From Indiana

Between 300 and 400 people filled the Culver Elementary School gymnasium Saturday morning for what was billed as an informational meeting sponsored by Concerned Property Owners of Southern Marshall County, Indiana.

The topic of the day has become a hot one in recent weeks and months in the area: the proposed placement of more than 60 400-plus foot wind turbines across several thousand acres in parts of Marshall and Fulton Counties by Florida based energy company Nextera.

Three presenters detailed concerns raised by some in the area over the project, which was formally denounced by Culver's Parks and Recreation board recently.

Lake Maxinkuckee resident Mark Levett, who added he grew up in the Plymouth area, opened the event by noting the intent was "to represent facts and not get too emotional." He showed a map of the proposed area of some 17,000 acres and explained Nextera is owned by Florida Power and Light, "the largest operator of wind turbines in the U.S."

Levett also described the blades for each turbine as stretching from one end of the gymnasium to the other, and the towers as 45 stories high.

"They're visible for 10 miles," he said. "That's basically (comparable to skyscrapers in) downtown Indianapolis."

Levett said the turbines do not reduce power rates and while they "have a lot of green features...you don't have them unless they're subsidized.

"The average statistic is you need about 30 percent subsidies to make wind turbines viable. The industry has been around for 30 years and you still need a 30 percent subsidy."

He also pointed out two European countries are moving wind turbines offshore to avoid some of the complications they cause near human and animal residences.

"Reported symptoms (of those living near existing turbines) include headaches, blurred vision, nausea sleeplessness, ringing and buzzing in your ears, dizziness vertigo, memory and concentration problems, and depression. For every article that says there are no health effects, there's one that says there are."

Levett said Marshall County's present ordinances call for turbines to be placed 1,000 feet from homes, while he said doctors nationwide are recommending a distance of one and a half miles for safety. The impact on livestock from voltage surrounding the towers has also been controversial, he added, as has bird and bat kills by the blades, though he acknowledged the question of "how many is too many (killed)" is up for debate.

"There's no controversy about this," Levett said. "If you're in sight of a turbine, it causes you to lose land value -- six to 30 percent."

Prior to the meeting, as audience members filed in, a Youtube station video showing "shadow flicker" effects inside and outside a home near an existing turbine was shown in rotation on the gymnasium's screen.

Levett also showed photos taken at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin and nearby Lake Winnebago, where dozens of turbines were clearly visible.

"Those turbines are eight miles away," he said of the photos. He referenced a full-page advertisement published by Nextera in the August 11 Culver Citizen, which noted the company is moving its study area three miles to the east (further away from Lake Maxinkuckee). The move would still leave the turbines highly visible on the Lake Maxinkuckee skyline, according to Levett, who again referred to the Wisconsin photos as examples.

"This will be our new view from the lake," he said. "Get informed -- it's a big decision for Marshall County."

Steve Snyder, an attorney engaged by the event's sponsoring organization, detailed the county's procedures regarding the project, explaining the decision to accept or reject Nextera's proposal will ultimately be made by the Marshall County Board of Zoning Appeals, which he said is required by its own ordinances and state law to consider several factors in its determination.

First, Snyder explained, the project "can't be injurious to the public's health, safety, and welfare."

It must meet development standards in the Marshall County zoning ordinances.

It must not permanently injure property or uses in the vicinity, "which means," he added, "will it reduce property values?

I would suggest the evidence is conclusive that you will see a drop on property values when your property is in visibility of one of these things."

Lastly, the project must be consistent with Marshall County's comprehensive plan, which Snyder said does not anticipate wind farms, and so isn't a serious consideration.

The BZA, he noted, must consider "every aspect of a project at a public hearing," which will take place after an application has been filed, which has not yet occurred in this case.

He emphasized counter-evidence to that presented by the petitioner -- in this case Nextera -- should be presented in that hearing, though Nextera "has the burden of proving those four elements (required for the project's approval) I just discussed."

Setbacks from homes, said Snyder, are one factor to be considered.

"If somebody puts a tower up and you own a building site within a thousand feet,” he said, “you're prevented from building on your own land."

Other factors include security and noise, which is limited here to 55 decibels. Further, he said, a decommissioning plan is required for the project to prevent abandoned wind farms as exist in some parts of the country.

"Essentially you're looking at a minimum of one public hearing at which five members of the county commission will hear from Nextera."

Rounding out Saturday’s program was a detailed presentation from Roger McEowen, a professor in Agricultural Law at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, where he is also the Director of the ISU Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation.

McEowen encouraged the audience to read up on the details of his presentation as well as legal issues for landowners potentially negotiating a lease with wind companies, on the Center's website at www.calt.iastate.edu [3].

He primarily focused on the benefits and drawbacks on wind energy nationally and globally. Currently, he said, wind generates about one percent of the United States' power needs, though some have proposed that by 2020, six percent will be wind-derived.

"However," he added, "the U.S. Energy Administration's annual energy outlook for 2006 concluded that by 2030, wind power would supply no more than 1.2 percent of U.S. energy if current incentives and subsidies stay in place."

McEowen emphasized subsidies are driving the wind energy industry today, and questioned whether -- in light of present budgetary woes on the federal level -- those subsidies will hold out much longer.

Further, states like Iowa, California, Minnesota, Texas, and Kansas, some of the top wind energy production states at present, differ from Indiana in that each has large amounts of open space away from people, he said.

On a map McEowen showed from the U.S. Department of Energy depicting most and least viable locations to place wind farms, some parts of Indiana were rated "fair" for placement, but the local area designated for placement was blank, ranking it of dubious viability.

When asked why a company would choose to build here under such conditions, McEowen noted Marshall County has "good access to the (energy distribution grid)."

He also suggested the company will profit because of subsidies offered per kilowatt hour for wind generated.
McEowen described motives for the current push for wind energy development nationally, including improvements in the industry's technology, high fuel prices, mandates in 29 states requiring certain amounts of generated energy to be renewable, difficulty in launching new coal-fired power projects, and financial viability of wind projects due to tax credits and other subsidies.

He refuted the claim that wind energy makes the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. Petroleum, he said, only generates eight tenths of one percent of American electrical power. Instead, most domestic electricity comes from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

The wind industry wouldn't exist, McEowen said, without federal incentives, and the income tax credit per kilowatt hour for electricity produced by a qualified wind facility is 2.2 cents.

Many states also subsidize wind energy, he said, alongside reductions or exemptions from state or local property sales and other taxes.

Some states, such as Wyoming, McEowen noted, are taxing wind companies due to the full "social cost" of wind farms to taxpayers, ranging from road construction and repair to police and fire protection related to the farms.

While wind farms do create jobs, McEowen added, since most jobs are due to government subsidies, the net effect is simply a shift from non-subsidized labor to subsidized, rather than creation of genuinely "new" jobs.

"When Spain reduced its alternative energy subsidies," he said, "thousands of jobs were lost."

Also discussed was whether industrial wind farms constitute "the next generation of nuisance lawsuits."

McEowen detailed possible legal claims from neighbors of wind turbine-hosting land, ranging from ice throws when blades -- which can spin at more than 150 miles per hour -- ice up, to malfunction or lightning strike-rooted fires, interference with radio or TV signals, to aforementioned health impacts on adjacent landowners.

He cited several studies on the health effects of the turbines.

Most courts, he emphasized will only recognize nuisance claims after the towers have been installed, rather than in an anticipatory manner. Instead, it was noted the local legislative process is the best manner to address concerns before wind farm placement.

Property values have been shown to be negatively impacted by proximity to the turbines in some studies, McEowen said, by 10 to 30 percent.

"All this is related to how close these are to your home or business," he added. "Does this part of the country have enough open space to get these away from people?"

Among topics discussed in a question and answer session near the close of the program included potential conflict of interest for any members of the county's BZA, something Snyder said is required to be disclosed by county and state statute.

"Typically, (conflict of interest) means there's financial benefit flowing to one who votes that could affect his decision," he added.

Also discussed was the effect of the farms on Doppler radar for weather predictions. One group member said a wind farm near Lafayette, Indiana, causes the appearance of a major storm to be constant on radar-based weather maps, creating "trouble predicting tornadoes."

From Australia

 LEONARD'S HILL WIND FARM: HEPBURN MAYOR RESPONDS

SOURCE The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

August 19 2011

BY BRENDAN GULLIFER,

Shop owner Jan Perry said yesterday she had been seeing a Ballarat doctor for sleep problems following the activation of turbines.

Ms Perry, 57, said her doctor was “surprised and shocked” that she also had high blood pressure.

A third Leonards Hill resident has gone public about alleged health problems caused by living near Hepburn wind farm.

Shop owner Jan Perry said yesterday she had been seeing a Ballarat doctor for sleep problems following the activation of turbines.

Ms Perry, 57, said her doctor was “surprised and shocked” that she also had high blood pressure.

“I’ve always had normal blood pressure and had it taken back in May and it was still normal,” Ms Perry said. “But my doctor took it again on Tuesday and it was up.”

Ms Perry said she had constant earache since the turbines started.

Ms Perry is one of at least two Leonards Hill residents who have made formal complaints to the Environmental Protection Authority about turbine noise.

She said the shire of Hepburn had failed in its duty of care to residents.

“Hepburn Wind and the shire have ruined our lives,” she said. “We can’t sell, we can’t move.”

But another Leonards Hill resident spoke highly of the turbines.

Dianne Watson, 56, a pensioner, rents a cottage with her husband from turbine landholder Ron Liversidge.

“We’re down the hill, below the turbines, and you can’t hear them at all,” Mrs Watson said.

Mayor Rod May said he hadn’t received any correspondence “of late” about problems associated with the wind farm.

“The shire probably needs to be convinced of the causal link between the wind turbines and the syndromes that are being presented,” he said.

Second story:

WIND FARM SICKNESS: BALLARAT DOCTOR CALLS FOR STUDY

SOURCE The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

August 19 2011

BY BRENDAN GULLIFER,

“Patients present with a complex array of symptoms. You hear it once, then a second person comes along with something similar. By the third or fourth person, you’re starting to think there’s something here.

A Ballarat doctor yesterday joined the wind turbine debate, comparing the alleged link between health problems associated with turbines to cigarette smoking’s connection to cancer back in the 1950s.

Sleep physician Dr Wayne Spring said he had been treating patients from Waubra and Leonards Hill and he supported a senate inquiry call for a formal health study.

“Research needs to be done into the whole concept of wind farms,” Dr Spring said yesterday. “It’s like cigarettes in the 50s; people didn’t believe they caused lung cancer and now we’ve got people living near turbines coming in early with all sorts of conditions. We’ve got to acknowledge the facts.

“Some of these people are called hysterics or it’s psychosomatic or they’re labelled as jumping on the bandwagon. People in industry and government dismiss these people but this is an important issue.”

Dr Spring’s comments follow those this week of Daylesford doctor Andja Mitric-Andjic.

Dr Mitric-Andjic said she had been treating Leonards Hill residents for problems associated with sleep disturbance since turbines began operating in the area earlier this year.

Hepburn Wind chairman Simon Holmes a Court said much of the anxiety from residents living near turbines was created by “misinformation spread by anti-wind activists”.

But Dr Spring said the problem was anecdotal evidence was not regarded as scientific.

“We do not have evidence,” he said. “I can’t be dogmatic but we do not have evidence to refute there is a problem.

“Patients present with a complex array of symptoms. You hear it once, then a second person comes along with something similar. By the third or fourth person, you’re starting to think there’s something here.

“Bad sleep is bad for you, regardless of whether it’s caused by noise or anxiety about a situation.”

From Australia

HEPBURN WIND FARM: LOCAL DOCTOR SPEAKS OUT

The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

August 18 2011

BY BRENDAN GULLIFER

[Local Doctor] said patients had come to see her to complain about the noise from the two local turbines.

“They can’t sleep and in the morning they wake up exhausted. They can’t function. They have poor concentration, probably because of poor sleeping.”

[Local resident] Mr Liversidge said he had been doing his own noise monitoring, by parking his car on the road and listening.

“Anybody can come and listen for themselves,” he said. “I don’t believe there’s any problems whatsoever.”

A local doctor has spoken out publicly for the first time after treating patients for symptoms associated with living near wind turbines.

Dr Andja Mitric-Andjic, who practises in Daylesford, said she had treated at least two local patients for sleep deprivation, and spoken with others living near the Hepburn wind farm.

SECOND STORY

From Michigan

JUDGE ORDERS WIND COMPANY'S TOWER TO TOPPLE

SOURCE Daily Telegram, www.lenconnect.com

August 17, 2011

FAIRFIELD TWP., Mich. — A 262-foot tower set up last fall to monitor weather for a potential wind energy project must come down, a judge ruled Monday.

The tower built by Orisol Energy U.S. Inc. is in violation of Fairfield Township zoning ordinances, ruled Lenawee County Circuit Judge Margaret M.S. Noe. She granted a motion by the township to affirm a February decision by Fairfield Township’s zoning board of appeals that the tower violates zoning requirements.

Orisol had the tower and weather monitoring equipment installed on property on Arnold Highway in November in preparation for a potential wind energy project. It is one of three companies working on plans to install commercial wind turbines in Riga, Ogden, Fairfield and Palmyra townships.

A legal battle developed over the tower after Orisol neglected to obtain a permit from the township before erecting it. The company did have permits from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Michigan Department of Transportation aeronautics division.

Responding to township officials, Orisol sought permission to keep the tower in December but it was denied. The zoning board of appeals reviewed an application from the company for a waiver but voted to deny it after a public hearing in February.

Orisol went to court, arguing the tower is not excluded by the township’s zoning ordinance and a 39-foot height limit for buildings in agricultural zones does not apply to towers.

An attorney for the township filed a lengthy motion in June, asking the court to affirm the zoning board of appeals decision and rule the tower a nuisance that must be removed. Attorney Carson Tucker of Farmington Hills referred to it as a “262-foot monstrosity” that is harming local citizens and neighbors.

The case had been scheduled for a jury trial in February. Monday’s ruling requires the tower to be removed unless further court action is taken to grant a delay.

Dr Mitric-Andjic, who lives at Korweinguboora, said she, her husband and14-year-old son had also suffered sleep interruption since the turbines began operating.

Dr Mitric-Andjic said she decided to speak out because the problems being experienced by local residents could not be ignored.

“Wind farm, what do you mean wind farm?” she said.

“This is industrial. No one is against green energy. Everyone would say yes, of course, but put it out of residential areas.”

Dr Mitric-Andjic, 49, practises at Springs Medical Centre. She and her husband bought land on the Ballan-Daylesford Road seven years ago and built a house there last year.

She said patients had come to see her to complain about the noise from the two local turbines.

“They can’t sleep and in the morning they wake up exhausted. They can’t function. They have poor concentration, probably because of poor sleeping.”

Hepburn Wind chairman Simon Holmes a Court said any claims of adverse health effects would be taken “very seriously”.

“As a community organisation, we’re very concerned about the well-being of our community,” Mr Homes a Court said.

“If anyone is concerned that the turbines are harming them, we want to meet to understand their claims. Our project officer lives in Leonards Hill and is in frequent contact with the community around the wind farm.”

Turbine landholder Ron Liversidge said any claims of noise problems were “completely false”.

Mr Liversidge said he had been doing his own noise monitoring, by parking his car on the road and listening.

“Anybody can come and listen for themselves,” he said. “I don’t believe there’s any problems whatsoever.”

ENERGY IN AMERICA: SACRIFICE OF PROTECTED BIRDS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF WIND POWER DEVELOPMENT

SOURCE www.foxnews.com

17 August 2011

As California attempts to divorce itself from fossil-fueled electricity, it may be trading one environmental sin for another — although you don’t hear state officials admitting it.

Wind power is the fastest growing component in the state’s green energy portfolio, but wildlife advocates say the marriage has an unintended consequence: dead birds, including protected species of eagles, hawks and owls.

“The cumulative impacts are huge,” said Shawn Smallwood, one of the few recognized experts studying the impact of wind farms on migratory birds. “It is not inconceivable to me that we could reduce golden eagle populations by a great deal, if not wipe them out.”

California supports roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state’s largest wind farms kill, on average, more than 80 eagles per year. But the state is set to triple wind capacity in the coming years as it tries to become the first state in the nation to generate 33 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2020.

“We would like to have no bird deaths and no bird injuries. But, once again, we have to balance all the needs of society. All the people who want to flip their switch and have electricity in their homes,” said Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County planning commissioner.

Kern County has identified some 225,000 acres just north of Los Angeles as a prime wind resource area. Unfortunately, the area’s rolling hills and mountains are prime hunting grounds for raptors and a layover spot for migratory birds traveling between Canada and Mexico. The updrafts enjoyed by birds of prey are ideal for generating power.

“I’m not against wind power — it is a viable form of energy generation — but it needs to be developed more carefully,” Smallwood said.

Case in point: In the Bay Area, when activists in the 1980s demanded a cleaner planet, the state responded with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The state-approved wind farm, built with federal tax credits, kills 4,700 birds annually, including 1,300 raptors, among them 70 golden eagles, according to biological reports generated on behalf of the owners.

Smallwood said replacing the small, older turbines with larger blades has cut some species fatalities roughly in half.

Oviatt said Kern County is trying to learn from Altamont’s mistakes.

“We’re requiring full environmental impact reports, which take at least 12 to 18 months,” Oviatt said. “Can I promise that a bird will never be injured or killed? I can’t. But again, we have this tradeoff in society, between the things we need to function as an economy and the fact that we wanna make sure we have an environment for future generations.”

Pine Tree is one of the wind farms in Kern County and is operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. According to an internal DWP bird and bat mortality report for the year ending June 2010, bird fatality rates were “relatively high” at Pine Tree compared to 45 other wind facilities nationwide. The facility’s annual death rate per turbine is three times higher for golden eagles than at Altamont.

“Politics plays a huge role here,” Smallwood said. “Our leaders want this power source so they’re giving, for a time being, a pass to the wind industry. If you or I killed an eagle, we’re looking at major consequences.”

Smallwood and others say it is almost inconceivable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, hasn’t acted.

“There’s a big, big hypocrisy here,” Sue Hammer of Tehachapi Wildlife Rehab in Kern County said. “If I shoot an eagle, it’s a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice.”

She’s not far off from the reality.

In 2009, Exxon pleaded guilty to causing the deaths of about 85 migratory birds in five states that came into contact with crude oil in uncovered waste tanks. The fine for this was $600,000.

Likewise, PacifiCorp, an Oregon utility, owed $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming.

And in 2005, the owner of a fish hatchery was ordered to serve six months in a federal halfway house and pay a $65,000 fine for shooting an eagle that was feeding at his uncovered hatchery.

Wind power in the U.S. generates 41,400 megawatts of electricity. California represents just a fraction of that total, suggesting the number of raptor kills is considerably higher nationwide. Yet according to records, USFWS has not prosecuted a single company for violating one of the many statutes protecting threatened and endangered birds.

From Ontario

A Summary of new evidence:

Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines

DOWNLOAD ENTIRE DOCUMENT BY CLICKING HERE: Summary of New Evidence on Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines - August 2011  

by Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm and Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA

Any errors or omissions contained within this document are unintentional.

August 2011

To whom it may concern

In previous communications, evidence has been provided regarding the risk of adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines (IWTs). Up to now, the siting of IWTs in Ontario is based on predictive computer modelling.

While there is ample evidence regarding adverse health effects, the conduct of human health studies to determine regulations for setbacks and noise levels that protect health is still lacking.

The purpose of this document is to inform authorities and decision makers of new evidence, including articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals which advance knowledge on the topic of adverse health effects of IWTs.

Based on the evidence compiled in this document, no further IWT projects should be approved in proximity to humans until human health studies are conducted to determine setbacks and noise levels that will ensure the health and welfare of all exposed individuals.

Furthermore where there are reports of adverse health and/or noise complaints IWTs should be decommissioned until the human health studies have been conducted to determine regulations for setbacks and noise levels that protect health.

This summary may be used and submitted by other individuals.

No financial compensation has been requested nor received for this summary.

Denial of adverse health effects

For years now, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) has denied that wind turbines can cause adverse health effects. However, based on previously known and recent information, this denial is incorrect.

A 2008 CanWEA media release informs the world “Scientists conclude that there is no evidence that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

1. None of references included in this CanWEA media release state “there is no evidence that windturbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

An April 2009 CanWEA fact sheet states “Findings clearly show that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

2. The fact sheet contains eight references, none of which state “there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.”

A 2009 CanWEA convened literature review concludes “Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effect in humans.”

3. However, the contents of the literature review contradict this conclusion by acknowledging IWT noise may cause annoyance, stress and sleep disturbance and as a result people may experience adverse physiological and psychological symptoms.

The literature review acknowledges possible symptoms include distraction, dizziness, eye strain, fatigue, feeling vibration, headache, insomnia, muscle spasm, nausea, nose bleeds, palpitations, pressure in the ears or head, skin burns, stress, and tension.

The above CanWEA sponsored statements which deny risk of adverse health effects are scientifically incorrect.

Assertions that IWTs do not pose a risk to human health only serve to confuse authorities and the public on the issue wind turbines and health effects. For example, Ontario Minister of Health Matthews reportedly stated “There is no evidence, whatsoever, that there is an issue related to turbines,”

4. This statement is scientifically incorrect. July 2011 Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) Decision, Ontario
As noted above, the CanWEA sponsored Colby et al. (2009) literature review stated “Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effect in humans.”

5. Three of the co-authors of this statement, Drs. Colby, Leventhall, and McCunney testified on behalf of the Respondents (Ministry of Environment, Suncor Energy Services Inc.) during an Ontarian Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT). Evidence provided at the ERT demonstrated the above statement authored by the
CanWEA sponsored panel experts is incorrect.

The July 2011 ERT decision for an IWT project in Ontario 6 confirmed IWTs can harm humans:

“While the Appellants were not successful in their appeals, the Tribunal notes that their involvement and that of the Respondents, has served to advance the state of the debate about wind turbines and human health.

This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.” (p. 207)

Evidence and testimony provided to the ERT by witnesses called by the Appellants served to advance understanding of IWT induced health impacts.

It is now acknowledged that IWTs do pose a risk of adverse health effect in humans if they are improperly sited.

All ten of the witnesses called upon by the Appellants were qualified as expert witnesses. The expert witnesses called upon by the Appellants have been involved in original research on the health effects of IWTs and/or have had related articles accepted in peer reviewed scientific journals.

During the ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledged IWTs sound is perceived to be more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels.

Peer reviewed articles and other references acknowledge annoyance to be an adverse health effect. (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2007 7; Michaud et al. 2005 8; Health Canada, 2005 9; Suter, 1991 10)

During the ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents [11, 12 , 13 , 14] and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledge annoyance to be a health effect.

Research confirms for chronically strong annoyance a causal chain exists between the three steps health–strong annoyance–increased morbidity [15] and must be classified as a serious health risk. [16]

During the ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledged IWTs “will” cause annoyance, which can result in stress related health impacts including sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep, and depression.

During the ERT witnesses for both the Respondents and/or the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which indicate plausible causes of these health effects include: IWT amplitude modulation, audible low frequency sound, infrasound, tonality, lack of nighttime abatement, shadow flicker, visual impact, economic impacts or a combination thereof.

It is acknowledged Ontario regulations and/or noise guidelines will not protect all individuals from these health impacts.

A 2010 final draft report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) states: “The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed.

As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.” [17]

MOE documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request confirm current Ontario IWT guidelines will cause adverse effects. One 2010 MOE internal memorandum states:

“It appears compliance with the minimum setbacks and the noise study approach currently being used to approve the siting of WTGs will result or likely result in adverse effects contrary to subsection 14(1) of the EPA” [18]

Another MOE reference documents Ontario families that have abandoned their homes due to sleep disturbance caused by exposure to wind farms. [19] Sleep disturbance is an adverse health effect.

MOE correspondence also documents families that have moved out of their homes and have made financial settlements with the respective IWT developer. [20]

Based on original research in Ontario, and elsewhere, a peer reviewed article states: “It is acknowledged that IWTs, if not sited properly, can adversely affect the health of exposed individuals. In addition to physiological and psychological symptoms there are individuals reporting adverse impacts, including reduced well-being, degraded living conditions, and adverse societal and economic impacts. These adverse impacts culminate in expressions of a loss of fairness and social justice.

The above impacts represent a serious degradation of health in accordance with commonly accepted definitions of health as defined by the WHO and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.” [21]

August 2011 peer reviewed articles published in a scientific journal

Subsequent to the July Ontario ERT decision nine peer reviewed articles have been published in a special August, 2011 edition of the scientific journal, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society (BSTS). These articles explore health and social impacts of IWT installations. [22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30]

The Special Edition is entitled Windfarms, Communities and Ecosystems. Included in the special edition, is a commentary by the editor, Willem H. Vanderburg. [31]

The SAGE website states: “The goal of the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society is to provide a means
of communication within as wide of a spectrum of the STS community as possible. This includes faculty and students from sciences, engineering, the humanities, and social science in the newly emerging groups on university and college campuses, and in the high school systems, all of which teach integrative STS subject matters. It also includes professionals in government, industry and universities, ranging from philosophers and historians of science to social scientists concerned with the effects of science and technology, scientists and engineers involved with the study and policy-making of their own craft, and the concerned general leader. A third category of readers represents "society": all journalists dealing with the impacts of science
and technology in their respected fields, the public interest groups and the attentive public.” [32]

One article presents the result of WindVOiCe, an Ontario self reporting health survey that follows the principles of Health Canada for vigilance monitoring of pharmaceuticals and other products. [33]

Another article documents social justice impacts when people cannot obtain mitigation or resolution and in some cases, have abandoned their homes due to IWT exposure. [34]

An article authored by Dr. Bob Thorne documents his research on IWT noise and correlates this with reported IWT adverse health impacts. Based this field work Dr. Thorne concludes a sound level of LAeq 32 dB outside the residence is required to avoid serious harm to human health. [35]

Ontario MOE documents obtained from a Freedom of Information request support a 32 dBA sound limit for IWTs. Based on real world field investigations MOE field officers advised the Ministry about IWT adverse effects and stated “… the setback distances should be calculated using a sound level limit of 30 to 32 dBA at the receptor, instead of the 40 dBA sound level limit.” [36]

Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, and 2011 recipient of Member of Order of Canada, published a case definition to facilitate a clinical diagnosis regarding adverse health effects and IWTs. [37]

Other articles explore topics including how to properly interpret IWT epidemiological evidence, [38] the physics of IWT noise, [39] public health ethics, [40] potential IWT noise impacts on children, [41] and potential IWT infrasound sound impacts on the human ear. [42]

These articles are critical to anyone interested in the safe siting of IWTs. It is recommended that authorities and regulators obtain a copy of each of the nine articles.

Please use this link if you wish to access these articles http://bst.sagepub.com Downloads of these articles can be obtained with an individual subscription for $100. This will allow you to download these and other articles from the BSTS scientific journal.

IWT low frequency noise and infrasound

In the past some commentators have stated low frequency noise from IWTs is not an issue. Other references indicate most available evidence suggests that reported IWT health effects, such as sleeplessness and headache, are related to audible low frequency noise. [43]

A June 2011 Federal Australian Senate committee investigating IWT and adverse health effects report recommended: “… noise standards adopted by the states and territories for the planning and operation of rural wind farms should include appropriate measures to calculate the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings.” [44]

A June 2011 peer reviewed article on IWT low frequency noise is available. [45]

The abstract states:
As wind turbines get larger, worries have emerged that the turbine noise would move down in frequency and that the low-frequency noise would cause annoyance for the neighbors. The noise emission from 48 wind turbines with nominal electric power up to 3.6 MW is analyzed and discussed. The relative amount of low-frequency noise is higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines ([1] 2 MW), and the
difference is statistically significant. The difference can also be expressed as a downward shift of the spectrum of approximately one-third of an octave. A further shift of similar size is suggested for future turbines in the 10-MW range.

Due to the air absorption, the higher low-frequency content becomes even more pronounced, when sound pressure levels in relevant neighbor distances are considered. Even when A-weighted levels are considered, a substantial part of the noise is at low frequencies, and for several of the investigated large turbines, the one-third-octave band with the highest level is at or below 250 Hz. It is thus beyond any doubt that the lowfrequency part of the spectrum plays an important role in the noise at the neighbors.”

Annoyance from audible low frequency noise is acknowledged to be more severe in general. Low frequency noise does not need to be considered loud for it to cause annoyance and irritation. [46] Low frequency noise causes immense suffering to those who are unfortunate to be sensitive to it [47] and chronic psychophysiological damage may result from long-term exposure to low-level low frequency noise. [48]

Some symptoms associated with exposure to low frequency noise include annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability, fatigue, dizziness or vertigo, tinnitus, anxiety, heart ailments and palpitation. [49 , 50, 51]

Møller and Pedersen, (2011) indicate IWT low frequency noise is more of an issue for large turbines of 2.3 MW and up. [52] However low frequency noise from smaller turbines (ie 1.5MW) can also cause adverse health effects.

Freedom of Information documents obtained from the MOE document low frequency noise issues from smaller IWTs (i.e., 1.5 MW) at Ontario wind farms.

The MOE documents how IWT low frequency noise caused a home to be “uninhabitable” resulting in family members abandoning trying to sleep there. [53] For further discussion see Krogh (2011) [54] and Thorne (2011). [55]

Research on the potential impacts of IWT infrasound has been published in two peer-reviewed scientific journals (Salt and Hullar, 2010 56, Salt and Kaltenbach, 2011 57). These articles conclude that it is scientifically possible that infrasound from IWTs could affect people living nearby and more research is needed.

Wind Turbines Noise, Fourth International Meeting

During the Rome Conference Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome Italy 12-14 April 2011, there were a number of presentations documenting IWT noise issues.

The Wind Turbine Noise (2011) post-conference report states:

“The main effect of daytime wind turbine noise is annoyance. The night time effect is sleep disturbance. These may lead to stress related illness in some people. Work is required in understanding why low levels of wind turbine noise may produce affects which are greater than might be expected from their levels.” [58]

A number of conference papers addressed human health impacts of IWTs. For example one research team conducted a study which demonstrated those living in the immediate vicinity of IWTs scored worse than a matched control group in terms of physical and environmental health related quality of life (HRQOL). [59]

The Ontario ERT expert witnesses for both the Respondents and the Appellants provided evidence and/or testimony which acknowledged IWT amplitude modulation and/or audible low frequency noise are probable causes of IWT adverse health effects.

Research related to low frequency noise “…confirms the importance of fluctuations as a contributor to annoyance and the limitation of those assessment methods, which do not include fluctuations in the assessment.” [60]

In addition, the World Health Organization states: “Noise measures based solely on LAeq values do not adequately characterize most noise environments and do not adequately assess the health impacts of noise on human well-being.

It is also important to measure the maximum noise level and the number of noise events when deriving guideline values. If the noise includes a large proportion of low-frequency components, values even lower than the guideline values will be needed, because low-frequency components in noise may increase the adverse effects considerably. When prominent low-frequency components are present, measures based on A-weighting are inappropriate.” [61]

Consultants for the Ontario MOE, Aercoustics, submitted a paper at the Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise which states: “Sound emissions from operating wind farms frequently give rise to noise complaints. Most compliance-based noise audits measure hourly “A”-weighted Leq, thereby removing the low-frequency contents of the wind turbine sound.

The metric is also insensitive to amplitude modulation and is unsatisfactory when sensitive receptor are annoyed by the low frequency sound and amplitude modulation.”[62]

Current Ontario guidelines are based on the A-Weighted Leq metric and hence must be considered unsatisfactory to protect individuals from the health impacts of IWT amplitude modulation and/or low frequency noise.

The need for research

The authors of a Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored report state they do not “advocate for funding further studies.” [63]

The April 2011 Wind Turbine Noise post–conference report states: “Work is required in understanding why low levels of wind turbine noise may produce affects which are greater than might be expected from their levels.” [64]

A June 2011 Australian Senate committee investigating IWT and adverse health effects report recommended:
“… the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.”[65]

The July 2011 Ontario ERT decision also acknowledged that more research is needed. [66] “Just because the Appellants have not succeeded in their appeals, that is no excuse to close the book on further research. On the contrary, further research should help resolve some of the significant questions that the Appellants have raised." (p. 207)

International experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm that research is required.[67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ,73 , 74 , 75, 76]

Inappropriate use of literature reviews

Literature reviews can be useful tools for summarizing existing literature related to a particular topic. In order to be considered reliable a literature review must be complete, accurate, and objective.

In recent years a number of literature reviews have been produced which purport to explore the health effect of IWTs. Some literature reviews which have been relied upon to deny IWTs can adversely affect the health of humans.

These literature reviews include Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit. (2008), [77] Colby et al, (2009), [78] Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, (2010), [79] and the National Health and Medical Research Council
(Australia) (2010). [80] None of these literature reviews have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Reliance on these literature reviews is inappropriate as they contain errors of omission and/or commission and are neither convincing nor authoritative. Many of the conclusions are incomplete, inaccurate, lack objectivity and consequently only serve to confuse the issue of IWT health effects.

For example, these literature reviews limit their discussion to direct effects using qualifiers such as “direct physiopathological effects” or “direct causal links”.

Failure to carefully evaluate the indirect causal pathways and the psychological harm of IWT exposure represent errors of omission. Annoyance, sleep disturbance, cognitive and emotional response, and stress are health effects that occur through the indirect pathway. [81]

The health outcomes associated with the indirect pathway are significant: “Physiological experiments on humans have shown that noise of a moderate level acts via an indirect pathway and has health outcomes similar to those caused by high noise exposures on the direct pathway. The indirect pathway starts with noise-induced disturbances of activities such as communication or sleep.” [82]

The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal expressed concern that the Director for the MOE relied on references which did not address the indirect pathway. [83]

As a consequence of their weaknesses some literature reviews have been criticized for their poor quality.

In March 2011, the Chief Executive Officer of National Health and Medical Research Council stated regarding their July 2010 literature review: “We regard this as a work in progress. We certainly do not believe that this question has been settled. That is why we are keeping it under constant review. That is why we said in our review that we believe authorities must take a precautionary approach to this.” [84]

Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit (2008), [85] Colby et al, December 2009, [86] Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health (2010), 87 share many of the same weaknesses as National Health and Medical Research Council (2010). [88]

These literature reviews cannot be relied for Renewable Energy Applications and/or Renewable Energy Approvals to support the contention there is no evidence that IWTs can cause adverse health effects. For detailed analysis of some of these literature reviews visit www.windvigilance.com

Conclusion

Based on the best available evidence the following conclusions can be made

1. The Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored statements that IWTs do not pose a risk of adverse health effects in humans are scientifically incorrect.

2. Experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm IWTs can harm human health if they not sited properly.

3. Acknowledged adverse health effects include: annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep.

Other adverse impacts include reduced well-being, degraded living conditions, and adverse societal and economic impacts. These adverse impacts culminate in expressions of a loss of fairness and social justice.

4. The above impacts in conclusion 3 represent a serious degradation of health in accordance with commonly accepted definitions of health as defined by the WHO and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.

5. It is expected that at typical setbacks and with the noise study approach currently being used in Ontario to approve the siting of IWTs, a non trivial percentage of exposed individuals will experience serious degradation of health.

6. Harm to human health can be avoided with science based regulations based on research conducted on human response to IWT exposure.

7. Experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm that research is required to establish scientifically based IWT regulations to protect human health.

8. Until scientifically based research has been conducted IWTs should not sited in proximity to human habitation.

Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
Ontario, Canada
krogh@email.toast.net

Brett Horner, BA, CMA
Ontario, Canada
brett_horner@toast.net

NOTE: Full list of numbered references are on the original document: DOWNLOAD IT BY CLICKING HERE: Summary of New Evidence on Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines - August 2011 

From Ontario

MINISTRY MEMO SAYS NOISE LIMIT TOO HIGH FOR ONTARIO TURBINES

SOURCE: Postmedia News, www.windsorstar.com

August 15, 2011

By Don Butler,

OTTAWA — Ontario regulations permit wind turbines to produce too much noise, says an internal memo written by a provincial Ministry of the Environment official who recommended a sharp reduction in allowable levels.

The April 2010 memo, written by Cameron Hall, a senior environmental officer in the ministry’s Guelph district office, was obtained through Freedom of Information and released Monday by Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of 58 grassroots anti-wind groups in Ontario.

The memo concludes that the current limit of 40 decibels should be reduced to 30 to 32 decibels. In the opinion of ministry officers, that level of sound “would not cause or be likely to cause adverse effects” for residents living near turbines, it says.

Reducing noise standards to that level would require the province to significantly increase its current 550-metre minimum setback for turbines from surrounding buildings.

John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, said Hall’s conclusions were “based on scientific analysis and fieldwork done by the ministry. This isn’t some wind opponent saying it.”

But Jonathan Rose, a spokesman for Environment Minister John Wilkinson, said the 40 decibel standard is what the World Health Organization suggests to protect human health.

“Our noise limit is tougher than California, Minnesota, New York, France, Denmark and Germany, just to name a few,” Rose said. “All this information was already examined by the Environmental Review Tribunal, an independent, quasi-judicial body which ruled that wind farm projects in Ontario are safe.”

Release of the memo marks the start of what Wind Concerns Ontario is dubbing its “WindyLeaks” campaign, a reference to WikiLeaks, the website that released hundreds of thousands of leaked government documents and e-mails earlier this year.

Laforet said FOI requests by his group have produced “1,200 pages of embarrassment” for the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty. Between now and the Oct. 6 provincial election, the coalition plans to release more damaging memos it has obtained, he said.

“We want Ontarians to know that this multi-billion-dollar program is based on absolute lies,” Laforet said, adding that some of the documents will be released in “vulnerable Liberal ridings” to encourage voters to punish incumbents.

Industrial wind turbines, which have proliferated in Ontario thanks to the government’s green energy agenda, have emerged as a wedge election issue in rural parts of the province. Some who live near wind farms say the turbines are affecting their health, their property values and their enjoyment of their surroundings.

In his memo, Hall says Ontario’s current minimum setback for turbines was based on the assumption that the “sound contamination” they emit does not have a “tonal quality or a cyclic variation quality.”

But that “is not supported by our field observations,” he writes. Ministry officers at the Melancthon Ecopower Centre wind plant have confirmed residents’ complaints that the turbines produce a “blade swoosh” sound.

According to a 2008 ministry guideline, such sounds should trigger a five-decibel “penalty,” the memo notes, reducing the allowable maximum to 35 decibels. To take account of measurement errors, that should be further reduced to between 30 and 32 decibels, it says.

But Rose said the ministry already regularly applies a five-decibel penalty for any project with a transformer.

Hall’s memo also says the sound level limits used to establish the 550-metre setback “fail to recognize the potential quietness of some rural areas. As a consequence, meeting the minimum sound level limits may still result in significant sound contamination levels intruding into the rural environment.”

SECOND STORY

From Pennsylvania

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The high number of turbine related bat kills in Pennsylvania continue to make headlines. But here's the real news: according to the most recent post-construction mortality studies, the number of bats being killed by turbines in our state is twice as high as the mortality rate in Pennslyvania. Wisconsin's wind turbine bat kill rate is the highest in North America, over ten times the national average. The numbers are not sustainable. So what is being done about it? As far as Better Plan can tell, the answer is nothing. Nothing at all. No environmental group has stepped in and the media seems to be disinterested.

WIND TURBINES COULD HAVE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES

SOURCE: The Daily American, www.dailyamerican.com

August 15, 2011

By JACK BUCHAN

In an article published Aug. 3, (The Wind industry is doing all it can to protect birds and bats), Stu Webster of wind turbine developer Iberdrola Renewables shamefully attempts to legitimize the wind industry’s blanket extermination of bat populations across Pennsylvania.

When built on our forested ridge tops, wind turbines attract and kill bats by the tens of thousands. The Pennsylvania Game Commission recently issued a report that found:

o Bats are killed by a condition called barotrauma. Lights on turbines attract insects, which in turn attract bats which fly close to the blades, where they experience a rapid drop in air pressure, causing their lungs to burst.

o 420 wind turbines in Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year – an average of 25 bats per turbine. This number is low because only about 30 percent of the carcasses under a turbine are recovered for counting.

o Bats are an extremely important Keystone species, as they control bug populations. As bat populations go down, bug populations go up and farmers must apply more pesticides. One bat will consume as many as 500 insects in one hour, or nearly 3,000 insects in one night. A colony of just 100 bats may consume a quarter of a million mosquitoes and other small insects in a night. If one turbine kills 25 bats in a year, that means one turbine accounted for about 17 million uneaten bugs in 2010.

o If bat populations are reduced, additional chemical pesticides will be dumped into our environment.

These facts are undisputable, yet wind developers persist in trying to build turbines in the middle of prime bat habitat where entire populations will be destroyed. The short-sighted callous disregard and irresponsibility shown by the wind industry is appalling.

Iberdrola’s sidekick, Gamesa, continues with its efforts to build 30 turbines on Shaffer Mountain in the middle of a maternity colony of the critically endangered Indiana bat. This maternity colony will be wiped out should the turbines go in. To show you just how Gamesa is “doing all it can to protect birds and bats,” they have applied for a permit with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to allow them to kill this endangered animal that is protected by the Endangered Species Act.

They are “so concerned” about the Indiana bat that they continue with their attempts to circumvent the Endangered Species Act so they can build turbines that will exterminate this maternity colony of a critically endangered species.

Voluntarily working with state agencies to monitor and study bat mortality from turbines does absolutely nothing to save critically impacted bat populations from decimation. While the Pennsylvania Game Commission requires bat surveys before and after turbines are built and wildlife authorities require mitigation efforts – bats still die.

The typical pattern in Pennsylvania has been for the developer to promise all sorts of mitigation efforts before construction. The Department of Environmental Protection grants permits, the project is built and horrendous bat mortality occurs in spite of the best mitigation efforts of the developer.

Once turbines are built, nothing effective can be done to stop the killing.

The wind industry lives in a world of taxpayer subsidies, government mandates, tax credits and regulatory preferences. It does not have to make money to survive.

Wind turbines generate only about 25 percent of the electricity claimed by developers. As a result, turbines built on the Allegheny Plateau, where winds are light and variable, are not economically viable. Sixty-five percent of the cost of a $3 million wind turbine is eventually paid by taxpayers because wind turbines cannot generate enough electricity to pay for themselves.

In addition, school districts in some of the poorest locales in Pennsylvania are denied tax dollars because wind turbines are exempt from paying school taxes. That’s right, the most expensive real estate in the county pays zero school taxes, while the burden is shifted to individual property owners, many of which are retired or on fixed incomes.

In times like these when school funding is being cut, federal and state governments and school districts are broke, and people are finding it harder to make ends meet – our tax dollars are being wasted to support an industry that can’t make it on its own. And when there are no more tax dollars to hand out, our government borrows, plunging our country deeper into debt to subsidize an industry that may be the greatest scam of our age.

In the end, if wind development is allowed to continue on our forested ridge tops, wasted tax dollars and millions of dead bats will be the least of our worries. Our children and grandchildren will be left the legacy of higher cancer and birth defect rates caused by the dumping of millions of tons of additional chemical pesticides into their environment – pesticides that will be required to produce the food they eat when bat populations are decimated.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Wind developers-- sometimes called "landmen"-- a term for those who get rural property owners to sign long-term leases to permit development on their property-- use a lot of the same tactics used in the gas industry to get those contracts signed.

A memo that recently surfaced in Ohio lays those strategies out. For those of us who have been following the story of how Big Wind came to Wisconsin, these tactics are identical to those used to get rural landowners in our state to sign onto contracts with wind developers they now regret.

"Remember, if at all possible, try not to deliberately mislead the landowner."

CAUGHT RED-HANDED:

According to an article in Businessweek.com, a memo that appears to coach buyers of oil and gas drilling leases in rural Ohio to use deceptive tactics on unsuspecting landowners surfaced earlier this spring.

"Door-to-door lease buyers called "landmen" have proliferated for months in hopes of landing rights that will give their companies access to potential energy riches."

This memo tells them 'how to hunt and catch a rural mid-westerner'

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE MEMO BY CLICKING HERE

EXCERPTS

 Know your demographics!

We have paid for an analysis of Ohio and its people. Use that Data.

 Ohio is a conservative leaning, Mid-west state. The typical Ohio resident will welcome you into their home and allow you to speak. This is critical. Face to face interaction can make all the difference.

Most mid-west Americans dislike confrontation. Even if they disagree on a selling point, they are unlikely to confront you over it. Therefore it is critical to obtain a lease signature at the first meeting or at least the agreement to sign and take the lease to a notary.

Drive them to the notary if you have to. If they have time to think it over, they are more likely to decline the offer.

Provide the overall position of the nation

Most landowners will be patriotic Americans and will desire to free our nation from foreign oil dependence...Fear of foreign encroachment is the biggest asset we have in selling our development strategy. Our analysis of Ohio shows that even the most liberal landowners will agree on this point.

ALWAYS start your conversation with a new potential signee on a point they will agree with. This is pure psychology. They will be more likely to let you stay and talk. Studies show the longer you talk, the more chance we have of signing.

At any point in the pitch, if talk turns to local issues, environmental hazards etc-- a good way to re-direct hte conversation is to re-engage over the nation's energy needs....

Talk about our business

... More educated landowners may know that we often sell our land leases to larger corporations. While this is often true, we don't always sell our interests. So it is reasonable to say we plan all developemnt in Ohio without partners. Future plans do not need to be fully disclosed......

[POSSIBLE PROBLEMS]

Truck Traffic: There will be extra traffic, but stress that we will do everything to keep it to a minimum... just tell landowners the more trucks, the more royalties. Money will usually deflect most arguments. Return to the nation's energy needs if you need to.

Noise: If pressed for details tell them we monitor noise to endure it is approximately [#] decibels at [#] feet.

They will not likely understand the details and will not admit that the technical data means little to them. Do not compare it to anything tangible, like train noise or airplane noise.

Stick with the numbers. They provide the truth but make it hard to understand the exact implication.

GET THE LEASE SIGNED!

If a landowner is undecided, there are several ways to offer incentives:

-Offer a slight increase in the initial lease payment. Even a $50 increase may be enough to sway the decision. Tell them it's to cover the Notary Public costs. That way you are making a concession without caving and getting into a negotiation. Mid-west Americans appreciate feeling valued. This will work in your favor.

-Tell the landowner that all their neighbors have signed. Even if the neighbors have not, this will often push an undecided landowner in favor of signing. Remember, the first visit is the most crucial. They will not know if their neighbors have signed and even if they do they will want to sign so they do not lose out on potential profits. Once they have signed, you can show those leases to undecided neighbors for added pressure.

FROM US & CANADA

Why pro-wind studies often use a 10 km radius

by Alec Salt, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine

Last week I was reading of an Australian study, by a Professore Gary Wittert, which had shown sleeping pill usage for those living near wind turbines was no greater than the general population .

The study compared those living within 10 km of turbines with those living more than 10 km away. There have been similar studies with property values using a 5 mile or 10 km radius that showed property values are not affected by wind turbines.  Had you ever thought why they pick a 10 km radius?

Consider this graphic. It shows 1 km bands with the calculated area for each band shown in blue.

Let’s keep it easy and assume that households are evenly distributed and there is one household for every 10 square kilometers.

So, within 2 km (the two innermost bands) of the turbine, the area is 3.1 + 9.4 km2 (=12.5 km2) which would represent 1.2 households.

Now let’s consider the two outermost (9 km and 10 km) bands. The area of these bands is 53.4 + 59.7 km2 (= 113.1 km2) which represents 113 households. So the outermost bands have about TEN TIMES the number of households of those living within 2 km, making sure that the contribution of the inner bands is diluted, swamped, covered up or however else you would describe it.

Or consider if you live within 2 km of a turbine. The outer bands of those living from 2 – 10 km from the turbine adds up to 301.6 km2, which would represent 30.1 households – which is 24 TIMES the number of households within 2 km.

No wonder your voice is being “drowned out”. The bigger the circle, the more “dilution” occurs.

Add this to the list of things where “size matters”, and next time you see a study like this, consider the radius and area that was chosen. The choice of the circle size plays a major role in the result obtained and speaks volumes about the motivation of the author.

Alec Salt