Better Plan, Wisconsin

SECOND FEATURE:

Columbia County Gives Wind Energy a Nod

SOURCE Capital Newspapers, www.wiscnews.com

May 21 2010

By LYN JERDE,

PORTAGE – The Columbia County Board of Supervisors offered tepid approval Wednesday to a resolution declaring electricity-generating wind turbines on five parcels of farmland are in keeping with the landowners’ farmland preservation agreements with the state.

But the non-unanimous voice vote assent didn’t come without questions about the effects of the turbines on farming, and about how the county’s approval or disapproval of the resolution might affect the future of what could soon be the state’s largest wind energy farm.

We Energies plans to build Glacier Hills Energy Park, beginning this spring, on leased farmland in the towns of Randolph and Scott. Plans call for up to 90 wind turbines, capable of generating up to 207 megawatts of electricity.

Five of the parcels leased for turbine locations – four in the town of Randolph, one in the town of Scott – are subject to farmland preservation agreements with the state.

The intent of the resolution was to declare the county’s conclusion that locating a turbine on the land is not inconsistent with the agreement that the land must continue to be used for agricultural purposes.

But why, asked Supervisor Debra Wopat of Rio, is Columbia County even addressing this issue?

The towns of Randolph and Scott are not covered under the county’s zoning ordinances. And the farmland preservation agreements, she said, are between the landowners and the state’s Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection.

Kurt Calkins, director of Columbia County’s land and water conservation department, said it was the county board that originally approved forwarding the farmland preservation agreements to the state – so the County Board has to authorize a change in the agreement to reflect the presence of the windmills. The DATCP will agree that the windmills do not impede agricultural use of the land if the county also agrees to that, he said.

“The real question is, do you deem them consistent with agricultural use? That’s the question the state has asked us to answer,” Calkins said.

Supervisor Fred Teitgen of rural Poynette questioned whether the turbines are good for rural areas.

“There are problems with large wind turbine systems, especially with noise and shadow flicker,” he said.

That was why Teitgen proposed amending the resolution to say, “Columbia County believes [that] a wind turbine structure may not (instead of will not) conflict with continued agricultural use in the area,”

He also proposed adding to the resolution a condition that the turbines should be sited properly in accordance with Wisconsin Public Service Commission standards and local requirements.

This amendment failed on a voice vote.

Supervisor Brian Landers of Wisconsin Dells said he was concerned that the revision might imply that the county can or should provide oversight for the construction of the We Energies turbines. If that’s the case, Landers asked, then which department would be responsible for the oversight, and at what cost to the county?

“I would be hesitant to add language that we somehow have a governance of this if we don’t have the legal authority to do so,” Landers said.

When Supervisor John Tramburg of Fall River asked how much farmland would be consumed by the turbines and related structures such as roads, Walter “Doc” Musekamp of We Energies said that, among the five land tracts in question, a total of 3.4 acres would be taken out of production for roads and foundations.

Construction of the roads and other ancillary structures is expected to start this spring.

THIRD FEATURE

Wind Farms vs. Doppler Radar

SOURCE: WMBD/WYZZ Chief Meteorologist Marcus Bailey

Lincoln -  Last year a weak tornado touch-downed near Holder in eastern McLean county. That's near the Twin Groves wind farm, one of the largest in the state.

Chris Miller, Warning Coordinating Meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Lincoln explains what happened next.    

"When that storm enter the wind farm area, because the rotation was weak we lost that signature as it went through the wind farm."  Says Miller.  "We had to rely strictly on storm spotter reports in the area."

Here's the concern:  The Doppler Radar beam hits the blades on a wind farm tower, causing interference.  That interference looks similar to a thunderstorm.  Current Doppler Radar uses software to filter out objects that are stationary, but rotating wind tower blades are an issue.

"We don't want to eliminate actual moving storms, but somehow the Radar would need to decide in what area the wind turbines are located and how fast they're moving and then try to remove some of that."  Says Miller.  "That's a very difficult problem to try to do software related."

This isn't an issue when the weather is fair; but when severe weather approaches or moves over a wind farm, meteorologists may not be able to pick out certain features; most specifically tornadoes.  

There are two wind farms that impact the Doppler Radar in Lincoln.  Railsplitter in southern Tazewell and northern Logan counties is the closest and most commonly seen on Radar.  A proposed wind farm may be built in western Logan county, which could also affect Radar images once completed.

So what's next?  National Weather Service officials are educating wind farm developers on their potential impact on Doppler Radar. 

"There is open dialog for the wind farm developers, but if anything we just want to educate them on what some of the concerns are."  Says Miller.  "Hopefully we have future discussions about what can be done to help mitigate the problem."


Tom Vinson, Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs with the American Wind Energy Association says wind developers are in discussions with the National Weather Service on this matter.    The Association hope that the Weather Service can develop software to take care of the problem.

"The preference on the industry side would be for a technical solution that would resolve the problem without having to necessarily give up energy production at certain times."  Says Vinson.   "It's certainly something that should be discussed but it's not something that we have definite agreement on today."  

We contacted Horizon Wind Energy, the owner of the Railsplitter wind farm.  They had no comment on our story.  Oklahoma University scientists are conducting studies on the issue.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What does shadow flicker look like?

Below are three recent videos taken in Fond du Lac and Dodge County showing shadow flicker.

The first video is from a wind project home in Fond du Lac County which gets shadow flicker in the morning and in the evening. Family members in this home have the option of pulling down all the shades or going into the basement until it passes. Remaining in a room being hit by shadow flicker is not an option.

Click on image below to see shadow flicker filmed on May 4th, 2010 in Butler Ridge wind project near Iron Ridge Wisconsin in Dodge County

Click on image below to see shadow flicker in the Invenergy Forward Energy project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County

SECOND FEATURE:

WIND FARMS WILL HARM HEALTH, ACCORDING TO DOCTOR

SOURCE: Barton Chronicle

Chris Braithwaite

May 12, 2010

MONTPELIER — A doctor who has studied the health effects of a commercial wind power project in northern Maine brought his conclusion to the State House Friday morning, May 7.

“There is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3,500 feet of a ridge line arrangement of 1.5 megawatts or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.”

The conclusion is in a statement distributed at Dr. Michael Nissenbaum’s press conference, held in the middle of one of the busiest days of this year’s legislative session.

Click on the image above to watch a presentation by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum on wind turbines and health impacts.

His statement is of local interest because, in terms of both size and distance, it would apply to the proposed wind project on Lowell Mountain.

Green Mountain Power is seeking permission to erect up to 24 towers with a capacity of 2.5 or 3 megawatts each. And GMP has said the towers would be at least 3,000 feet from the nearest homes. (Exceptions are the home of the resident who would host most of the project, and a hunting camp that GMP overlooked until it was drawn to the company’s attention.)

For projects on a ridge line, Dr. Nissenbaum said Friday, turbines should be 7,000 feet from homes, at a minimum. (That would be well over a mile, which equals 5,280 feet.)

The doctor said his findings, which are disputed by the wind industry, are based on interviews with 22 of about 30 adults who live within 3,500 feet of a ridge line arrangement of 1.5 megawatt turbines in Mars Hill, Maine.

As reported in this newspaper, people who live near that project began to complain about the noise it made shortly after it began to operate.

Of those 22 people, Dr. Nissenbaum found, 18 reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, nine reported new chronic headaches, 13 reported stress, and 17 reported persistent anger. More than a third reported new or worsened depression, and all but one of them said the quality of their life had been reduced.

Such problems did not appear in a parallel study of a control sample of 27 people living about three miles away from the project, Dr. Nissenbaum reported.

The problem, the doctor said, is that would-be wind power developers employ sound engineers who use standard instruments to measure sound levels in the normal range that the human ear detects most easily.

“The devil is in the details,” said the doctor, who for two years has focused on the physics and potential for adverse health effect of the energy emission related to industrial wind turbines. That statement comes from an introduction to Dr. Nissenbaum distributed by Energize Vermont, the group that brought him to the press conference, and to a forum in Rutland the day before.

While the experts work in terms of pure stead sounds, the doctor said, the turbines emit a complex tone which “is registered as louder than a pure tone, and is more effective in waking you up.”

Using a recording to demonstrate, he said that the turbines emit a pulsing sound, which again can affect he listener more than a steady tone.

Low-frequency sounds seem ominous to people, he said. “As humans we’re evolutionarily wired, and there’s some indication that low-frequency noises indicate threats.”

Low-frequency sounds can cause structural elements in houses to vibrate, and amplify the effect, Dr. Nissenbaum said.

He showed a photo of a tent in the backyard of a home that sits in the middle of a large wind project in Ontario. The resident moved into the tent so shoe could sleep, Dr. Nissenbaum said. That would make no sense, he added, unless being inside the house made the sound worse. He quoted from the resident’s journal: “The house is humming again tonight.”

The woman moved away fromt he project after the wind developer bought her home. Her story was detailed in the Chronicle in December 2009. [Also see: "Low-frequency sound, stray voltage, are suspects in ill effects of wind turbines".]

People who can’t sleep get sick, Dr. Nissenbaum said, and some people find the throbbing sound of wind turbines particularly annoying — “a plane that never lands.”

“Annoyance leads to sleep deprivation illness as day follows night,” the doctor said.

The worst part of it, he added, is when people are offered psychological help to deal with their problems with wind turbine noise. Such people don’t need a psychologist, Dr. Nissenbaum said, “they need the turbines placed farther away from their home.”

One of the few legislators at Friday’s press conference was Representative Rachel Weston, a Democrat from Burlington.

She said she had moved to the city from a small town, and gradually grown accustomed to a variety of urban sounds.

People can get habituated to some sounds, Dr. Nissenbaum said. “But there’s something unique about wind turbine noise that prevents habituation. There is something unique about those lower-frequency noises.

The doctor was talking about individual perception, Ms. Weston argued, not about science.“It’s not about my perceptions,” she said. “It’s about the physiology of my body.”

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules

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

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

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

Will residents of Wisconsin wind projects be heard?

SPOILER ALERT: Because of the composition of the WSC , the Research Nerd predicts the interests of the wind developers, utilities, and wind lobbyists will win out over the protection of the people and bats and birds of rural Wisconsin who will be living with the fallout of wind development.

Unless--- by some miracle---the PSC Horton Hears a Rural Wisconsin Who. The PSC Commissioners, particularly Lauren Azar, have made it clear that the do want to hear from you.

If you'd like to make your voice heard, CLICK HERE to leave a public comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket. What you post will become public record. There is no limit to the number of posts you can make. You are free to post opinion, articles, documents, and video links. Anything that you would like the wind siting council to consider.

Click on the images below to watch the entire May 14th Public Service Commission meeting where commissioners adopted draft wind siting rules containing details the Wind Siting Council had never seen or been allowed to discuss. Specifically, setbacks and noise limits.

The draft that was given to WSC members contained no specific numbers and when the subject of specific setbacks or noise limits has been raised by members of council in past meetings, Chairman Ebert quickly assured them there would be a time to discuss these issues in the future and moved on. Under Ebert's chairmanship, no discussion of setbacks or noise limits has been allowed at any WSC meeting.

On May 17th, after the draft rules were adopted by the PSC several members of the Wind Siting Council spoke about these numbers as being a complete surprise.

Better Plan is in the process of uploading the remaining video of this meeting to be followed with video of the May 17th meeting where Dr. Jevon McFadden gave his presentation regarding wind turbines and human health.

While citing the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Research Service and the Minnesota Department of Health-- all of whom agree that at half a mile negative effects from turbine noise and shadow flicker are no longer a significant problem, Dr. McFadden concluded that wind turbine noise and shadow flicker present no potential to negatively affect health and the precautionary principle was unnecessary in siting wind turbines near homes.

What is the precautionary principle?

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE: Environmental Health Perspectives

Definition of the Precautionary Principle

A 1998 consensus statement characterized the precautionary principle this way: "when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically". The statement went on to list four central components of the principle: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making.

The term "precautionary principle" came into English as a translation of the German word Vorsorgeprinzip. An alternative translation might have been "foresight principle," which has the advantage of emphasizing anticipatory action--a positive, active idea rather than precaution, which to many sounds reactive and even negative. Although the principle has its roots in German environmental policy, over the past 20 years it has served as a central element in international environmental treaties addressing North Sea pollution, ozone-depleting chemicals, fisheries, climate change, and sustainable development (3). Precaution is one of the guiding principles of environmental laws in the European Union.

Environmental scientists play a key role in society's responses to environmental problems, and many of the studies they perform are intended ultimately to affect policy.

The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty ; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity ; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions ; and increasing public participation in decision making.

In this paper [DOWN LOAD IT HERE] we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection.

In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution.

We argue that a shift to more precautionary policies creates opportunities and challenges for scientists to think differently about the ways they conduct studies and communicate results. There is a complicated feedback relation between the discoveries of science and the setting of policy.

While maintaining their objectivity and focus on understanding the world, environmental scientists should be aware of the policy uses of their work and of their social responsibility to do science that protects human health and the environment. The precautionary principle highlights this tight, challenging linkage between science and policy.

Note from the BPWI Rearch Nerd: Better Plan was quite surprised by the commissions sudden adoption of draft rules containing specifics that had not -to our knowledge- been made public. In a process which has otherwise been reasonably transparent, this action by the commission was troubling.

We were also troubled by Dr. McFaddens conclusion that the precautionary principle was unnecessary for those who will be living near wind turbines sited according to the PSC's guidelines. We'll be posting video of his presentation in the days to follow.

THIRD FEATURE: Click on the image below to see an abandoned wind farm from the 1980's. Though the project was went off line long ago some of the disconnected turbines still spin, others stand with broken blades. The project is located in South Point, Hawaii. A newer wind project was recently constructed nearby.

Click on the image below to hear what wind turbines sound like. Bird song can be heard as well in this clip. One way to get an idea of what wind turbine noise is like is to turn up the volume until the birdsong sounds to be at the right volume. This will give you a rough idea of the level of turbine noise present.

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING

1:30 PM Monday MAY 17 2010 AT THE PSC

Public Service Commission Building

610 North Whitney Way

Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30 CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything right at 1:30.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: For some, watching a Wind Siting Council Meeting is like watching paint dry. For others it's like watching people toss your future around in their hands. For the BPWI Research Nerd (who is working on a book about the experiences of wind farm residents in our state) it's a front row seat on the creation of siting standards that will either protect the people and avian species of our state, or protect the interests of wind developers, utilities and wind lobbyists. If you live in rural Wisconsin, there is a very good chance that this issue will soon be at your front door.

As we look over the agenda we look forward to discussion of the PSC commissioner's sudden adoption of draft rules last week.

On Friday, the PSC commissioners approved draft wind siting rules containing conditions which include specific numbers concerning setbacks and noise limits the Wind Siting Council has never been allowed to discuss.

For those of us following this issue, this sudden move by the PSC commissioners comes as a complete surprise.

The numbers used for the draft rules come from the Glacier Hills decision, according to the commission.

The setback from non participating homes in Glacier Hills is 1250 feet. The noise limit is 50 dbA and 45dbA depending on the season.

The setbacks and noise limits previdously approved by the PSC which causing so much trouble for residents in existing Wisconsin wind projects are 1000 feet from non participating homes and a noise limit of 50dbA.

AGENDA

MEETING NOTICE
Wind Siting Council
Docket 1-AC-231
Monday, May 17, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Agenda

1) Welcome/Review of today’s agenda
2) Review and adoption of meeting minutes of April 29, 2010
3) Update on Commission rulemaking process
4) Presentation: Wind Turbines: A Brief Health Overview
Council member Jevon McFadden, MD, MPH
5) Next steps/Discussion of next meeting’s time, place and agenda
6) Adjourn

This meeting is open to the public.
If you have any questions or need special accommodations, please contact Deborah
Erwin at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin by telephone at (608) 266-3905 or
via e-mail at deborah.erwin@wisconsin.gov.

SECOND FEATURE:

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules

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

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

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

Here is a recent comment from a resident of Greenleaf, Wisconsin

I just read the last siting minutes and the draft document putting setbacks from non-participating residents at 3.1 X turbine height and "1.1" X turbine height from the property line.

In my case this is effectively stealing 690 feet of my property.

My neighbor has 138 acres and I have ten acres. If he doesn't have enough acreage to keep the 3.1 X setback from the "property line", then he does not have enough land host two turbines.

I paid off the mortgage for my land with the property rights intact and I paid the the property taxes on my land for 29 years. If there is anyone entitled to the property rights of my property- it is me.

If the state wishes to exercise eminent domain, then they have a right to do so for public conveyance and I must be compensated for the loss of my property.

The wind developer and my neighbor DO NOT have the right of eminent domain. The Wind Siting Council has a legal and moral obligation to respect the property rights of all Wisconsin property owners and any rules they make must reflect those obligations.

 I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
 

Dave Hettmann

THIRD FEATURE

Do wind turbines cause health problems?

 by Julia Layton

 SOURCE: How Stuff Works

http://science.howstuffworks.com/wind-turbines-health.htm/printable

Some people living near wind turbines complain of chronic sleep loss, headaches and other symptoms

Wind power accounts for about 1 percent of the electricity prod­uced in the United States [source: Gillam]. Nearly 2­5,000 wind turbines crank out power throughout the country. These massive windmills -- up to 80 feet (24 meters) tall -- capture the energy in wind and convert it into free-flowing electrons that people can use to run dishwashers, air conditioning and lights.

 That 1 percent may not sound like much until you realize that wind power is just catching on in the United States. Huge new wind far­ms accounting for thousands more megawatts of capacity are in development as we speak, and estimates put 20 percent of the nation's electricity coming from wind power by 2030 [source: The Oregonian]. The European Union hopes to reach that percentage even sooner -- by 2020.

 Until recently, there were three main issues regarding the possible downsides of wind power: bird and­ bat deaths, cost, and disrupting the appearance of natural landscapes. But a new objection to wind power has popped up in the past few years, resting on the research of a few scientists. The latest argument states that wind power endangers the health of people who live near windmills. Some people call this theory "wind-turbine syndrome." Although the extent of the phenomenon is unknown, there does seem to be something to it.

 Those concerned about wind-power syndrome are interested in finding out if and how wind power could be making people sick. Is everyone living near windmills facing health probl­ems? Let's take a look at the possible health risks associated with wind farms and find out whether we should be worried about the steady increase in wind-generated power throughout the world.

 Infrasound and The Body

 The rapidly spinning blades of huge wind turbines have an effect on their surroundings, and it goes beyond aesthetics. The blade tips of a wind turbine can spin at speeds­ of up to 80 meters per second, or about 180 miles per hour. In high winds, this rapid spinning can produce sound a­nd vibration -- in addition to disruptions in air pressure [source: MIT].

 The extremely low air pressure surrounding a wind turbine could be the reason why bats die near them. A bat's lungs are very delicate, and it seems the low pressure might cause them to expand to the point of bursting blood vessels [source: NewScientist]. Scuba divers can certainly attest to the effects of pressure on the human body.

 And the corporeal effects of sound -- essentially fluctuations in air pressure that vibrate the eardrum -- are well-documented. For instance, infrasound -- sounds at such low frequency that they can't be picked up by the human ear but can carry through the atmosphere for thousands of kilometers -- is believed to cause certain breathing and digestive problems [source: Infrasound Lab].

 Infrasound is the primary issue for those concerned about wind-turbine syndrome. They also say that audible sound and vibrations contribute to the health problems reported by some people who live close to wind farms. Symptoms of wind-turbine syndrome might include:

    * headaches

    * sleep problems

    * night terrors or learning disabilities in children

    * ringing in the ears (tinnitus)

    * mood problems (irritability, anxiety)

    * concentration and memory problems

    * issues with equilibrium, dizziness and nausea

 Around the World

 As of May 2008, about 25,000 wind turbines are cranking out power across the country -- and the world [source: Gillam]. In Britain, 2,100 turbines supply up to 2 percent of the country's power; Germany, the world's top user of wind power, draws 7 percent of­ its electrical needs from more than 19,000 turbines [source: BBC,BWEA].

 These symptoms have been observed and documented by a limited number of scientists studying small groups of people, and the scientific community hasn't conclude­d whether wind-turbine syndrome exists.

 There are also mixed opinions on whether wind turbines emit infrasound and if the amount is any more than that emitted by diesel engines or waves crashing on the beach [source: CleanTechnica, ABC Science]. But we do know that at high speeds, wind turbines can produce an audible hum and vibration that can be carried through the air. ­It's these sounds and motions that provide clues and possible solutions to wind-turbine syndrome, which we'll explore in the next section.

 Wind-Turbine Syndrome Explanations and Solutions

 It's understood that some people who live in close proximity to wind turbines experience sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems. These symptoms and others could be explained as the effects of infrasound as well as constant humming and vibrations.

 But here's the catch: Many of the symptoms of wind-turbine syndrome can also be caused by chronic sleep loss -- simply and unfortunately an effect of living near a noise-producing entity [source: ­­Ohio Department of Health].

 People who live near a highway or busy street may have trouble sleeping, which can lead to other health problems like irritability, anxiety, concentration and dizziness.

 Infrasound Weapons

 There was a rumor years ago about an infrasound-based military weapon that would make people lose control of their bowels and poop on themselves. It was said to be a riot-control device. The rumor wasn't true, as far as we know [source: ABC Science]. But in theory, such a weapon might work.

 To solve this sound issue, new wind-power technology employs sound-dampening systems. Engineers are hoping that these newer systems -- which can block or cancel out multiple sound frequencies -- will reduce any sound-related problems associated with wind farm communities [source: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft].

 Researchers studying wind-turbine syndrome also recommend a larger buffer zone around wind farms to protect people from any ill effects. Some people say that the distance should be least 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) [source: CleanTechnica].

 Others suggest at least 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) [source: PlanetGore].

 Some wind farms are currently located as close as a half mile (0.8 kilometers) from residential areas.

 Whether we should be concerned with the expansion in wind power ultimately comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Is cleaner, cheaper, domestically produced energy worth the potential side effects of some people experiencing headaches? The hope is that new buffer-zone regulations and sound-canceling technologies can do away with the question entirely.

 If the issue persists, we'll have to decide whether wind power is important enough to pursue anyway -- much like deciding whether building a new, noisy highway that would reduce congestion and increase commerce is worth some unfortunate people losing sleep.

Sources

  * ABC Science. Brown note: bad vibration mega-hurts. May 13, 2008.

      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05

      /13/2242923.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

    * BWEA.Low Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines.

      http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html

    * CleanTechnica. Wind Turbines and… Health? August 18, 2008.

      http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/18/wind-turbines-and-health/

    * "Anti-noise" silences wind turbines.

      http://www.fraunhofer.de/EN/press/pi/2008/08/Research

      News082008Topic3.jsp

    * Gillam, Carey. Wind power gains adherents in United States. International Herald Tribune. Reuters.

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php

    * Infrasound Lab. University of Hawaii.

      http://www.isla.hawaii.edu

    * NewScientist Environment. Wind turbines make bat lungs explode. August 25, 2008.

      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14593

    * Ohio Department of Health. Bureau of Environment Health. Health Assessment Section. Literature search on the potential health impacts associated with wind-to-energy turbine operations.

      www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/C43A4CD6C24B4F8493CB32D525FB7C2

      7/Wind%20Turbine%20SUMMARY%20REPORT.pdf

    * Planet Gore. Wind Turbine Syndrome. August 15, 2008.

      http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTgxZjc4NzMyM2YxYTNj

      ZDI5YTNlY2E0YjVhOWNmMGU=

    * The Oregonian. Wind whips up health fears. August 10, 2008.

      http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news

      /1218250522129010.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

    * WindAction.org. Wind Turbine Syndrome. March 12, 2006.

      http://www.windaction.org/pictures/2010

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Last week DeKalb county IL was the latest location for yet another "unusual" wind turbine failure resulting in a 131 long blade breaking off for the usual reason: That is: no one knows why it happened. The turbines have been in operation for five months.

CLICK HERE to read a daily log about one family's life in this wind project

READ THE FULL NEWS STORY BY CLICKING HERE: www.daily-chronicle.com

Turbine Blade Damage 'Unusual"

SOURCE: Daily Chronicle, 

May 7, 2010

By Dana Herra

SHABBONA TOWNSHIP – Officials at NextEra Energy Resources aren’t sure what caused one of the three blades on a wind turbine south of the village of Shabbona to fail Friday morning. The 131-foot-long blade hung from the top of the turbine Friday, apparently bent at the base and split along its length.

A 131-foot-long turbine blade was damaged in the wind farm south of Shabbona.

That type of failure is unusual, NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

“Our inspection at this point has just been visual, so at this point we don’t know what caused that,” Stengel said Friday afternoon. “Based on just visual inspection, it’s very unusual to have a blade fail and look like that.”

Stengel said the blade failed about 7:30 a.m. Friday.

SECOND FEATURE:

Public Service Commission seeks public comment on proposed wind siting rules.

wispolitics.com 14 May 2010

MADISON – The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) is seeking public comment on the proposed wind siting rules, issued today by the PSC. The proposed rules will ultimately result in uniform wind siting standards for local units of government in Wisconsin and ensure consistent local procedures for regulation of wind energy systems.

“Developing uniform wind siting standards is crucial for a sound energy future in Wisconsin,” said Chairperson Eric Callisto. “I look forward to receiving robust public input on these proposed rules and finalizing them later this summer.”

2009 Wisconsin Act 40 (Act 40) requires the PSC to promulgate a variety of rules that specify the conditions a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) may impose on the installation or use of a wind energy system. If a political subdivision chooses to regulate such systems, its ordinances may not be more restrictive than the PSC’s rules. The PSC will also consider the restrictions specified in these rules when determining whether to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a wind energy system over 100 megawatts.

The PSC established docket 1-AC-231 to conduct the rulemaking under Act 40. Act 40 requires the PSC to conduct this rulemaking with the advice of the Wind Siting Council. The Wind Siting Council is an advisory body created by Act 40. The Wind Siting Council members have begun to provide input to Commission staff concerning these rules during a series of meetings in early 2010. The PSC will seek comments from the Wind Siting Council on the proposed draft rules issued by the Commission.

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. Comments on the proposed rules will be accepted until July 7, 2010, at noon (July 6, 2010, at noon, if filed by fax). The comments are considered when staff is drafting the rules. The PSC will hold hearings to take testimony from the public regarding the proposed rules in the Amnicon Falls Hearing Room at the Public Service Commission Building, 610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin, on June 30, 2010. Act 40 requires that hearings regarding these rules also be held in Monroe County and a county other than Dane or Monroe, where developers have proposed wind energy systems. The PSC will also hold public hearings on these proposed rules at City Hall, Legislative Chambers, 160 West Macy Street in Fond du Lac on June 28, 2010, and Holiday Inn, 1017 East McCoy Boulevard in Tomah on June 29, 2010.

More information on the Wind Siting Council and the wind siting rulemaking pursuant to Act 40 can be found by visiting the Commission’s website and clicking on the Electronic Regulatory Filing System (ERF) at http://psc.wi.gov/. Type case numbers 1-AC-231 in the boxes provided on the ERF system. To comment on the proposed rules, click on the Public Comments button on the PSC’s homepage and scroll down to select Wind Siting Rulemaking.

Contact: Teresa Weidemann-Smith, (608) 266-9600