manitowoc County Democratic Party chairman, spoke at the meeting, saying a moratorium would have sent the wrong message to businesses.

“This is an old issue, but I’m here tonight because I’m somewhat bewildered,” he said Monday. “Bewildered because we’re here at a time when we have a large number of our people who are underemployed or unemployed, a time when the economy remains slow. It does the wrong thing for the economic development of the county.”

NEXT STORY

What to expect when you're expecting wind turbines: Construction Phase Video, Rumford New York

Next Story:

From California

A BIG WIND: SHELL OIL BLOWS INTO FERNDALE

by Lorraine Devon Wilke,

SOURCE www.huffingtonpost.com

September 20, 2011 

“The project is on virgin ranch land, the road to it is an active earthquake fault and will need to be totally rebuilt so Shell can build a concrete plant on top of the hill and truck in literally thousands of loads of aggregate, supplies and windmill parts.

During construction, that road would be impassable to local traffic. Every trip from (town) to the bridge would take one hour instead of 10 minutes. It is highly unlikely Ferndale’s tourism business would survive the construction season, nor the houses and historic buildings the punishing vibrations from monster trucks.

In exchange, Shell promises a giant night-lit construction yard, white and red blinking lights atop a currently dark ridgetop, whirling blades in marbled murrelet and spotted owl habitat, an enormous noise footprint, power lines running through private property whose owners do not want electrical lines… ”

What a confounding country we are these days. We’ve got one set of folks denying climate change, evolution and the role of government, another demanding government job creation and the preservation of social programs, still others who’d hug a tree in lieu of any form of development, and that big exhausted bunch in the chewy center who truly and, perhaps, naively, believe there’s a middle ground to be found in most things. Well, maybe not climate change and evolution denial, but pretty much everything else.

Extremism is all the rage (emphasis on “rage”) and if you are to be thought of as something, you’re obligated to be that thing without nuance or flexibility. Environmental defender vs. job creator. Green thinker vs. technology warrior. Ecologically minded vs. economically minded. Whatever variation on the theme, the only commonality to be found is the vs.in between. The versus. The opposition. The either/or.

I don’t see it that way, the implacable either/or. Sometimes there is a middle ground that is often the most logical place to set up camp and make wise decisions.

For example, I clearly understand the need for jobs but don’t see the upside of decimating a 2000-acre redwood forest to create some for the wine industry, particularly when other options are available. (May we suggest a pinot with that redwood forest?).

We do need to wean ourselves from foreign oil but drilling (baby, drilling) the pristine, incomparable Alaskan wilderness seems shortsighted in the long run.

Blowing off mountaintops and polluting land and rivers downstream seems a self-sabotaging way to provide jobs and alternative energy sources.

And erecting 25 (potentially more) giant industrial wind turbines at the top of one of the most naturally beautiful areas of northern California to provide wind energy for parts down south seems a flouting of the “do no harm” philosophy of environmentalism.

But that’s what Shell Oil’s got planned for the tiny, bucolic Victorian village of Ferndale, Calif. Apparently, beyond all its many other virtues, Ferndale’s got “good wind.” Shell’s been up on Bear River Ridge quietly testing for the last several years and, by golly, damn fine wind up there! And with that revelation, in blows Big Oil to sell the citizens of Ferndale on the idea of Wind Energy with a capital W and that rhymes with pretty much nuthin’ and that stands for “Wait a damn minute!” To mix ditties, they plan to pave paradise and it ain’t just to put up a parking lot.

I’ve written about Ferndale before (Women Of the News: Ferndale’s Enterprising Editor, Caroline Titus). Ferndale’s main cachet is its tangible aura of untouched rural life; a small town with historical and beautifully preserved Victorians (the entire town is on the Historic Registry), verdant dairy farms stretching from road to ocean, Redwood covered mountains, crystalline creeks and rivers; rolling hills of wildlife and every imaginable ecosystem. It truly is a living postcard and that very quality is its visceral draw to the many citizens and tourists who abound.

Now picture this:

Looming large just above Ferndale’s rural charm and tranquility is a hulking line-up of 25 endlessly whirring industrial wind turbines forever blighting the natural landscape. Mix in almost a year of construction, with monster trucks trolling 5 mph through town day in and day out, homes and historic buildings marked for eminent domain consideration; roads, infrastructure, habitats and wildlife impacted, and… WAIT! What?!

Oh, but there’ll be some jobs, lots of post-contruction perks, a commerce bump, some landowners will profit from licensing, and it’s green, baby, green!!

Talk about a deal with the… Big Oil.

Let’s go back to the quibble in the middle. What if you are environmentally conscious and passionate to support green energy? Perhaps you’re someone focused on the importance of jobs and the spending flush industry will bring. Maybe you’re a preservationist who firmly believes damaging a natural environment is ecologically antithetic. What if you’re all of the above?

The Jobs/Commerce Contingent: a letter-writer to The Ferndale Enterprise (who charmingly included “buttinsky” in his signature) outlined what he felt were the weaknesses in the argument against, pushing the value of the hoped-for commerce and promised jobs (most temporary, a few more permanent), suggesting patience as information evolves. His take: one could “get used to” whatever inconvenience or landscape changes would be wrought. A feet-on-the-ground sort.

The Preservationist Contingent: local photographer, Dan Stubbs, Jr. opined the long-term impact: “Part of the beauty of this area is driving across Fernbridge and seeing the town nestled against the beautiful mountains. Placement of giant wind generators on the ridge would be an eyesore, discouraging tourism and affecting the economy of our picturesque Victorian village… I can see no benefit to the people of Ferndale, the Eel River Valley or Humboldt County… If (this project) is completed, the look of this beautiful valley will be forever changed. My only hope then may be that we have more of our foggy, overcast days to shield us from the unsightly wind generators looming over the valley.” Shangri-La sold out, as another townsperson agreed.

The Environmentalist Contingent: this well-intentioned group sees this project as a vital opportunity for Humboldt County to contribute to the alternative energy game, even if it is at Ferndale’s expense. One fuming commenter (appropriately named “Enraged Environmentalist”) wrote: “If doing my part meant putting up a 2MW wind turbine in my back yard, I would gladly do it. If Ferndale and the other NIMBY squeaky wheels get this plan scuttled, I will personally boycott the town’s business for the remainder of my days, and encourage everyone else I know to do so as well… I did not think it was possible for me to be so angry at a small town in Humboldt County.” Take that, you, you… Ferndale!

The Nature Lover/Get Real Contingent: Ferndale biologist, herpetologist and author, Ellin Beltz, contributed the following: “The project is on virgin ranch land, the road to it is an active earthquake fault and will need to be totally rebuilt so Shell can build a concrete plant on top of the hill and truck in literally thousands of loads of aggregate, supplies and windmill parts. During construction, that road would be impassable to local traffic. Every trip from (town) to the bridge would take one hour instead of 10 minutes. It is highly unlikely Ferndale’s tourism business would survive the construction season, nor the houses and historic buildings the punishing vibrations from monster trucks. In exchange, Shell promises a giant night-lit construction yard, white and red blinking lights atop a currently dark ridgetop, whirling blades in marbled murrelet and spotted owl habitat, an enormous noise footprint, power lines running through private property whose owners do not want electrical lines… ”

Get the dilemma?

NIMBYism is the default invective hurled these days when anyone raises valid questions about what’s being sold, but name-calling and threatened boycotts are cheap shots when the stakes are so high. After all, just how GREEN is this technology really? Who amongst us is sufficiently schooled on the true efficiency and safety of giant wind turbines? I’ve seen them stretched across dry, treeless land abutting freeways and thought, “now there’s a good use of unpopulated, barren landscape,” but frankly, I don’t know much about them. Recently I was sent a link to a new documentary currently winning awards and readying for distribution with First Run Features – Windfall, the Movie – and after viewing the trailer and reading the blog at their site, I had the exact questions one of those interviewed in the film ominously suggested be asked. And, indeed, some ominous information exists to be very seriously considered. The documentation is plentiful, generally dissuading and very contradictory. Not exactly a convincing foundation upon which to make irrevocable decisions that alter the landscape and character of an entire region!

Enraged Environmentalist stated: “The entire planet is involved in a war with itself right now. We have two choices: Drastically change our way of life, or take responsibility and deal with the consequences. It’s not going to be easy, it’s not going to be fun, but it’s the only choice.”

I agree, EE, but come to a different conclusion.

We are stewards of this land we live on. Our immediate concerns and needs do engage our moment in time, but in realistically and ethically seeking solutions we cannot eschew all responsibility to future generations. How much of our natural planet do we preserve for them? How much of it do we sacrifice for jobs, money and new technology, green or otherwise? As a concerned environmentalist, a property owner who loves the area, and a parent who hopes my son’s grandchildren can still find natural, unspoiled, unindustrialized rural land to enjoy long after we’re gone, I personally cannot support the Shell Oil wind turbine project in Ferndale.

What I can support is re-framing the debate as a wake-up call for the community; one that inspires both a commitment to preserve the natural landscape of the area, as well as focuses new energy on bringing in jobs and needed commerce; supporting local merchants, promoting tourism, and becoming as environmentally proactive as possible. The vibrancy, passion and energy exhibited in this debate can and should be redirected toward those goals.

NEXT STORY:

FEDERAL GUIDELINES FAIL TO MAKE WIND POWER BIRD-SMART, BREAK FEDERAL LAWS, AND RELY ON UNLIKELY VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE

American Bird Conservancy,

SOURCE www.abcbirds.org 

September 20, 2011

(Washington, D.C., September 20, 2011) The Department of the Interior (DOI) has released a revised, third version of its voluntary wind development siting and operational guidelines that fails to ensure that bird deaths at wind farms are minimized, says American Bird Conservancy, the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.

Furthermore, the public has been given only ten days to comment. The final opportunity for the public to discuss these guidelines with DOI will be at a federal advisory committee meeting today and tomorrow.

“ABC is very much pro wind energy. America has the potential to create a truly green energy source that does not unduly harm birds, but the Department of the Interior is squandering the opportunity to be ‘smart from the start’,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Campaign Coordinator for American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization. “The latest draft of the wind guidelines is not only voluntary, making industry compliance unlikely, but also offers assurances that wind companies won’t be prosecuted for illegally killing federally protected birds such as Bald and Golden Eagles. These guidelines set a dangerous precedent for other energy industries to seek the same freedom to break America’s wildlife protection laws without repercussions,” said Fuller.

“Astonishingly, the current draft of the guidelines allows wind power companies to unilaterally determine whether they are in compliance with the ’guidelines’ and, on that basis, to immunize themselves from any prosecution under federal wildlife protection statutes regardless of how many eagles, hawks, warblers, or other protected species they wind up taking. This would be unfathomable as applied to any other energy sector or, for that matter, any other regulatory sphere. This goes way beyond merely being bad policy; it is a flagrant violation of the protective schemes adopted in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,” said Eric Glitzenstein, a Founding Partner at Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal, a Washington, D.C. based public-interest law firm.

One wind farm in California is already estimated to have killed over 2,000 eagles in what would appear to be significant violations of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Yet the wind company has yet to be prosecuted or even charged, and has only implemented meaningful operational changes in recent years following legal action taken not by the federal government, but by environmental groups.

This version of the wind industry guidelines was issued on September 13, 2011. The Department of the Interior will accept comments on the proposal until September 23, 2011.

“Giving a mere ten days to look over this 130-page package makes it almost impossible for the public to provide a meaningful response,” Fuller said.

Recommendations on wind energy were developed over a two-year period by an industry-dominated, 22-member Federal Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior in March 2010. Over the next year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists made a series of changes to those recommendations to improve protection for birds. Those revised guidelines were then published for public comment in February 2011. An overwhelming number of the comments called for the guidelines to be strengthened, not weakened. The guidelines also underwent scientific peer review.

“Right now we have a chance to get wind power right from the start – with little added costs. But if we push these voluntary guidelines forward without making them bird-smart to protect the environment, it may be our children who may ultimately regret our hasty decisions,” said Fuller.

A second set of proposed guidelines was then issued by DOI on July 12, 2011, but rather than strengthening the initial draft, it removed many key bird protection elements, reversing recommendations from professional DOI wildlife staff and adding unrealistic wind project approval deadlines that ABC concludes would lead to “rubber-stamping” of wind development.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that in 2009, the wind industry was killing about 440,000 birds per year, yet has ignored its own estimate. With the Federal Government targeting a 12-fold increase in wind generated electricity by the year 2030, annual bird mortality is expected to increase into the millions absent meaningful changes in the industry. Species of conservation concern appear to be particularly at risk including the Golden Eagle, Greater Sage-Grouse and the endangered Whooping Crane.

More than 60 groups and over 20,000 individuals organized by ABC have called for mandatory standards and bird-smart principles in the siting and operation of wind farms. The coalition represents a broad cross-section of respected national and local groups, as well as scientists, bird lovers, conservationists, and other concerned citizens.

STUDY LINKS WIND TURBINE NOISE AND SLEEP DISRUPTION:

Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report  

Michael Nissenbaum MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, mnissenbaum@att.net 

Jeff Aramini PhD, Intelligent Health Solutions Inc., Fergus, Ontario, Canada, jeff.aramini@gmail.com

Chris Hanning MD, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK, chrisdhanning@tiscali.co.uk

PRESENTED AT THE 10th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON NOISE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM (ICBEN) 2011 London, UK

This study, which is the first controlled study of the effects of IWT noise on sleep and health, shows that those living within 1.4 km of IWT have suffered sleep disruption which is sufficiently severe as to affect their daytime functioning and mental health.

Both the ESS and PSQI are averaged measures, i.e. they ask the subject to assess their daytime sleepiness and sleep quality respectively, over a period of several weeks leading up to the present. For the ESS to increase, sleep must have been shortened or fragmented to a sufficient degree on sufficient nights for normal compensatory mechanisms to have been overcome.

The effects of sleep loss and daytime sleepiness on cognitive function, accident rate and mental health are well established (WHO 2009) and it must be concluded that at least some of the residents living near the Vinalhaven and

Mars Hill IWT installations have suffered serious harm to their sleep and health.

The significant relationship between the symptoms and distance from the IWTs, the subjects’ report that their symptoms followed the start of IWT operations, the congruence of the symptoms reported here with previous research and reports and the clear mechanism is strong evidence that IWT noise is the cause of the observed effects.

IWT noise has an impulsive character and is several times more annoying than other sources of noise for the same sound pressure level (Pedersen & Persson Waye 2004).

It can prevent the onset of sleep and the return to sleep after a spontaneous or induced awakening. Road, rail and aircraft noise causes arousals, brief lightening of sleep which are not recalled. While not proven, it is highly likely that IWT noise will cause arousals which may prove to be the major mechanism for sleep disruption.

 It is possible that the low frequency and infrasound components of IWT noise might contribute to the sleep disruption and health effects by other mechanisms but this remains to be determined and further research is needed.

Attitudes to IWT and visual impact have been shown to be factors in annoyance to IWT noise (Pedersen et al. 2009) but have not been demonstrated for sleep disturbance. Most respondents in the present study welcomed the IWT installations as offering economic benefits. The visual impact of IWT decreases with distance, as does the noise impact making separation of these factors impossible.

We conclude that IWT noise at these two sites disrupts the sleep and adversely affects the health of those living nearby. The current ordinances determining setback are inadequate to protect the residents and setbacks of less than 1.5 km must be regarded as unsafe. Further research is needed to determine a safe setback distance and to investigate the mechanisms of causation.