7/23/2010 Writing the Wind Rules: Should turbine noise limits be based on wind industry needs or protection of rural Wisconsin residents? Don't read this post if you don't want bad news
WILL THE WIND SITING RULES BE BASED ON WIND INDUSTRY INTERESTS OR PROTECTION OF RURAL WISCONSIN RESIDENTS?
With the majority of the Wind Siting Council members having a direct or indirect financial interest in creating the least restrictive rules possible on wind development in Wisconsin, the discussion about wind turbine noise standards moves between the wind developer's preferred limit of 50 decibels to the World Health Organizations recommendation of 40 decibels. Should the rules be written by those who stand to see substantial financial gain by creating least restrictive rules? Whose interests should the rules protect? Based on the financial interests of the majority of the Wind Siting Council members, the answer is is pretty clear.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Dan Ebert, Jevon McFadden, Lloyd Lueschow, Tom Green, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind siting council, wind developer complaints, wind farm complaints, wind farm contracts, wind farm wildife, wind turbine setbacks, wisconsin wind ordinances
|
Comments Off
7/21/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: How much louder is 25dbA? If you answered 600 percent louder, you're doing better than most of the Wind Siting Council, AND Will the wind developers get their wish? AND "Collateral Damage" from the Green Wars
NOTE: TO VIEW HIGH QUALITY VIDEO OF THE COMPLETE WISCONSIN WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETINGS, VISIT THE GREAT WISCONSIN EYE WEBSITE BY CLICKING HERE
“BP, of course, is a major wind developer. And the spokesman for mid-Atlantic wind developers, Frank Maisano, is a longtime anti regulatory coal lobbyist. The largest turbine manufacturer in the U.S. is GE which is hardly known to be full of green warriors. Even Halliburton's Kellogg Brown and Root division is at the forefront of offshore wind construction,” said Rosenbloom.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind siting council, wind farm complaings, wind farm noise limits, wind farm ordinance, wind farm setback, wind farm shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
7/20/10 Writing the Wind Rules: Scenes from the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council Meetings: Is "safety" a relative term? Does size make a difference? How big are the turbines you're referring to? Why are certain council members pushing for a 50dbA noise limit?
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Doug Zweizig, Jennifer Heinzen, Michael Vickerman, Ryan Schryver, wind farm setbacks, wind ordinance, wind siting council, wind siting guidelines, wind turbine noise, wind turbine shadow flicker, wind wisconsin
|
Comments Off
7/20/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: Madison, we have a problem: Epidemiologist says ample evidence of turbine related health effects. AND Wisconsin Health Department denies request to do study of local wind project residents AND What's so different about wind turbine noise?
Executive Summary
A summary of the main conclusions of my expert opinion, based on my knowledge of epidemiology and scientific methods, and my reading of the available studies and reports, is as follows:
• There is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby. Some of the most compelling evidence in support of this has been somewhat overlooked in previous analyses, including that the existing evidence fits what is known as the case-crossover study design, one of the most useful studies in epidemiology, and the revealed preference (observed behavior) data of people leaving their homes, etc., which provides objective measures of what would otherwise be subjective phenomena. In general, this is an exposure-disease combination where causation can be inferred from a smaller number of less formal observations than is possible for cases such as chemical exposure and cancer risk.
• The reported health effects, including insomnia, loss of concentration, anxiety, and general psychological distress are as real as physical ailments, and are part of accepted modern definitions of individual and public health. While such ailments are sometimes more difficult to study, they probably account for more of the total burden of morbidity in Western countries than do strictly physical diseases. It is true that there is no bright line between these diseases and less intense similar problems that would not usually be called a disease, this is a case for taking the less intense versions of the problems more seriously in making policy decisions, not to ignore the serious diseases.
• Existing evidence is not sufficient to make several important quantifications, including what portion of the population is susceptible to the health effects from particular exposures, how much total health impact wind turbines have, and the magnitude of exposure needed to cause substantial risk of important health effects. However, these are questions that could be answered if some resources were devoted to finding the answer. It is not necessary to proceed with siting so that more data can accumulate, since there is enough data now if it were gathered and analyzed.
• The reports that claim that there is no evidence of health effects are based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does not count as evidence. Though those reports probably seem convincing prima facie, they do not represent proper scientific reasoning, and in some cases the conclusions of those reports do not even match their own analysis.
Important editor's note: The last page of Dr. Phillips document, which contained references to his work, was omitted. He has provided us with the missing information as follows:
Roberts M, Roberts J. Evaluation of the scientific literature on the health effects associated with wind turbines and low frequency sound. Exponent Inc. Prepared for Wisconsin Public Service Commission Docket No. 6630-CE-302 (the identity of the actual client for whom this was prepared is not disclosed in the document). October 2009.
Waye K. Effects of low-frequency noise on sleep. Noise and Health 6(23):87-91, 2004.
Dr. Phillips will post any other errata at this link as the need arises.
Download File(s):
phillips WI filed expert report.pdf (206.07 kB)
Second Feature:
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AGAIN SAYS NO TO REQUEST FOR LOCAL STUDY OF HEALTH IMPACTS OF LARGE WIND TURBINES.
State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services
DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
dhs.wisconsin.gov
Iuly 14,2010
Dear Mr. Marion:
Thank you for your July 12,letter to Secretary Karen E. Timberlake regarding the possible health effects of wind turbine noise.
Secretary Timberlake has asked me to respond to you on her behalf, and I welcome the opportunity to do so.
In your letter of May l3,you asked for confirmation of the Division of Public Health's views regarding the health effects of wind turbine noise.
You shared additional information with us, and requested that the Division of Public Health (DPH) conduct a formal epidemiological study of the health effects of wind turbine noise in Wisconsin.
The presentation 'Wind Turbines, a Brief Health Overview" by Dr. Jevon McFadden to the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council on May 17,2010, was not a statement about the position of the Wisconsin Division of Public Health.
DPH recognizes that wind turbines create certain exposures; audible sound, low-frequency sound, infrasound and vibration, and shadow flicker.
Certain ranges of intensity or frequency of audible sound, low frequency sound, vibration, and flicker have been associated with some objectively-verifiable human health conditions.
Our review of the scientific literature indicates, exposure levels measured from eontemporary wind turbines at current setback distances do not reach those associated with objective physical conditions, such as hearing loss, high blood pressure, or flicker-induced epilepsy.
Your letter also cites information that many symptoms are reported by some who live near wind turbines. This information is difficult to interpret for a few reasons.
First, symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headache are common, and caused by a wide variety of conditions.
For example, sleep disturbance is a common problem in the general population, and may also be a sign of an underlying medical disorder.
The same is true for symptoms like nausea, headache, problems with equilibrium, and others mentioned in your letter.
Neither individuals, nor investigators should assume that they originate from exposure to wind turbines.
Persistent symptoms, or those that interfere with daily functions, should be evaluated by a medical professional.
Second, as your letter describes, some people experience annoyance at wind turbines, and annoyance has been associated with some of the symptoms you cite.
Unfortunately, we cannot know which may be responsible for the other.
Annoyance is a psychological reaction with a wide range of individual variability and is influenced by multiple personal and situational factors.
Annoyance, per se, is not considered a physical or mental health disorder, but it may influence perception or interpretation.of health-related complaints (or introduce "bias," in scientific terminology).
This makes it very difficult to objectively assess whether or not reported symptoms are indicative of actual physical conditions caused by exposures from wind turbines.
DPH staff previously reviewed the five reports you referenced in your letter.
They also reviewed over 150 reports from the scientifiennd medical literature (published and unpublished) pertinent to the issue of wind turbines and health.
DPH has also taken time to listen to, and respond to concerns voiced by local residents, municipalities, and local health department officials from across the State of Wisconsin.
We have discussed this issue with colleagues at UW School of Medicine and Public Health, the Minnesota and Maine state health departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
From this, we conclude that current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that contemporary wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes to those living nearby.
This is different from saying that future evidence about harms may not emerge, or that wind turbines will not change over time, or that annoyance and other quality-of-life considerations are irrelevant.
DPH does not endorse a specific setback distance or noise threshold level relating to wind turbines.
Nevertheless, in keeping with standard public health practice, DPH favors a conservative approach to setbacks and noise limits that provides adequate protections to those who live or work near wind turbines.
These will help minimize local impacts on quality of life and serve as a buffer against possible unrecognized health effects.
Current draft siting rules limit noise exposures from wind turbines to very modest levels, and we anticipate that the final siting rules will, at the very least, be equally protective.
For this reason, we do not believe there is a compelling reason to perform an epidemiologic investigation in
Wisconsin.
To the extent that gaps remain in current science, DPH favors continued investigations to help advance knowledge and guide future policy development.
The value of these studies will depend on the degree to which subjective corpplaints can be compared with
objective clinical and environmental measurements.
However, complex clinical studies requiring coordination of acoustical engineering efforts with clinical assessments are outside the scope of standard public health investigations.
As additional scientific evidence becomes available, DPH will continue to appraise its relative strength, credibility, and applicability to the issue of wind turbine development in Wisconsin.
As is the case with any major deve[opment undertaking in the State of Wisconsin, it is important that we continue to look for ways to maximize positive impacts and minimize negative impacts to residents.
To the extent that these impacts fall into the public health realm, DPH will continue to seek data and information to guide public policy on this matter.
Sincerely,
Seth Foldy
State Health
Wisconsin Department of Health Services
Division of Public Health
THIRD FEATURE
Different sound sources vary in their sound level, frequency content and temporal character. These differences are most easily described by example. First, there are steady state noise sources. A good example would be an active highway. The sound level at a listener location away from the highway may vary somewhat from moment to moment, but by small amounts. But by and large human observers perceive highway sound as near constant in amplitude.
Second, there are transient sources. These are sources present only for brief periods of time. Good examples are passing trains or aircraft. These sources rise gradually in amplitude as they approach the listener and then decay as they depart.
A third class of sound source is the impulsive one. These sources can be repetitive or random in nature. Repetitive impulse sources would be jackhammers and pile drivers. The basic difference between the two examples is the rate at which the impulses occur. A random impulsive source would be the operations in a machine shop where hammering or metal fabrication takes place. In all of these examples any one impulse lasts for only a very small fraction of a second, and the onset and offset of the impulse is very rapid.
Finally, we come to the wind turbine source. Unlike any of the previous sources described, it is neither steady state in the classic sense, nor is it transient, nor is it impulsive. Instead, it produces a distinctive broadband "swoosh-boom" sound4 with each passing blade of the turbine. Each whoosh effectively modulates the sound level, with a more gradual onset than an impulsive sound, and a less gradual one than the transient sources I mentioned. For the typical three-bladed turbine in the 1-megawatt output range the blade passage rate is nominally one per second. One can sound out the observed sound in the typical second-counting style... "whoosh" one thousand, "whoosh" two thousand, "whoosh" three thousand, and so on. So long as the wind is blowing at sufficient speed to drive the turbine the sound will be generate for lengthy periods of time without interruption.
The hours of operation of wind turbines are not dictated by diurnal patterns of human activity like many other anthropogenic sources. They are able to operate when wind conditions are favorable, day or night. This means they may become a factor during both waking and sleeping hours.
The repetitive sound character is unique and unlike any other source found in residential communities. As such it is easily identifiable. It does not blend in to other background sources that are continuous in nature.
Wind turbine noise is most prevalent in rural areas. By their very nature, large-scale wind turbine installations require vast areas of open land. Hence, any potential sound masking effect from urban and suburban sources is unlikely to be present. This means that their sound will be audible at lower levels in the rural environment. It further means that rural noise standards should be applied to these installations as opposed to suburban or urban ones where nighttime sound levels, for example, can be 15 to 20 decibels higher.
Download File(s):
HorojeffReportFinal.pdf (275.71 kB)
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind health effects
|
Comments Off
7/19/10 Sow the wind, reap dead bats AND The sport of pitting neighbor against neighbor: Wind developers won't hesitate to tear communities apart AND an interview with a wind project resident who had to leave her home once the wind turbines went on line
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Wind turbine related bat kills are ten times higher in Wisconsin than anywhere in the nation except Pennsylvania. There is serious concern about the survival of bat populations near Wisconsin wind projects.
WIND TURBINES AND DISEASE CUTTING BAT TOTALS
SOURCE: The Times Leader, www.timesleader.com
July 19 2010
By Matt Hughes,
WILKES-BARRE — Sue Gallagher of the Carbon County Environmental Center has presented her educational program on bats so many times she could probably do it hanging upside down in the dark.
She ran through much of that program Thursday at Wilkes-Barre’s River Common, going over myths and misconceptions about nature’s only flying mammals. To summarize: Bats aren’t blind, they aren’t flying mice, they won’t get stuck in your hair and, unless you’re vacationing on a South American cattle ranch, they won’t suck your blood either.
A little more than a year ago, things changed, and Gallagher’s message about bats changed with it.
Bats in Pennsylvania are dying, Gallagher said, in such extreme numbers that future generations of Pennsylvanians may never see them in the wild.
“You guys aren’t going to grow up seeing bats the way we grew up seeing bats,” Gallagher told the approximately 10 children who gathered with their parents for the program, which was sponsored by rivercommon.org.
There are two culprits in the disappearance of the state’s bats, Gallagher said.
Hibernating bats, the sort that live in caves, have been affected by white nose syndrome, a fungus-based illness that causes bats to awaken from hibernation early. The bats, which live on a diet of insects, then die of starvation.
The illness, which spread south from New York State last year, kills 85 to 100 percent of bat populations it infiltrates.
Other bats, especially the migratory variety, are being killed by an unlikely source: wind turbines. Bats are attracted to the turbines during mating season, Gallagher said, when they will fly to the highest point above ground. They are then either killed by the large fan blades or by low pressure systems that form near the tips of the blades that cause the bats’ lungs to explode.
A single turbine can kill 50 to 100 bats a year, Gallagher said, adding that it is too early to judge the effect of wind energy on bats because Pennsylvania does not track bat population size.
“We want to get behind wind energy; we want to say wind energy is green, but we’ve got to address its impact on bats,” Gallagher said.
“I feel bad, because I really like bats, and I don’t want them to die,” Bethany Kelsey, 7, of Wilkes-Barre, said after the program.
“I didn’t know that they were dying, which makes me very sad,” Kelsey’s mother, Angel Kelsey, added. “I grew up in the woods watching the bats.”
The bat program was the first in a series of free children’s nature education programs being held at the River Common. The next, a live mammals program, will take place July 23.
Wind farm sows discord among friends
URBANA, Ohio - One need not drive too far into Champaign County to recognize that 2010 will be a bumper year for corn and soybeans. As for harvesting the wind, the jury is still out.
Last week, the Ohio Power Siting Board essentially reaffirmed its decision to allow 53 wind turbines to be erected near here, despite the persistent objections of residents who are not convinced that the turbines - some of them approaching the height of the Washington Monument - will do any more than set longtime county residents at one another's throats.
"One woman told me she couldn't go to church anymore because she couldn't stand to look at one of the people who has sold out" by leasing land for the turbines, Julia Johnson, one of those longtime residents, said last week.
These once were Champaign County farmers who shared a tremendous kinship as stewards of the land. If one were injured or fell ill, his friends would bring in his crops. They attended Grange meetings and social gatherings together. Their children signed up for 4-H and the Future Farmers of America.
The atmosphere has become so acrimonious that merchants who must sell to all community members have avoided any signs at their businesses suggesting favoritism to either side of the issue.
"There are certainly some people I will never trust again, and any friendship we might have had in the past is now gone," said Diane McConnell, who, with her husband, Robert, owns farmland. "We will have five turbines right out the north window 700 feet from our property line."
Those who want the windmills say they produce electricity without pollution, fit in with farming because crops can be planted around them and cattle can graze underneath, and will bring jobs to the county. But neither the McConnells nor Johnson believe that the quality of life in the Urbana area will be enhanced.
"Eighty percent of the revenue for those turbines will go overseas and will not benefit our economy at all," Johnson said. EverPower Wind Holdings, the company developing the wind farm, is owned by Terra Firma, a British private-equity firm.
"It is not about energy. It is about money," Johnson said.
The McConnells and Johnson also worry about safety. People living near wind turbines in other places have complained about headaches, sleeplessness and anxiety from the humming.
Could it be that in some now-forgotten, long-ago debate, some energy whiz proposed going after crude oil not only with land-based drilling but by employing offshore oil platforms as well? Surely, the question of safety arose.
If offshore oil drilling were scrutinized no more carefully than wind turbines have been, it was only going to be a matter of time before something happened.
It might be time for a good, ol' Bible-thumping homily preached in a rural Champaign County church from Hosea 8:7: "They have planted the wind and will harvest the whirlwind. The stalks of grain wither and produce nothing to eat. And even if there is grain, foreigners will eat it."
Retired columnist Mike Harden writes Wednesday and Sunday Metro columns.
SECOND FEATURE:
Click on the image below to find out why a family in a wind project left their home once the wind turbines went on line
In this interview by Save Our Skyline Renfrew County (sosrenfrewcounty.wordpress.com), Helen Fraser talks about health issues she suffered after the Melancthon wind energy facility near Shelburne, Ontario, began operation in the spring of 2006.
Her home, where she had lived for more than 30 years, ended up in the middle of the facility.
Her fibromyalgia seriously deteriorated shortly after the wind turbines were active, yet improved just as drastically every time she was outside the vicinity of the facility.
Mrs. Fraser also notes that they no longer saw the abundance of wildlife that they had before. There were 12 turbines visible on three sides of her home, the closest only 423 meters away. Eight of the turbines had an obvious direct impact on the home, with noise or shadow flicker.
“I could tell if the turbines were running if I had a headache,” she says. When the towers were erected, she began having severe head and body aches, ringing in her ears, digestive issues, and chronic fatigue, which led to a whole host of other issues, including depression and not being able to concentrate.
“And they all cleared up after 24 hours [of being away from home], and when we’d come back the symptoms would be there 24 hours later.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, wind developer lies, wind farm complaints, wind farm contract, wind farm headaches, wind farm noise, wind farm ringing in ears, wind farm shadow flicker, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind farm property values, wisconsin wind farms
|
Comments Off