Wind Turbine Syndrome

Vestas the wind turbine giant fights back (Denmark)

admin — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:40:17 +0000

Editor’s note: The following article appeared in Denmark’s largest daily newspaper, Jyllandsposten. Alas, the article is written in Danish. We used Google Translate to translate into English. It’s a pretty bumpy translation, but it gives you the general idea of what’s going on.

What’s going on is that Vestas, the turbine giant, is pissed off at sites like ours and Australia’s Stop These Things and Ontario Wind Resistance and at people like Drs. Pierpont and Laurie—and, by golly, the “big guy” is fighting back.

Sit back and enjoy! (None of the images, below, were used in the original article.)

This image was not used in the original article

.
Vestas struggles against windmill headwind

—Jannik Brinch, EPN.dk (6/18/13)
.

Provides wind turbines children learning difficulties? No, says Vestas is ready to campaign.

There will be scattered too many falsehoods and myths about wind turbines and wind energy.

It believes the Danish wind turbine company Vestas, on Tuesday launched a major campaign against what it calls anti-wind movement.

The problem is, according to Vestas, the movement has succeeded in spreading malicious and false messages that slows the process of construction of the turbines.

We therefore believe that wind turbines totaling 1.7 GW was delayed on the ground in Australia in 2012.

A factual counterpart

Therefore, it has now decided to take up the fight, and the weapon is a so-called Act on Facts campaign, which aims to provide wind opponents a factual counterpart based on scientifically based information.

“The goal of the campaign is to give a more proactive response to the anti-wind movement that has gained momentum during several parts of the world in recent years, although it represents only exceptional few attitude towards wind energy,” says Communications at Vestas Morten Albaek.

The campaign is based in Australia, which is one of the most suitable nations to wind energy, but also a hotbed of anti-wind movement.

In addition to wind turbine customers and Vestas also suffer the environment and transition to green energy under the pressure of turbine opponents. It feels campaign creators, who points out that wind energy projects that could save the environment 5 million. tonnes of CO2 per year will be curbed.

Professional actors

The problem is that it is difficult to find out who is behind the anti-wind movement. According to Vestas, these are professionals with strong resources that are able to influence citizens and politicians.

This image was not used in the original article

“It’s hard for us to understand what it is for a financing behind, and what kind of interests that anti-wind movement represents. But they are very professional and stands behind violent attacks on our customers,” says Morten Albaek.

He points out that the industry too long sleepy and thus has left the stage to opponents, for example, is behind reports that the car starts to shake when they come within a distance of 10 km from a wind turbine.

This image was not used in the original article

From grassroots to players

But it is the kind of misinformation that Vestas will to life. Therefore, one with experts in wind, climate, health and regional development and through the use of digital media to try to win the battle of the agenda when it comes to wind energy.

It all begins today with a panel discussion in Australia, with the participation of experts and stakeholders in wind and carried on with a web portal where you can find “evidence-based response to the myths, rumors and half-truths about wind turbines.”

“It is believed to be the first time that a private company sits at the head of a movement that stretches all the way from the outer grass roots to the commercial players in order to get the great majority of the population to put action behind their silent support,” says Morten Albælk with regard to that about three-quarters of the population is on the whole positive about having wind turbines within visible distance.

The campaign to get home at the address actonfacts.org, is designed so that with a few adjustments may be launched in other markets.

This image was not used in the original article

Wind turbines threaten paradise (Hawaii)

admin — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:00:02 +0000

This child’s family does not want their ancestral Hawaiian island devastated by wind turbines.

Click anywhere, below, to watch a powerful video.

Wind energy companies bully, threaten, and intimidate those who oppose this monumental fraud

admin — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:51:12 +0000

.
How Big Wind blows away its opponents

.
—James Delingpole, The Australian (6/18/13)

Since 2007, household electricity prices in Australia have risen by more than 40 per cent and by next year are projected to rise by around about 30 per cent. If this bothers you then the place you should be today is Canberra, joining the people’s revolution against what Alby Schultz MP says is the “biggest government-sponsored fraud in the history of our country.”

Schultz was speaking to parliament about Big Wind, an industry so rife with “intimidation, manipulation, lies and cover-up” he believes there’s enough evidence “to justify a royal commission.” So how come, you may be wondering, so many of us have been kept in the dark for so long?

The short answer seems to be that money buys both silence and public ignorance. For just one large-scale wind turbine, a developer can make nearly $500,000 in taxpayer subsidies called Renewable Energy Certificates. Under current government carbon emissions reduction plans, some $50 billion of these RECs are to be issued, every cent of them funnelled out of your pocket and into the (often offshore) bank account of your friendly neighbourhood Big Wind outfit. Meanwhile your energy bills (part of which, by government mandate, must come from “renewables”) skyrocket.

With all this free loot, Big Wind has more than enough money to hide its secrets. It does so in three main ways: first by hiring silver-tongued lobbyists; second with lavish propaganda campaigns ranging from brainwashing programs at schools to misleading claims on their websites about all the wonderful benefits wind farms supposedly bring; third by being able to afford the world’s most expensive lawyers.

I got a taste of what I saw as this legal bullying the last time I wrote about wind farms in The Australian. A stiff, threatening letter swiftly came winging its way from a high-end Sydney law firm, followed by a complaint to the Press Council. This complaint was upheld, even though my facts were correct and the supposedly “offensive” phrase came not from me but from a sheep farmer understandably incensed that his little patch of NSW paradise was about to become a Golgotha of bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes.

But I got off quite lightly. Around the world, anyone who dares to take on Big Wind may endure a campaign of smears and character assassination. It’s bad enough in Australia—just ask Sarah Laurie—but even worse in Canada, where a young environmentalist called Esther Wrightman is being sued by a $32bn wind developer called NextEra energy. Why? For creating a website in which she protested against the ugly, noisy 120m-high turbines NextEra planned to erect in her part of Ontario.

At this point some of you may be thinking: ”Oh come on. There’s got to be another side to this.” And I would concede that on the surface the case for wind looks quite compelling: it’s “free”; it’s carbon-neutral; it’s eco-friendly; it boosts the economy.

Except when you examine the details you realise that none of these claims stands up.

Being intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable and enormously expensive, wind is a very poor substitute for the cheap fossil fuel in which Australia abounds. It doesn’t create real jobs just heavily subsidised Potemkin jobs. (In Britain every wind industry job costs the taxpayer pound stg. 100,000 a year in subsidies.) And that’s before you get on to the terrible health problems that can be caused by the low-frequency noise of those giant whupping blades; and the devastation they cause wildlife, especially bats and birds of prey. Tony Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman calls wind farms “an obscene wealth transfer from poor to rich” and a “crime against the people” and wants the renewables target scrapped.

He’s dead right, but if anyone has the guts to do it they’re going to face a lot of entrenched resistance from the pollies and big business alike.

The ALP, as I’ve written here before, is heavily involved, not least because of the vast sums of industry super-fund money that have been pumped into it. And if you think Big Wind’s crony capitalists are going to give up without a fight, you clearly don’t know the kind of people you’ll be dealing with.

God, I wish I could be there at the barricades with the protesters in Canberra today! If ever a cause was worth fighting for, this is the one.

Wind energy is “a crime against the people” (Australia)

admin — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:16:18 +0000

Top … [government] business adviser wants renewables target scrapped

.
—Lenore Taylor, Guardian.co.uk (6/12/13)

The chairman of Tony Abbott’s proposed business advisory council, Maurice Newman, has called for the renewable energy target (RET) to be scrapped because he believes the scientific evidence for global warming and the economic case for renewable energy no longer stack up.

Newman, the former chairman of the ABC and the ASX, said persisting with government subsidies for renewable energy represented a “crime against the people” because higher energy costs hit poorer households the hardest and there was no longer any logical reason to have them.

Newman acknowledged Coalition policy was to retain the current target to generate 20% of renewable energy by 2020, but told Guardian Australia in his opinion “the whole science on which this is based is somewhat in tatters”.

Speaking of the advisory council he would chair under an Abbott government, Newman said: “It is inevitable energy prices will be one of the issues that will be of concern to business. Low energy prices are what has always made Australia internationally competitive and because of the RET and the carbon tax we have lost that advantage.

“Whether the Coalition will change their policy on the RET is up to them … I believe it should be removed because the basis upon which we accepted in good faith that we needed it is no longer there.

“When we look at the experience of Germany, they have not been successful in reducing emissions; when we look at the science it no longer supports the global warming theory and when we look at the health and economic effects of windfarms and the obscene wealth transfer from poor to rich we have to ask: why are we persisting with them? I think it is a crime against the people.”

Guardian Australia contacted Newman after seeing minutes of a meeting of an anti-windfarm group called the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians at his southern highlands property on 28 April.

Newman appeared to warn the 56 attendees they might not sway the Coalition.

“Given the experience of the NSW Coalition which promised much when in opposition, but in government pursued the same policies as Labor … we should reserve judgment until after the election,” he said.

But other anti-windfarm activists are preparing for a 18 June rally at Parliament House, effectively trying to use the same “people’s revolt” strategy encouraged by Abbott against the carbon tax to try to push the Coalition leader to drop the RET and stop new windfarms.

A slick, anonymously-run website called Stop These Things (STT) urged readers to attend the June rally because “while it’s safe to assume the Coalition will cruise to victory in September, don’t assume they are on our side”. It added: “It’s time to put them in the spotlight and find out precisely where they stand … the main game is in Canberra where the RET policy was started and where it has to end. The Coalition need to get the message loud and clear – and the message is simple. Australia simply can’t afford the great wind power fraud.

“With the federal government effectively sanctioning a doubling of power prices over the next two or three years, the Coalition will be helping to destroy businesses and harm families … We’d never advocate a riot, but the time is right for marching in the streets. So grab your placards, don your T-shirts and put your angry face on for a march on parliament.

“STT thinks it’s time to let the Coalition know that Australia is not going to pay exorbitant prices for electricity simply on the basis of some ideological whim … This is not just a matter for country people trying to protect their rural communities. It’s about a battle for affordable electricity and the future of the country.

“STT throws down the gauntlet to Coalition MPs to turn up and front the mob that assembles on 18 June to explain what the Coalition plans to do about the greatest fraud in Australian history.

“STT thinks that the wind industry is well and truly on the ropes, but our ‘never say die until it’s dead and buried’ attitude means we won’t be happy until there is a garlic-coated crucifix driven through the heart of this rort-ridden scam of the century. Turn up, be loud and take our country back. Let 18 June 2013 be a day the Coalition won’t forget.”

Coalition senators Chris Back and Ron Boswell and backbencher Craig Kelly are scheduled to attend the rally.

As reported by Guardian Australia, the Coalition’s yet-to-be-released resources policy will pledge to mandate continuous noise monitoring of windfarms, a requirement the industry says is crippling in cost and will not provide useful information.

The Coalition resources spokesman, Ian Macfarlane, says the Coalition supports windfarms and the policy aims to allay community fears and provide transparent information. But many Coalition MPs want to see the RET scrapped and new windfarms banned.

Newman has previously made his anti-wind power and climate sceptic views clear, but has not put the business case for the Coalition to remove the RET.

Last January Newman wrote in the Spectator that windfarms were “grossly inefficient, extremely expensive, socially inequitable, a danger to human health, environmentally harmful, divisive for communities, a blot on the landscape, and don’t even achieve the purpose for which they were designed – namely the reliable generation of electricity and the reduction of CO2 emissions”.

Abbott has said the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council, to be chaired by Newman, would meet three times a year.

Newman said he imagined it would be similar to the financial sector advisory committee he chaired under the Howard government, which had a secretariat in the treasury.

As well as health and landscape concerns, members of the Crookwell Landscape Guardians at the meeting were concerned that “electro magnetic electricity” could be transferred from windfarms through the air and the ground, possibly causing failures of farm machinery and the danger of electric shocks from farm bores.

Newman’s property is close to the Crookwell 1 and 2 windfarms proposed by Union Fenosa.

Journalist slams NextEra for suing Esther Wrightman, Canada’s Joan of Arc (National Review)

admin — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:49:10 +0000

“Big Wind SLAPPs Critic”

—Robert Bryce, National Review Online (6/11/13)

The Goliath of the wind-energy business is suing David. The defendant is Esther Wrightman, an activist and mother of two from the tiny town of Kerwood, Ontario, which sits roughly halfway between Detroit and Toronto.

Wrightman, 32, has angered the Florida-based NextEra Energy (market capitalization: $32 billion) by starting a couple of bare-bones websites, ontariowindresistance.org and mlwindaction.org, as well as a YouTube channel, which she uses to lampoon the company. In its lawsuit, filed on May 1, NextEra claims that Wrightman has misused its logo and libeled the company by calling it “NexTerror” and “NextError.” And while the company doesn’t specify the amount of damages it seeks from Wrightman, it says that it will donate any proceeds from the litigation to United Way.

NextEra owns some 10,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity, or about one-sixth of all U.S. capacity. And the company is aggressively developing six new wind projects in Canada, one of which, the Adelaide Wind Energy Centre, aims to put 38 turbines just north of Wrightman’s home. (You can see her property and the surrounding land by going here.)

NextEra’s filing against Wrightman is a textbook case of a SLAPP suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. And it’s a particularly loathsome one as NextEra filed it in Ontario, the epicenter of the backlash against the encroaching sprawl of the 150-meter-high, noise-producing, bird-and-bat-killing, subsidy-dependent wind-energy sector.

Making it yet more loathsome: The suit was filed just before the Ontario legislature began considering a bill that would limit SLAPP suits. SLAPP suits have been common — and largely successful — in recent years in several Canadian provinces, including Ontario and British Columbia. Limits are needed, says Ontario’s attorney general, John Gerretsen, because SLAPPs have a “chilling effect” on public debate. Nearly 30 U.S. states have enacted laws to prevent SLAPPs.

Ontario is home to more than 50 active anti-wind-energy groups. Numerous towns in the province have passed regulations to prevent the construction of turbines in their areas. Last year, Health Canada said it would conduct a study into the health effects of the infrasound and low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines.

Ontario currently has about 1,500 megawatts of installed capacity. By early 2014, that number is expected to nearly triple, to some 4,300 megawatts. NextEra alone has plans to develop 600 megawatts of wind in Ontario, according to its spokesman Steve Stengel.

Peter D. Kennedy, an attorney based in Austin, Texas, whose practice focuses on technology and libel law, says NextEra’s suit is an attempt to silence Wrightman. “Besides being almost impossible to win,” he told me, “these kinds of lawsuits are almost never a good idea. They turn critics into martyrs and make the company look like a bully.” Like Americans, Canadians have the right to, as Kennedy puts it, “express their opinions in unpleasant ways, and they can use parody in their criticism.”

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of NextEra’s lawsuit is its claim that Wrightman — by merely opposing its wind projects — is a “competitor insofar as she is seeking donations in order to divert business from NextEra to other energy-producing businesses in Ontario.”

Just for a moment, let’s consider the outrage that might be heard from the Sierra Club or Greenpeace if an oil and gas company were to file a similarly specious lawsuit against one of the many activists who oppose drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing. What’s to prevent Shell or Chevron from suing Yoko Ono? She’s a leading critic of hydraulic fracturing. On the logic of NextEra’s lawsuit, therefore, she has become a “competitor” to Shell and Chevron thanks to her promotion of renewable energy. Or what if Devon Energy sued Josh Fox, the poseur/auteur behind the film Gasland, which contains numerous false statements about oil and gas production?

What’s at stake here? For Wrightman and other anti-wind activists, the issue is freedom of speech and their right to fight to protect themselves and the value of their homes from the noise and other issues that come with having 500-foot-tall turbines in their neighborhoods. Regardless of your feelings about wind energy, NextEra’s SLAPP suit against Wrightman should be condemned. She is simply exercising her rights. She should not be harassed just because she has hurt the feelings of someone at NextEra, a company that was named to the 2012 Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

Sustainable or not, NextEra clearly sees big profits in Canada. The company’s 60-megawatt Adelaide project, the one it plans to build near Wrightman’s home, has been awarded a contract for a lucrative feed-in tariff from the Ontario Power Authority. That contract guarantees the company 11.5 cents (Canadian) for each kilowatt-hour of electricity it generates from the Adelaide project for the next 20 years. That’s an enormous subsidy. In the U.S., wind-energy producers usually get a subsidy of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. The Ontario subsidy for wind energy exceeds the average cost of electricity in the U.S., which, according to the Energy Information Administration, is now 9.7 cents per kilowatt-hour

A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that with the feed-in tariff, NextEra’s Adelaide project (assuming it operates at full capacity one-third of the time) will produce about $20 million per year in revenue. That will result in a huge return on investment. Installing each megawatt of onshore wind-energy capacity costs about $2.2 million. Therefore, NextEra will likely make back its entire investment in the Adelaide project (about $132 million) in less than seven years. After that, all the revenue will be profit.

NextEra calls itself “a leader in clean energy.” But the company also has the distinction of being the only company to ever be publicly pressured by a governmental entity over the birds that are killed by its turbines. In 2010, then–attorney general Jerry Brown brokered a $2.5 million settlement with NextEra Energy Resources for the bird kills that were occurring at the company’s Altamont wind project, located about 40 miles east of San Francisco. In 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles per year are being killed by wind turbines located at Altamont. That finding follows a 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, which estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks — as well as about 7,500 other birds — are being killed every year by the wind turbines at Altamont. (Despite numerous violations of both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection Act, not a single wind-energy company has ever been prosecuted by the U.S. government under those laws.)

Wrightman has put a spotlight on NextEra’s bird policies in Canada. In January, she filmed the company’s workers as they cut down a bald-eagle nest in Haldimand County in southern Ontario and posted the video on YouTube. (NextEra did have permission from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to remove the nest, which was located close to one of the company’s wind-turbine projects.)

In picking a fight with Wrightman, NextEra has acquired a feisty foe. When I spoke to her by phone last week, Wrightman made it clear she won’t alter her website or quit speaking out. Of the 100 wind turbines planned for her county, more than a dozen are slated to be built within a couple of miles of her home, and one could be built just 1,600 meters away. “I was born and raised here,” she told me. “You know every tree. Every animal. You know the sky. And for that sky to be industrialized and to have absolutely no say in the process infuriates me.”

In an e-mailed statement, NextEra — which is represented in the litigation by McCarthy Tétrault, the fourth-largest law firm in Canada, with 590 lawyers — told me its lawsuit against Wrightman is “not a SLAPP suit” and that its litigation is “a measured response to protect the goodwill associated with NextEra’s name.” The company said it sued because Wrightman is “distorting, mutilating or otherwise modifying NextEra’s corporate names and logos.”

What if NextEra wins in court? Wrightman, who can’t afford to hire a lawyer and wrote her own defense (and has asked the court in Toronto to waive the $144 filing fee), says she’s not overly worried. “We have nothing,” Wrightman told me. She works part time for her parents in their small mail-order nursery business, Wrightman Alpines. Her husband is on disability. They rent the house they live in, for $825 per month. They transport their two children, Thomas, ten, and Clara, seven, in their one car, a silver 2001 Toyota Echo, which has over 200,000 miles on it.

If NextEra wins the lawsuit against her and “they want that car, go for it,” Wrightman told me with a gentle laugh. “What else can they take?”

.
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author, most recently, of Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

Wind developers hire thugs to intimidate residents (Taiwan)

admin — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:04:47 +0000

—J. Michael Cole, Taipei Times.com (6/10/13)

WHITE SHIRTS: A German firm is hiring muscle as security at a controversial construction site in Miaoli, but there is a problem: The guards are operating well beyond their authority.

It became clear as the taxi entered the narrow road, hemmed in on both sides by lush rice fields, that we were not welcome there.

The moment the cab driver brought his car to a halt and rolled down his window, a group of individuals who were sitting on rocks, smoking cigarettes, stood up and approached the car. Most of them wore white construction helmets, simple white shirts and black pants.

The yellow construction cranes jutting above the tree line indicated that we had reached our destination. We were in Yuanli Township (苑裡), Miaoli County, at the site of a controversial wind turbine project by German wind power company InfraVest GmbH, which for the past eight months has met growing opposition by villagers, most of them farmers, who claim that the devices are intrusive and too close to their homes.

We stepped out of the car and were immediately approached by one sunglasses-toting white shirt, who curtly asked us who we were and what we wanted. A few meters away, a group of men, one of them busily chewing on betel nut, cast hostile glances in our direction.

After we had explained the reason for our visit and that this writer was with the Taipei Times, a woman — InfraVest Taiwan vice president Wang Yun-yi (王雲怡) — joined us and agreed to give us some background information about the project.

As she was doing so, a white shirt pointed a hand-held video camera and started filming us.

Our brief conversation with Wang over, we began taking pictures of the site, wind turbine No. 26, which was behind schedule, the result of recent protests.

A crane was lifting a large cubic device; we later learned it housed the electronics that will operate the 80m-tall wind turbine, one of many that are projected to be built in the area.

We then attempted to walk past the construction area and toward the beach beyond, but the men — by then we understood that they were some type of security, as all were equipped with ear pieces and microphones clipped to their shirts, though none wore any identification or insignia — blocked our way.

The area was off-limits, they told us, adding that this was for our safety.

This was in clear violation of a June 4 request by the Forestry Bureau, which had ordered InfraVest take down fences on the road and told it that it could not block access to the beach by local residents, unless the latter were notified seven days in advance and prior to construction.

The Water Resources Agency made a similar request on May 20, saying that roadblocks could cause problems during flooding.

A young protester, a law student at National Taiwan University in Taipei, eventually joined us.

Accompanied by her, we again tried to edge past the security staff. This time around let us through, though they immediately shadowed us.

They followed us wherever we went, all the way to a sandy ridge that overlooks the construction site, smoking their cigarettes, talking into their microphones and constantly staring at the unwelcome visitors through their mirrored sunglasses.

We were on public land, property of the Forestry Bureau.

After a brief conversation with protesters and a US technician overseeing the installation of the equipment, we climbed into a car and left the site. The white shirts had lined up on either side of the car and were looking in on us, threateningly. It felt like we had stepped into a bad Hong Kong action movie.

Later that day, we received a telephone call informing us that local residents were blocking the access road to the same site and were preventing a construction vehicle from entering.

We doubled back to observe the protest.

There were about 30 protesters, while two young women were sitting on the unpaved road in front of the gigantic truck, eating a boxed meal.

A surly female employee of InfraVest loomed over them, while the white shirts, who by then had been joined by equally stern-looking men in gray uniforms, looked on.

One white-shirted, high-strung man, his eyes bloodshot, walked around in a daze. He had evidently chewed too much betel nut.

A handful of police officers arrived at the scene, but did not do much aside from meekly calling on the residents to allow the truck in.

One of the gray uniforms, tall, dark-skinned, was more willing to talk, and let on that the white and gray uniforms were “security” that had been hired by InfraVest.

I asked Jerry, as he called himself, which security company they worked for.

“It’s not a company,” he said, adding that they were “kung fu,” possibly a reference to where they had been recruited.

“You know, for when things get a bit rough,” he said.

According to Jerry, the white shirts were receiving NT$1,600 per day, the uniforms like him NT$2,000, while the “certified” security staff were paid NT$5,000 daily for their pains.

Most, if not all, were not from the area.

“They are simple, you know” Jerry said, pointing to one of the protesters. “They are telling lies [about the project].”

He said that a larger number of white shirts had been called in for the next day, when more protests were expected.

We then approached a Miaoli police officer and asked him whether the private security guards that InfraVest had hired had any authority to request personal identification, film people or deny people free movement outside the construction site, as they had done when we had visited earlier in the day.

The officer confirmed what we already knew: They had absolutely no such right.

By about 5pm, after Wang had made a brief, but tempestuous appearance, the standoff had run its course and the truck had declared defeat.

As the residents celebrated their small victory, we overheard one of the white shirts angrily tell a police officer that if it had been up to him, “I would have run the truck right over the goddamned protesters and would make sure that a wind turbine is built on each of their properties.”

The white shirts were obviously on edge, ready to snap — and they did the next day, on Saturday, during another protest near the site.

Video footage obtained by the Times shows a larger number of white shirts pulling at and dragging protesters away, both near the site and atop the ridge.

Another one repeatedly knees and kicks a female protester on the ground, while others are being pushed against construction vehicles.

A female protester was sent to hospital after being forced to the ground and, she claims, was kicked in the head.

Meanwhile, police at the scene, who were far too few to handle the situation, failed to intervene and simply asked the protesters to clear the area.

One protester is considering pressing charges against the security personnel.

Commenting on Saturday’s clashes, InfraVest said yesterday that the security staff intervened the way they did because they were in fear for the students’ safety.

It added that there was some miscommunication and misunderstanding on the part of the students about the pushing and shoving.

Dr. Sarah Laurie formally cleared of trumped-up charges (Australia)

admin — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:36:41 +0000

Editor’s note: The following statement was formally published by the CEO of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Click here.

Now click here for a splendid report on Dr. Laurie’s tireless (and largely thankless) endeavors to warn Australians about Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Allegations concerning Dr Sarah Laurie

Professor Warwick Anderson AM
Chief Executive Officer

Recent media and web based commentary has concerned allegations, originally published in the blog Croakey, about Dr Sarah Laurie of the Waubra Foundation conducting human research without ethical approval.

Australians expect that those conducting research adhere to the highest ethical standards. These ethical standards are set out in NHMRC’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (National Statement). Given the significance of these ethical standards, the National Statement and any amendments to it are tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The National Statement was tabled in the Australian Parliament on 28 March 2007. All human research in Australia should be conducted in accordance with the National Statement which provides clear and strong guidance to those involved.

It has been suggested that NHMRC has been investigating the allegations concerning Dr Laurie. I can confirm that NHMRC asked Dr Laurie to respond to the allegations as a courtesy.

I have today advised all relevant parties that NHMRC will take no further action in relation to these allegations. Neither Dr Laurie, nor the Waubra Foundation, has contractual arrangements through a signed NHMRC Funding Agreement. Therefore, there is no remit for NHMRC to act.

These recent events have, however, raised important issues for me as the CEO and NHMRC. Accordingly, I have asked the Australian Health Ethics Committee to advise me, as soon as possible, on the current requirements of the National Statement and the broader implications relating to research being conducted without ethical approval and any advice I may be able to provide to governments.

NHMRC acknowledges that the potential health effects from wind farms are an important public issue. Once the review of the current literature of health effects from wind farms is received in the coming months, if research is needed, NHMRC will support further research.

Member of Parliament reams Simon Chapman another a**hole (Australia)

admin — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:18:33 +0000

.
—by the Honourable Alby Schultz, Member of Parliament for Hume, New South Wales, May 30, 2013

Mr. Schultz is a Member of the (Federal) House of Representatives, Liberal Party of Australia. Click here for the speech in Hansard (the official parliamentary record).

.
I rise to record my utter disgust at the attempted character assassination of a very dedicated, committed and concerned rural resident, a lady of outstanding credentials. This is a lady who established a rape and sexual assault centre in outback Australia, was the general medical practitioner liaison for regional mental health, operated an Aboriginal healthcare centre, was an examiner for the Royal Australian College of General Medical Practice, was a committee member of the South Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association and is a cancer survivor; whilst her husband is a public health dentist operating in remote Aboriginal communities. However, this lady is not without error as she has in the past openly voted for the Greens, an error she confesses will not be repeated.

You may wonder how this lady is being repaid for her outstanding community efforts and social contribution. Currently, a significant orchestrated attempt to assassinate her outstanding reputation and undeniable credibility is underway, assisted and promoted through left-aligned media outlets. This is a campaign strongly suspected of being led by the non-medically accredited Professor Simon Chapman of the University of Sydney, a person who obtained his PhD from the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, a self-proclaimed expert in marketing and public manipulation via media sources. He is a person who is not lawfully permitted to conduct any form of medical research or study in relation to human health.

I am of the firm belief that Professor Chapman is close to the author of this anonymous letter of baseless and faceless complaint made for no other reason than a seedy attempt to salvage his fast-dwindling reputation as a credible, reliable and balanced source of information. Professor Chapman, with his nose in the public trough—through the apparent never-ending funding of the NHMRC—for bewildering reasons unbeknown, other than regular speaking engagements at industry conferences and committees, has connected himself to the insidious industrial wind turbine industry.

Through his joint authorship, misleading to the extent of being potentially fraudulent, publications such as the highly criticised 2010 Rapid Review of selective literature, provided the wind turbine industry with support whilst placing many rural communities in peril. As the evidence mounts in relation to the potential corrupt behaviour of this industry and those associated with it, both politically and professionally, it is of no surprise to me that those deepest entrenched in this fraud against the Commonwealth, the Australian energy consumer and rural residents of Australia will stop at nothing to protect their personal and professional interests—in this case, the deliberate self-motivated instigation of serious allegations against a lady of high regard.

It is not the allegations that are of concern, as they will be defended and proven baseless. It is the matter of the anonymous letter of complaint being provided to several media outlets prior to the alleged offender being notified of the details of the anonymous complaint. Coincidently, these media outlets appear to be all associated in many ways with both Professor Simon Chapman and the initial recipient of the complaint, the Public Health Association of Australia CEO, Mr Michael Moore.

This outrageous document was clearly provided for no other reason than a further seedy attempt to assassinate the good standing and character of Dr Sarah Laurie. These allegations will be proven baseless and defamatory; the so-called ‘anonymous’ author of the complaint knows this, as does Mr Michael Moore, otherwise why is the complaint anonymous? As they will be proven baseless, the author would be exposed for what he truly is, and face potential criminal defamation charges. Does anyone truly believe that a genuinely anonymous letter of complaint would be referred from a trusted association and then, astonishingly, receive attention from relevant bodies if the anonymous person were not well known to them?

Professor Chapman, you are devoid of any decency and courage. If you truly believe an offence has been committed, put your name to it and stand accountable for the baseless claims within. Michael Moore, by your grubby unprofessional actions you have destroyed all credibility of the association you control. If you genuinely believe the allegations to be true and had no involvement in the production of the defamatory document, you should publicly disclose the identity of the so-called anonymous author or resign for your own despicable actions. Dr Sarah Laurie, as you know, is well above your levels of gutter public manipulation and only deals with the truth; you should take a leaf out of her book and do something good for the community in which you reside—for free.

.
Editor’s note: We encourage you to write directly to the Honourable Alby Schultz and thank him, personally, for outing Chapman. Email alby.schultz.mp@aph.gov.au.

This is a “must see”: Journalist pounds NextEra for suing Esther Wrightman (Canada)

admin — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:08:32 +0000

Part one . . .

Part two . . .

What’s the best way to fight wind turbines? Get sued!

admin — Fri, 31 May 2013 02:09:53 +0000

.
—Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

On September 15, 2004, I fell down the rabbit hole into the make-believe world of “wind energy.” Nine years ago the wind turbine hucksters arrived in Franklin County, NY, oiling their way from townhall to townhall, farmhouse to farmhouse, selling the (palpably absurd) idea of ”clean, green, renewable” wind energy. (Just another snake-oil, yet spectacularly lucrative.)

For nine years, I’ve been witness to a colossal corporate scam that flourishes despite all the contrary evidence of physics, clinical medicine, economics, environmentalism—and common sense. Nine years wracking my brain for ways to vanquish it.

We tried publishing Nina’s book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment,” thinking (not unreasonably) that 300 pages of clinical and scientific evidence would shut it down. We were naive. Zealots driven by dollar bills and the magical thinking of “clean energy” countered with a tsunami of junk science in various junk formats—and, horrifically, it worked. (Never underestimate the ingenuity of corrupt fools, especially the ones with PhD’s.)

I debated the merits of suing wind companies. Nope, that was a non-starter. I pondered the likelihood of convincing local governments to reject these useless grotesqueries marching across the landscape. This had mixed results.

Finally, despite knowing better, I confess I hoped federal governments—browbeaten by the Corporate Green lobby—would get a grip, do the arithmetic, and pull the plug on the massive subsidies.

Meanwhile, the heart-wrenching stories of Wind Turbine Syndrome multiplied. This website is loaded with them. From virtually every continent and both hemispheres. The stories are a carbon copy of one another; the script is identical for all of them. I keep posting them, though I’m not convinced it does much good: How many hundreds of identical stories does it require to stop this nightmare? The answer is becoming increasingly obvious: “Mr. Martin, the number of WTS casualties is irrelevant.”

Then—a breakthrough. A lawsuit. In Ontario, Canada. Triggered by this woman.

Her name is Esther Wrightman. (Remember the name. It’s going down in Canadian history under the heading, “Heroes.”) Esther is to wind energy what Rosa Parks was to the American Civil Rights movement. (Rosa had the common sense and courage to refuse to give up her seat on the bus to a white guy. Rosa understood truth and integrity and fairness—and the American Constitution.)

I’ll go a step further. Esther is to wind energy what Dr. Martin Luther King was to the Civil Rights movement. King became a leader when there was a huge injustice crying out for a leader. He was jailed and reviled for non-violent disobedience. In his now famous letter from the Birmingham jail, King outlined his agenda:

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. . . . Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. . . . It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. . . .My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

Notice the line: ”It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored!” Enter Esther Wrightman. A mom. A wife who runs the family (plant) nursery.

Esther’s not a lawyer, not a physician, not a PhD. Her credentials are more “grounded” than this. Esther’s someone who can distinguish a purple martin from a swift or a bobolink. (See if a wind company CEO can do the same!) She can also tell a bog orchid from a begonia. With her naturalist’s eye, she’s especially adept at distinguishing corporate fraud, harm, and bullshit from garden-variety common sense and truth.

Esther the gardener has decided it’s time to “weed out” NextEra from rural Ontario. Paraphrasing Martin Luther King, above, Ms. Wrightman has resolved to so dramatize the issue of wind energy “terrorism” that it can no longer be ignored.

“NextEra,” she has publicly and loudly declared, is misnamed. “More truthfully, it is Next Terror!” Brilliant! Succinct. Snappy. And true.

For this, ham-handed NextEra sued her. (Click here for the entire suit.)

Remember the biblical David and Goliath? Bellowing Goliath, reincarnated as a 500′-tall giant industrial wind turbine, has swung round and fixed its bewildered gaze on the mere wisp of a girl standing before it—all 5′, 100 pounds of her.

Perhaps “Joan of Arc” would be a more apt name than “David.”

In her formal reply to NextEra’s legal bullshit, Esther filed the following “intent to defend” with the Ontario Superior Court. (Click here for the entire document).

Through it’s own means, [NextEra] discredited its own business in the ways and means it dealt with the public, and earned the name “NextError” and “NexTerror” through these actions. These include . . . [whereupon follows a long list of evidence].

Whoa! This is unprecedented! Improbable as all hell! And—brilliant.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Esther Wrightman has shown us the way forward. The moment of truth: Publicly accuse the wind developers of being terrorists and bullies and liars, and invite them to sue you. Then, make them defend their lies, terrorism, and bullying in court and—best of all—before the media who will stampede you for a juicy story. (Yeah, it helps if you’re a 5′ tall, 100 lb. young mom with zero financial assets.)

.
Don’t use a lawyer. Keep it cheap. Let Goliath hire the blue-stocking Toronto law firm with its $500/hour “fee” meter running. (Of course, Goliath writes it all off as a tax credit.)

Go for the jugular: Ask the court for subpoena powers—to get Goliath’s records. Go after emails and other correspondence. Find the government/industry corruption, the sleaze, the broken laws.

Call expert witnesses, including Dr. Pierpont, Dr. Laurie, Dr. Salt, Dr. Hanning, Dr. Nissenbaum, Dr. Swinbanks. And noise engineers: Rick James, Rob Rand, and their counterparts in Australia and the UK and Canada. And professional property assessors, like Mike McCann (Chicago). And wildlife biologists, like Jim Wiegand. I can say with confidence that Dr. Pierpont, at least, would waive her (normally large) “expert witness” fee and testify pro bono. (Her fee is large because of the hundreds of hours required to prepare her testimony. In this instance, she will do it—free.)

In sum: Get sued! Keep it cheap, keep it true, keep it honest. And hammer the sons of bitches in court. Most of all, create a media spectacle—at the wind company’s expense.

And if the court decides against you—you still win the moral argument, and you win zillions of onlookers who are drawn to the huge spotlight you are shining on these terrorists. And when you’re hauled off to prison for a (brief) period of time, because you can’t pay the fine—you win even bigger! Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, Henry David Thoreau—all did jail time to drive home the justice of their cause. (Get used to the idea of wearing an orange jumpsuit for a week or two. Bring along some good books. I recommend Thoreau’s classic essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.”)

The persecution of a medical heroine, Dr. Sarah Laurie (Australia)

admin — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:33:06 +0000

Editor’s note: When I was an academic, one of my specialties was “Disease in History.” I taught this course at a worldclass university, where I was a tenured professor. In addition, for several years I had a courtesy appointment at the Institute of the History of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

All by way of background to this: Dr. Sarah Laurie will one day have a postage stamp bearing her image. Yes, in Australia. Dr. Laurie will one day be featured in textbooks. Dr. Laurie will have at least one book written about her—at least one of them, a scholarly book. Dr. Laurie will be likely the subject of a Hollywood movie, like Erin Brockovich. Dr. Laurie will be routinely taught in courses on the History of Medicine at medical schools.

The people persecuting Dr. Laurie are cowards and contemptible. A year or so ago I contacted one of them and referred to his “fabulous imbecilities” regarding Wind Turbine Syndrome—and, frankly, most everything else I saw on his pretentious academic resumé. To pronounce this man an academic buffoon would be generous. That he’s taken seriously in Australia is nothing short of appalling. (I predict this man will, as well, turn up in textbooks—whenever the history of The Big Wind-Energy Folly is written. History will not be kind to him.)

But I digress. The European Platform against Windfarms and North American Platform against Windpower have issued a joint declaration of support for Dr. Laurie. We, at Wind Turbine Syndrome.com, are honored to join the signatories to this ringing endorsement.

.
Click here to read more.

Memorandum of a personal catastrophe (Mass.)

admin — Tue, 21 May 2013 01:16:53 +0000

Memorandum to the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection

.
—Michael Fairneny (5/10/13)

This note is in regards to my wife’s hearing loss, the Hoosac Wind Project, and the current compliance testing done by Iberdrola.

My wife, Jo Ann, has been to an ear specialist on three different occasions within the past few months. (She has never had ear problems!). Her hearing has definitely been affected and deteriorating since her initial visit.

The debilitation happened so dramatically that the doctor had her have an MRI of her ears and head. The test evidently showed nothing significant, but the ringing/buzzing in her ears still persists each and every day we are home. This has caused her many sleepless nights and continues to wake her up.

She says she doesn’t look forward to coming home, being at home, gardening in our yard (which is her passion), and has been looking for an opportunity to work, live, and get away from our “dream home” of 29 years. When she is away at work or leaves for awhile, the symptoms dissipate and eventually go away, but I (we) are afraid the hearing loss could become permanent.

I find this situation very distressing and I ask you what solution would you suggest?

I am also having some sleep disturbance and headaches when I am home (not from her), and even if I wasn’t having symptoms, what choice do I have? We are now seriously considering Plan B. Unfortunately, we don’t know what that is.

I am now 60 years old with 4 grandchildren who all love it up here. What has been allowed to happen here is devastating to me and my family.

I still have a very hard time trying to see though and evaluate the true benefits of what seems to be very questionable science and obscure guidelines, without any proper governmental/state standards for siting/setbacks as well as noise pollution (audible and inaudible sound) to protect us. Aren’t we, the residents (citizens), part of the environment? Don’t we deserve to be protected, as well as the birds, the bats, and the earth?

Just because we have chosen to live in a sparsely populated, rural area and there are only a few dozen of us (that have not taken the money offered by Iberdrola’s so-called Good Neighbor agreement, but what I call a gag agreement), does that mean our health and well-being can be cast aside? That the agencies set up to protect us don’t even have in place adequate standards/protocol to evaluate the technology that has been jammed down our throats: Why?

I’ll tell you why! Money! Big money! This is not fair. This is not right to have our “pursuit of happiness” thrown out the window. If we can’t feel safe in our own home, then how can we be happy? Isn’t this our right?

How can it be acceptable that (1) the only sound test done is paid for by the developer, (2) the acoustic firm is chosen by the developer, (3) monitoring sites are selected by developer, (4) positioning/placement of monitoring devices is chosen by developer, (5) stablished DEP procedures (however inadequate) are totally disregarded by developer, (6) interpretation of data is done by the developer?

I am asking for proper testing. This means current standards are to be followed (i.e., attended monitoring, proper intervals, duration and times of testing, assurance of maximum output and speed of turbines, etc). Also essential is that the new, current knowledge for infrasound and low frequency noise be included.

I am no sound expert, nevertheless I am very much aware of my own headaches and symptoms as well as what my wife of well over 30 years has been experiencing day after day.

We want an explanation and relief! We want our peaceful world back!

Please help!

Wind Turbine Syndrome victims plead for Congressional inquiry (Maine)

admin — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:56:44 +0000

—Alan Farago, Vinalhaven, Maine (4/10/13)

My family and I are victims of wind turbine noise. With neighbors on our small Maine island, we have spent three years litigating the State of Maine on wind turbine noise regulations and enforcement, and lack thereof.

My friend, Art Lindgren, trudged through the Maine woods near our homes in fall, winter and spring; taking noise measurements in all kinds of weather, to prove the failure of state regulation and enforcement. This battle has taken a toll on our health, our peace and quiet, and finances.

There are additional penalties incurred by citizens with no ulterior motive except protecting their peace and quiet, their health and property values. Our group of neighbors on Vinalhaven is suffering like many communities the United States where wind turbine farms have been permitted too close to homes.

The Lindgrens have made efforts to engage their Maine US Senator Susan Collins, asking that Senator Collins support a Congressional hearing on impacts to people from wind turbine noise. Their letters are attached (click here).

We all have stories to tell, and it is important for Congress to hear your stories now.

Please support our effort for a Congressional hearing on the impacts of wind turbine noise.

Please write a letter now, to Senator Collins and to your own elected Congressional representatives. (And if you do, please copy me at alanfarago@mac.com.)

Donna’s journal (Ontario)

admin — Thu, 16 May 2013 22:39:42 +0000

Click anywhere, above, to read the entire journal and accompanying Wind Turbine Syndrome report.

Chef Big Wind: “If you chop an eagle to pieces in a wind turbine, that’s okay” (USA)

admin — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:48:39 +0000

Editor’s note: Before reading the article, below, watch this video. (With thanks to Tim & Ella.)

.
“Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies”

—FoxNews.com (5/14/13). Read this companion article.

CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo. – The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation has found.

More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Each death is federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind energy company has been prosecuted, even those that repeatedly flout the law.

Wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan. His administration has championed a $1 billion-a-year tax break to the industry that has nearly doubled the amount of wind power in his first term.

The large death toll at wind farms shows how the renewable energy rush comes with its own environmental consequences, trade-offs the Obama administration is willing to make in the name of cleaner energy.

“It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,” said Tom Dougherty, a long-time environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West, until his retirement in 2008. “But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high.”

Documents and emails obtained by The Associated Press offer glimpses of the problem: 14 deaths at seven facilities in California, five each in New Mexico and Oregon, one in Washington state and another in Nevada, where an eagle was found with a hole in its neck, exposing the bone.

One of the deadliest places in the country for golden eagles is Wyoming, where federal officials said wind farms had killed more than four dozen golden eagles since 2009, predominantly in the southeastern part of the state. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the figures. Getting precise figures is impossible because many companies aren’t required to disclose how many birds they kill. And when they do, experts say, the data can be unreliable.

When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.

Nearly all the birds being killed are protected under federal environmental laws, which prosecutors have used to generate tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from businesses, including oil and gas companies, over the past five years.

“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK,” said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent based in Cody, Wyo.

The Fish and Wildlife Service says it is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving wind-power facilities and seven have been referred to the Justice Department. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to discuss the status of those cases.

In its defense, the wind-energy industry points out that more eagles are killed each year by cars, electrocutions and poisoning than by turbines. Dan Ashe, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s director, said in an interview Monday with the AP said that his agency always has made clear to wind companies that if they kill birds they would still be liable.

“We are not allowing them to do it. They do it,” he said of the bird deaths. “And we will successfully prosecute wind companies if they are in significant noncompliance.”

But by not enforcing the law so far, the administration provides little incentive for companies to build wind farms where there are fewer birds. And while companies already operating turbines are supposed to do all they can to avoid killing birds, in reality there’s little they can do once the windmills are spinning.

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors the size of jetliners.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cell phones — they don’t look up. As they scan for food, they don’t notice the industrial turbine blades until it’s too late.

Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in an interview with the AP before his departure, denied any preferential treatment for wind. Interior Department officials said that criminal prosecution, regardless of the industry, is always a “last resort.”

“There’s still additional work to be done with eagles and other avian species, but we are working on it very hard,” Salazar said. “We will get to the right balance.”

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles. The regulation is currently under review at the White House.

The proposal, made at the urging of the wind-energy industry, would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill a set number of bald or golden eagles. Previously, companies were only eligible for five-year permits.

“It’s basically guaranteeing a black box for 30 years, and they’re saying `trust us for oversight’. This is not the path forward,” said Katie Umekubo, a renewable energy attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argued in private meetings with the industry and government leaders that the 30-year permit needed an in-depth environmental review.

But the eagle rule is not the first time the administration has made concessions for the wind-energy industry.

Last year, over objections from some of its own wildlife investigators and biologists, the Interior Department updated its guidelines and provided more cover for wind companies that violate the law.

Under both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the death of a single bird without a permit is illegal.

But under the Obama administration’s new guidelines, wind-energy companies don’t face additional scrutiny until they have a “significant adverse impact” on wildlife or habitat.

That rare exception for one industry substantially weakened the government’s ability to enforce the law and ignited controversy inside the Interior Department.

“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not do this for the electric utility industry or other industries,” Kevin Kritz, a government wildlife biologist in the Rocky Mountain region wrote in internal agency comments in September 2011. “Other industries will want to be judged on a similar standard.”

The Obama administration, however, repeatedly overruled its own experts. In the end, the wind-energy industry, which was part of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines, got almost everything it wanted.

“Clearly, there was a bias to wind energy in their favor because they are a renewable source of energy, and justifiably so,” said Rob Manes, who runs the Kansas office for The Nature Conservancy and who served on the committee. “We need renewable energy in this country.”

Doctor describes classic Wind Turbine Syndrome in patient (Vermont)

admin — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:48:21 +0000

Click here for transcript of doctor’s testimony.… Read more

We shall prevail (Australia)

admin — Tue, 14 May 2013 21:37:04 +0000

Horses get Wind Turbine Syndrome (Portugal)

admin — Mon, 13 May 2013 23:52:41 +0000

Editor’s note: Horses, as well as humans, suffer from being in close proximity to wind turbines, strongly suggests a study performed last year at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Technical University, Lisbon, Portugal. The study was written up as a Master’s thesis, titled “Acquired flexural deformity of the distal interphalangic joint in foals.”

On this stud farm, the owner has been breeding normal and physically sound horses since 2000. There were no changes in diet, exercise or any other significant alteration in management. Until in 2008, wind turbines were installed adjacent to the property and grazing paddocks.  Since this date, a good number of foals and yearlings have developed deformities.

The subjects of the study were:  11 Lusitano horses. Age between 0 and 48 months old.  6 males and 5 females . 9 were born at the stud farm, 2 were acquired from a different breeder.

The M.A. thesis was presaged in a conference paper by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira et al. several years ago, and summarized as follows.

In 2007, at the 2nd International Conference on Wind Turbine (WT) Noise, held in Lyon, France, low frequency noise (<500 Hz, LFN)-induced pathology, consistent with vibroacoustic disease (VAD), was shown to be emerging in the R. Family, exposed to residential LFN generated by 4 WT installed in close proximity (300-700 m) to their home. Herein, a follow-up is provided.

The wife and 2 children no longer reside within that home. Mr. R., however, must remain to care for the thoroughbred Lusitanian horses and bulls that he trains and breeds for bullfights.

In addition to the continued deterioration of Mr. R’s health and well-being, his financial situation is aggravated by the condition now appearing in his horses during the first year of life. Between 2000 and 2006, 13 healthy thoroughbred Lusitanian horses were born and raised on Mr. R’s property. All horses (N=4) born or raised after 2007 developed asymmetric flexural limb deformities. WT began operations in November 2006. No other changes (constructions, industries, etc) were introduced into the area during this time.

Tissue analyses of the defected tendons were performed and revealed the classical features of LFN-induced biological responses: thickening of blood vessel walls due to proliferation of collagen in the absence of an inflammatory process.

In a personal communication, Alves-Pereira underscores, “The observation in these horses of abnormal growth of collagen in the absence of an inflammatory process is in conformity with the same observations found in low frequency noise (LFN)-exposed rats, and in vibroacoustic disease patients who are employed in LFN-rich environments.”

The following text is taken from here, with appreciation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Abstract:

Since 2008, a high prevalence of front limb acquired flexural deformities was observed in a Lusitano stud farm. This work aims to evaluate this problem by reporting the results from tissue alterations in the affected animals as well as environmental conditions and management changes, which could have led to this observation. A total of eleven affected animals were studied. In these, a complete physical and orthopaedic examination were performed specifically the determination of the angle between the dorsal hoof wall and the floor. Radiographic examination, CT imaging, determination of the thickness of the cortical bone of the third metacarpian and histopathology of some tissues collected in biopsy and necropsy were done in a subset of affected foals.

All the animals had been supplemented with balanced commercial diet for equine. To investigate a possible genetic cause, two foals from distinct bloodlines were brought to the stud. These also developed the deformities after 6 months. Two of the affected foals were placed in a pasture away from the initial one and two others were admitted at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Lisbon. In those animals, except for one that had to be euthanized for humane reasons, an improvement was observed on their condition, with partial recovery of the deformity. Histopathology was performed from (i) the tendon obtained by surgical desmotomy in one foal, (ii) tendon biopsies were performed in three foals and (iii) from the tissue of one foal during necropsy. Histologically the most significant alterations were the dissociation of myofibrils of the smooth muscle. This was predominantly seen in the small intestine but also in the walls of small capillary vessels, including those of the tendon vasculature. The flexural deformities have a complex and multifactorial etiopathogeny. They occur due to uncoupling of the longitudinal development of the bone and its adjacent soft tissues, but also from shortening of the tendon-muscle unit in response to pain. In the case series presented here, there was no obvious cause for the development of this problem, therefore we hypothesised that unusual environmental conditions might have played an important role in the development of this condition, especially those introduced in recent years.

~~~~~~~~~

The following is the summary of a case study of a group of Lusitano horses that have been monitoried over 4 years which were the subject of a masters thesis at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Technical University, Lisbon, completed in 2012.

The study was performed by Teresa Margarida Pereira Costa e Curto, ADVISOR: Dr. Maria da Conceição da Cunha and Vasconcelos Peleteiro CO-ADVISOR: Dr. Maria Luisa Jorge Mendes.

The study reports the findings from a stud where 11 foals developed flexural deformities of the front limbs, after they were born. (Acquired flexural deformity of the distal interphalangeal joint.)

The above image shows the same foal at 3 and 6 months of age

A foal was bought from another breeder to exclude a possible genetic link to this problem. He came to the farm at 15 days old and like the others, developed a flexural deformity.

Radiological examination of front limbs

The following tests were used for the study:  • Anamnesis • Clinical examination • Goniometry • Ultrasound and x-ray • Measurement of cortical bone • CT • Desmotomy of the check ligament • Histopathology • Sound measurements • Measurements of ground vibration

Proximity of horses to wind turbines

Aerial view of farm proximity to wind turbines

Measurements of ground vibration were made at different distances from the wind turbines, with the same equipment that is used to detect seismic vibrations (earthquakes). The results of these measurements, showed ground vibration at different frequencies. Research has shown that vibration effects bone metabolism.

The above research project was based solely on this case study. Therefore, further research is necessary in order to validate these preliminary findings and hypothesis. Regarding the sound that the wind turbines produce, measurements were taken and studies have demonstrated some cellular damage is caused by low frequency noise.

The full thesis can be downloaded here in Portuguese.

The face & voice of Wind Turbine Syndrome in Vermont

admin — Sun, 05 May 2013 14:51:36 +0000

Israel trashes wind energy

admin — Sat, 04 May 2013 17:09:38 +0000

Editor’s note: The following note was written by Michelle Levine, an environmentalist who helped lead a campaign in Israel to defeat wind turbines. Michelle wrote her note to Esther Wrightman who, like Michelle, is a young woman of courage and formidable will. Evidently the battle in Israel is not definitively over; nonetheless it’s encouraging to see that the courts have upheld the principle that wind turbines slaughter birds. I am unaware of any other court in the world which has such common sense. Bravo to the Israelis!

—Michelle Levine

Esther, you are fighting a righteous battle, but my prayer for you is that you should be joined by legions, and that some of them will take a different tack—by helping you fight in the courts, by raising public awareness, as Nina clearly has done.

I believe it is usually the combined efforts of many that help bring a win—and with you as their leader, your legions would be tenacious indeed.

My colleagues have successfully fought off wind farms in Israel, but we had a lot more organizational support, from the nationwide environmental movement—the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI). SPNI attorneys took the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to court, and though it took a judge to issue the ruling, the IEC also understands SPNI’s position of massive nationwide public support.

Interestingly, the campaign in Israel has been and continues to be about the threat turbines pose to decimating species of migrating birds, rather than focusing on public health. Wind farms continue to be proposed, however, so it is an ongoing battle.

I will pass on word about your struggle, so that this obviously critical issue be considered as well.

B’hatslacha—to your victory!

Behavioral pediatrician warns of Wind Turbine Syndrome in children (Ontario)

admin — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:15:42 +0000

With thanks to the telegraph.co.uk

.
—Donna Quixote, “Parents Demand Protection for Their Children from Wind Turbine Emissions,” Quixote’s Last Stand, 4/16/13

A group of determined parents will arrive at Queen’s Park on Thursday morning April 18 at 11:30 to demand a meeting with Premier Kathleen Wynne to discuss the risks to their children from industrial wind turbines. The group is led by Shellie Correia of West Lincoln whose son Joey has Sensory Processing Disorder.

“I met with Kathleen Wynne in my hometown just before Christmas when she was campaigning for the leadership of her party,” says Correia. “I gave her many reports and a letter from Joey’s doctor and I haven’t heard from her since.” Correia’s concerns and those of parents all across Ontario are for their children, some with special needs such as autism and other issues who are at risk.

Dr. Chrystella Calvert is a Behavioral Pediatrician and treats Joey. She agrees. “Noxious stimuli (or unexpected, or unnatural stimuli) are a source of environmental stress that affect the human brain. . . . Wind turbines concern me, given my strong knowledge of neurobiology,” says Dr Calvert. “I, as a “normal brain” (or typical brain) individual, would not want this risk to my mental health (or my children’s) in my neighbourhood.”

The vast 77-turbine wind project is slated for the area with massive 3 megawatt wind turbines, some at exactly 550 meters from Joey’s home.

In her letter Dr. Calvert states, “Science has no evidence that this abnormal, incessant stimulus does not have long-lasting effects on the developing fetal, child, and adolescent brain. In a developed society like Canada, we must advocate and protect the most vulnerable members.”

Non-consenting neighbours have filed complaints about the wind project in West Lincoln and are aware that the government sponsored Research Chair from the University of Waterloo wants to use them as part of a pre- and post- wind turbine study. The group says it is unethical to impose a health risk on a community and then study it to see what happens.

Shellie Correia and the other parents at Queen’s Park tomorrow need answers.

.
Click here for video.

Brian and Joanne (Australia)

admin — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:00:30 +0000

With appreciation to Stop These Things!

Expert flushes Chapman’s “Pissed Off” Thesis down the drain

admin — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:44:21 +0000

Editor’s note: Australia’s Simon Chapman, a sociologist on the faculty of the School of Public Health at the Univ. of Sydney, has become a wind industry evangelist arguing that Wind Turbine Syndrome is frankly nothing more than the hypnotic powers of suggestion being diabolically exerted (by Drs. Pierpont, Laurie, and others) on weak-minded, envious homeowners who are pissed off that their neighbors, and not they themselves, are profiting from lucrative wind turbine leases. (Some of these simpletons are so spectacularly conned and pissed off that they abandon their homes at great, indeed ruinous, financial loss.)

One might call this novel theory, Chapman’s Pissed Off Postulate. (Presumably, «le grand professeur’s» logic makes more sense in the field of sociology—which, by the way, is not to be confused with real science. As an academic discipline, sociology has never overcome the accusation of being either stupendously obvious or stupendously absurd. Chapman’s Postulate illustrates the latter. There are those who argue sociology would be better classified as “literature,” in which case Chapman’s pronouncements could be more appropriately accepted as comedy or satire in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” or Rabelais’s “Gargantua and Pantagruel.”)

Still, something rankles. There is a more sinister undercurrent, here. Like the proverbial sorcerer’s apprentice, Chapman doesn’t grasp the repercussions of the genie he has conjured up. Ridiculing and dismissing WTS victims transforms them—poof!—into guinea pigs who can be sacrificed for the “greater good” of the “global warmist” movement.

Seriously, what do we call such preaching by the likes of Mr. Chapman and, to a lesser degree, Tim Flannery? Crude comedy? Or satire, along the lines of Swift’s “modest proposal” that poor Irish women should rear children for the dining pleasure of English aristocracy eager to pay for such tender delicacies?

In my mind, Chapman is a literary comic. Fair enough. But when does literature, like Chapman’s absurdist comedy, become pseudo-science—pseudo-science in the service of public policy? This is what alarms me about Chapman et al. (Chapman’s a professor at a School of Public Health, after all, and Flannery is Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission.) Notice that when Dr. Pierpont, a genuine scientist and genuine clinician, was interviewed several weeks ago by National Public Radio regarding Wind Turbine Syndrome, a substantial portion of the resulting article was given over to Professor Chapman.

Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, . . . believes that wind turbine syndrome, which has been an especially contentious issue in Australia recently, is “probably an example of community panic.” . . . Chapman and others have said that wind turbine syndrome is a result of the nocebo effect, in which merely suggesting that something could be harmful to your health causes it to be so.

—Audrey Carlsen, “Could wind turbines be toxic to the ear?” Shots: Health News from NPR (4/2/13)

Remember National Socialism. If Nazism’s modest proposal of “racial cleansing” had been regarded merely as a kind of vulgar satire or comedy, this would have been bad enough. But when it became, horrifically, canonized as “science” undergirding public policy—it was then the true madness was unleashed.

We are indeed experiencing wind energy “totalitarianism.” Witness Ontario’s Green Energy Act, mandatory “renewable portfolio standards,” and town governments on Cape Cod and Vinalhaven (Maine) literally sacrificing human “receptors” (or to use Swift’s satirical imagery, hapless children, together with their parents) for the “greater good.” In this brave new world, Chapman’s absurdist comedy can swiftly become a justification for evil. Indeed, it already has.

The author of the article, below, is one such “receptor” who, dammit, is fed up with being sacrificed! He and his wife suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome. (More alarmingly, perhaps, they are victims of “WTS without turbines”—something that would be better called ILFN Disease. Which illustrates that WTS is clearly a subset of a much larger acoustic epidemic.) The author is, moreover, evidently a scientist aware of how real science works, as he takes pains to explain.

—Simon G.

My wife and I—like so many others—got our Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) not from a wind turbine installation but from inaudible ILFN (infrasound/low frequency noise) from the fans of a heat exchanger unit on a neighboring lot. After 3 months of exposure, I checked into the Emergency Room of our hospital. So yes, people with WTS / SBS (Sick Building Syndrome) do end up in hospitals . . .

A few months later we got the authorities to conduct an analysis of the ILFN in our house. The result: A peak at 18Hz, at levels just below the threshold of hearing. When presenting the facts to the medical faculty of a major university in our country (in Central Europe), we were surprised to learn that the effects of ILFN were known to them since 1985, when they did a survey on the effects of low-level infrasound from heating/ventilation systems on office workers.

In that report, they clearly define the symptoms as a result of the effects that ILFN has on the central nervous system. The possibility of a “nocebo” effect is actually discussed as a potential explanation. But with a much better-fitting model available, the “Nocebo Theory” was quickly dismissed by the research team.

So, Professor Simon Chapman’s hogwash is only a mere 28 years behind what proper scientists in the field of occupational medicine know today. Some early literature describing the effects of ILFN on the vestibular system even dates back to 1969 (Tempest) and even earlier.

Now, my background is in human factors / occupational medicine and not sociology (Prof. Chapman’s field). Before I would even as much as think of issuing a statement about some effect that might fall in the territory of sociology, I would first do some basic homework on the issue. The benefit of this approach is 3-fold:

a) it follows the rules of common sense

b) that’s how scientists work

c) it minimizes the risk of publicly making an ass of myself

Apparently, this is not how know-it-all Chapman approaches things. Therefore, one should seriously question his ability to work according to scientific standards as well as his ability to apply common sense. And why anyone would want the world to see their cognitive and/or professional shortcomings, I have no clue.

Usually, seemingly irrational behaviour can make a lot of sense when money is involved—but that’s just speculation.

Wind energy a failure, reports Economics think tank (Ontario)

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:54:20 +0000

Editor’s note: Professor Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist who for years has been analyzing wind energy, discusses the new Fraser Institute Report on the economics of wind energy in Ontario, Canada.

In two words, the Fraser Institute (using data provided by the Ontario government) concludes that wind energy in Ontario is a “flop” and a “fraud.” The report uses more high falutin’ language than this, but it amounts to the same thing.

Dr. McKitrick is a member of the Fraser Institute.

Listen to CBC’s short interview with McKitrick , here.

Click here for the full report.

“Huge wedge cut through the heart of the forest” (Russia)

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:09:26 +0000

Editor’s note: This man (below) died to save a forest from developers. No, they were not wind developers; they happened to be destroying a forest for a highway. Same effects, different purpose. Click here to watch the video.

Mikhail Beketov was a Russian newspaper editor who opposed the destruction of the Khimki forest (and its resident wildlife) for a highway between Moscow and St. Petersburg. He was warned by anonymous phone callers that he would be “maimed” for his continuing opposition.

They made good on their threat; one frigid night, two men beat him with an iron bar, smashing his hands, legs, and skull. Though left alive—in a pool of blood and a coma in subzero weather for days—he lost his speech, and several of his fingers and a leg were amputated.

Within 5 years, he died of his injuries. His attackers have never been found.

Will Wind Warriors be subjected to this brutality when they, like Beketov, stand up to wind developers destroying ridgelines and wilderness and farmland? So far, it has not happened, despite threats of harm.

Mikhail Beketov’s murder reminds me that, yes, this is possible. Same effects on wilderness or farmland and wildlife, same corruption, same greed. What is to prevent another murder?

“The pressure in my head is unbearable. My ears are killing me” (Australia)

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:21:40 +0000

Editor’s note: Listen to the reports of Wind Turbine Syndrome victims in the following radio interview. Click here. Then ask, Why is this torture allowed to continue?

Alan Jones, well-known Australian radio host, interviews Australia Federal Senator Ron Boswell and Ann Gardner (past award-winning super-fine wool producer in Victoria whose business was forced to shut down because of turbines next door.)

“Wind farms aren’t noisy—are they?” (Australia)

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:26:46 +0000

Wind Turbine Syndrome triggers (doomed) lawsuit by 17 families (Michigan)

admin — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:56:50 +0000

Editor’s note: Unfortunately the pending lawsuit, described below, will likely go nowhere. Wrong law firm. Wrong court. Though, mostly, wrong tactic.

.
—John S. Hausman, www.mlive.com (4/8/13)

LUDINGTON, MI – Seventeen neighbors of the Lake Winds Energy Park wind farm south of Ludington have sued Consumers Energy Co., alleging that noise, vibrations and flickering lights from its 56 towering turbines are causing sleeplessness, headaches, dizziness and other physical symptoms as well as economic loss.

The neighbors filed their lawsuit April 1 in Mason County Circuit Court. They seek monetary damages in excess of $25,000 and a court order for Consumers to “cease and desist in their activities” and to “abate the intrusions.”

Consumers Energy declined to comment on the case on Monday. But the company will issue a statement in response to the lawsuit Tuesday morning, spokesman Dan Bishop said Monday.

The neighbors’ lawyer, Craig W. Horn of Saginaw, declined to comment on the case Monday.

According to the complaint, the neighbors allege that throughout the project’s testing period and immediately after it began operation last November, they noticed the following “intrusions” on their properties and homes:

• Frequent, “highly disturbing” noise from the turbines.

• Vibrations or a pulsing sensation as the blades pass by the pedestal.

• A flicker/strobe effect inside their homes when sunlight passes through the blades.

• Glare when sunlight shines on the turbines.

• Numberous flashing red lights reflecting off the rotating blades that “overwhelm the night sky” and are visible inside their homes.

The lawsuit alleges the neighbors, all of whom say they own property and live in homes within a half-mile of some of the turbines, have suffered “some and/or all” of the following physical conditions, which they attribute to the wind farm:

• Inability to sleep and repeated awakening.

• Headaches and pressure.

• Ringing and aching in the ears.

• Dizziness.

• Stress and tension.

• Extreme fatigue.

• Reduced ability to concentrate.

• Nausea.

The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm, including physical injury, emotional distress and loss of property value if they continue to be exposed to the wind farm’s operation.

The $250 million Lake Winds Energy Park development in Mason County’s Riverton and Summit townships, between Ludington and Pentwater, generates 100.8 megawatts of electricity. Its Vestas turbines are 312 feet high at the hub, with rotor blades having a 328-foot diameter.

Esther the Giant Slayer (Ontario, Canada)

admin — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:42:18 +0000

She’s stands 5 feet tall, weighs 100 pounds, and is going eyeball to eyeball with one of North America’s mightiest wind energy companies.

So far, neither Esther nor NextEra has blinked.

Esther Wrightman publicly and unabashedly contends NextEra Energy has committed acts of terrorism against her community—against both people and wildlife.

NextEra has responded by hiring a Toronto law firm to notify the young mother of two that they have had enough of Mrs. Wrightman referring to them as “NextTerror” or “NextError.” I quote:

All such uses of the NextEra name and logo in the Video, the Second Video and on the Website are unsanctioned, in violation of NextEra’s intellectual property rights, and defamatory.

Accordingly, please remove the Video and Second Video from YouTube.com and any other internet sites, and please remove all pages and postings from the Website that contain the altered “NEXTerror” and “Nextterror Bullies Canada Inc.” logos or the word “NextTerror” by Friday, March 22, 2013 at 5:00pm and confirm that you have done so.

Failing removal of the Video, Second Video, the “NEXTerror” and “Nextterror Bullies Canada Inc.” logos and “NextTerror” word from the Website, NextEra will take the legal steps necessary to ensure removal.

While we sincerely hope that we can engage in a discussion of these issues and that legal action will not be required, NextEra reserves all of its other legal rights and remedies, including an action for damages or defamation as appropriate.”

As of this writing, this is where matters stand. Deadlocked.

Esther tells WTS.com that she took a call this morning from a breathless reporter asking “if I had to ‘think about it’ before responding to NextEra.”

“Well yeah,” she matter-of-factly replied, “but it wasn’t a matter of whether I’d fight it; it was a matter of how I’d fight it.”

Click here to read how Esther is fighting it.

She intends to defend her charge in a court of law, if necessary, and prove that NextEra is intimidating, bullying, bungling, nasty, and hurtful to her community and protected wildlife. (NextEra recently created an uproar when it audaciously removed, with government approval, and “re-located” an active eagle’s nest in order to build wind turbines nearby. Esther and her colleagues filmed the event, which they judged—quite rightly—despicable.)

Armed with nothing more than a high school education, the unqualified support of a husband who is disabled and out of work owing to an acoustically toxic workplace, a courage and sense of righteousness to match the biblical David, and abundant brains (read her response to NextEra; a Harvard-trained lawyer could not have done better)—this mom is going to take on Mr. Big. Before a judge, if necessary. Certainly before a huge public audience. (Click open “Ontario Wind Resistance” and notice that there are, at last count, 98 Comments to Esther’s article—an article which has gone viral around the world.)

If I may address a note to Esther:

Young lady, you’re a hero! You’ve grabbed Goliath by his beard and told him he’s a bully and a philistine. And you’re not backing down, even as he threatens you with calamity.

My dear, the eyes of the world are on you. Already we are getting emails about you from Denmark, Spain, and Australia, and many from the USA and of course Canada.

Well done!”

And if I may address NextEra:

You folks have maneuvered yourselves into a corner. There is little doubt you could win a lawsuit. There is even less doubt you would lose—spectacularly—the public relations battle.

Rural Ontario is a powder keg of outrage over what wind developers like you have done to communities—a powder keg waiting for a spark to trigger massive, convulsive civil disobedience. People are made ill by wind turbines built too close to their homes. Many of these Wind Turbine Syndrome victims have abandoned their homes.

This diminutive mom may turn out to be the spark that triggers a major push-back. I suggest you re-read the Old Testament story of David & Goliath.

By the way, many of us, including Dr. Nina Pierpont and Dr. Sarah Laurie (Australia), have volunteered to testify on Esther’s behalf. Drs. Pierpont & Laurie would relish explaining to a judge and jury how wind energy companies willfully and recklessly harm people’s health. Which may be why Esther pointedly uses the word “terrorism.”

I realize you folks have no quarrel with her right to resort to the word “terrorism”; your point is that she does not have the right to pin it to your company name. As I say, legally you may be proven correct. Morally, however, may be a different story. Inevitably, a legal confrontation will generate a moral confrontation, where the latter will dwarf the former in significance.

Think carefully how you proceed down this slippery slope.

Quebec bans wind turbines within 2 km of homes and 1 km of public roads (Canada)

admin — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:16:09 +0000

Editor’s note: The following article was translated from French using Google Translate. The photo, below, accompanied the article. It shows the wind developer, Mr. Desgroseillers, pointing out where he had planned to build his “wind farm”—before the new law, passed last month, booted him out.

.
—Patrice Laflamme, TVA Nouvelles, 3/25/13

No wind turbines can be built less than 2 km from a home and 1 km of a road in the Haut-Saint-Laurent, in the Montérégie.

The Quebec government has officially endorsed the amended interim control (RCI) of the Haut-Saint-Laurent surrounding these structures in its territory, which the council of mayors adopted on 9 January.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Regions and Land Occupancy (MAMROT), Sylvain Gaudreault, approved the new RCI in a letter dated March 13.

“The Regulation respects the policies of the government in terms of development. Therefore, under the Planning Act and planning, it shall take effect the day on which this notice is served,” the minister said in this letter for the prefect of the MRC, Alain Castagner.

In the territory of Haut-Saint-Laurent, this revised version of RCI forbids the erection of wind turbines 2000 m (2 km) from any dwelling and 1000 m (1 km) from any public road.

The new version of RCI also seeks to protect agricultural fields, cultivated floodplains, and woodlands, as well as bike lanes from the presence of wind turbines. It also establishes the 1000 m distance between the turbines and the Linear Park of the Haut-Saint-Laurent and 2000 m separating the site Droulers / Tsiionhiakwatha Saint-Anicet.

“As a prefect, I’m glad that the RCI has finally been accepted by the Minister,” said the mayor of Saint-Anicet and prefect of the MRC, Alain Castagner, in a telephone interview.

Mr. Castagner stated that the Minister would have been wrong not to endorse the RCI changes because, he said, “the government had endorsed the approach taken by the Haut-Richelieu last year and we were inspired to amend ours.”

The prefect insisted that any wind farm developers in the region will meet the requirements of the new RCI. “The aim of RCI does not prevent the construction of wind turbines in the MRC, but establishes reasonable distances (setbacks) in an effort to protect the citizens,” he said.

Godmanchester residents opposed to the construction of ten turbines in the municipality, warmly welcomed Minister Gaudreault’s decision. “I’m very happy for all citizens. This is very good news. People felt they were listened to by our leaders. The minister’s response pleases us greatly,” said the spokesman of the group, Carole Trepanier.

Ms. Trépanier recalled that in a letter sent Nov. 13 to Minister Gaudreault, she wanted to raise awareness of the mobilization orchestrated by those citizens who oppose construction of ten turbines in Godmanchester. “We wanted to persuade the government to be protect us from wind turbines affecting our health. We wanted to demonstrate that wind turbines in Godmanchester would have negative impacts on the beauty of the landscape and property values,” she said.

Ms. Trépanier also pointed out that 570 people have so far signed the petition launched in recent weeks in the region against the construction of a wind farm in Godmanchester. “There was no community support for the project. Citizens have supported us in our efforts, because we educated them,” she said.

Ms. Trépanier said she was relieved to see that all elected municipal leaders of Haut-Saint-Laurent became aware of the “health hazards posed by wind turbines.”

The president of International Barter, Jean-Claude Desgroseillers, said he was disappointed by the acceptance of the new RCI by the minister, adding that such a decision would effectively block any future construction of wind turbines in the MRC.

With this new version of RCI, the prefect of the MRC wondered if there are still areas of land in the Upper St. Lawrence where it will be possible to build wind turbines. “If such areas remain, they would have to be large,” he said.

Wind energy: Medieval torture as public policy (Canada)

admin — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 02:00:35 +0000

Receptor #62 addresses protest rally in Toronto, Ontario, 4/3/13

.
—Ginny Stewart, Ontario Wind Resistance (4/6/13)

I am known as Receptor 62 of Mike Crawley’s Plateau Wind Project in Grey Highlands, Grey County; a faceless, nameless person to our government and to AIM/IPC/GDF Suez who labeled me as such. This is the way they want it; out of sight, out of mind. If they can dehumanize us then they can ignore the pain and suffering that their policies, their regulations, and their machines are causing.

I have a name and a face as do 22 others from 8 families in my community. We have all been stricken with symptoms that we did not have prior to the installation of IWTs near our homes. Each us reside less than 1500 meters from the nearest turbine. Some of our common symptoms are interrupted sleep, sleeplessness, heart palpitations, headaches, nausea, ringing in the ears, pressure in the head and ears, a tingling or vibrating feeling in the body, dizziness, nose bleeds, high blood pressure, lack of energy, depression, irritability and yes, anger. We have phoned the developer, and the MOE, we have filed complaints we have appealed to the Medical officer of health, all to no avail. We are aware of others who choose to remain silent for reasons important to them, but who none the less deserve to be counted.

There is a young man in my community, who was vibrant and active, dynamic in his job. Now he misses work because he cannot bring himself to get out of bed in the morning after a restless night to make the long commute required to get to his place of employment.

A young father who suffers from vertigo which now has become more pronounced since the turbines began to operate, worries about the health of his children. His doctor has recommended that he be fit with a pacemaker. He is only 35 years old.

Young children have begun to have chronic nose bleeds; adults now have high blood pressure. Some complain that they can no longer think or function properly. They lack energy and are depressed most of the time, preferring not to return home at the end of the work day to face another sleepless torturous night.

One family has already moved away but not before giving the lease holder nearest his home a piece of his mind as he was leaving. Another family just a few days returned from a three week holiday has also made the decision to leave. You see after only 2 days away from home and the turbines they felt a renewal of their health. The wife while monitoring her blood pressure was able to stop taking the drug she had been prescribed. The husband felt relief by being able to sleep again, the pains in his abdomen disappeared. 2 days after coming home all of their symptoms returned in full force. Now they are making preparations to put the house on the market, hoping that they can sell it with a minimal financial loss.

I too fear for the loss of my home and my health, which has already been degraded. I suffer from loss of sleep, excessive ringing in my ears. Sometimes there is pressure in my ears. Many of you I’m sure can relate to the pain caused by a rapidly descending aircraft. Just imagine that lasting for several hours. Nausea and headaches are no longer a stranger to me. I have also suffered many infections no doubt caused by my immune system being compromised.

My home along with some of my neighbour’s homes was the subject of Dr. Nick Kowen’s Noise Survey which demonstrates that the turbines exceed the noise limits set by the MOE most of the time. We have phoned the developer and the MOE we have filed complaints, we have appealed to the Medical officer of health, all to no avail.

We are not wind opponents or activists we are people, unwilling participants, walking wounded, and singled out by our government to participate in a nightmare that has been imposed on us without our consent. And now we are to be studied by our governments to determine the depth of our suffering, and what would be an acceptable percentage of people harmed. They are talking about 29%! They are looking at raising the noise level to 45dB! They are looking to make policy changes under the guise of a health study.

In September of last year I made a presentation on behalf of my neighbours and myself to the Medical Officer of Health for Grey/Bruce counties, Dr. Hazel Lynn. As a result the Board of Health requested her to conduct a literature search and provide summary conclusions. In a letter to me she states that “every published peer-reviewed study we considered demonstrated some level of positive correlation between self reported adverse health effects and living distance from turbines” but more research needs to be done. Well I did not sign up to be a lab rat, did you?!! We do not have 10 or 15 years to wait for more research! A positive correlation has been determined! So what are they waiting for?

Prevention, precaution and do no harm are well established health principals. To allow harm is inconsistent with these principals especially the precautionary principal. It is time for the medical community to step up to the plate. Medical Officers of Health in counties where people are being harmed have an obligation to respond that harm and should be ordering the turbines shut down. The threshold of impairment of health has been met and exceeded. We are about to have an epidemic in this province as our government feeds the industry frenzy to install more turbines and as they go online.

Last night I had the honour of speaking for the people of Huron East at a council meeting. The families are looking down the barrel of their future, one that will condemn them to the horrors of a policy gone wrong. They are fearful and looking to their leaders to protect them from what is coming. The room was filled to capacity, standing room only. Sitting on the floor in front of me was a young mother with her four children. They are innocent and their parents are helpless to protect them; the council says that the law will not allow them to protect them either.

Please look at our faces, remember them and not the receptor numbers that we have been assigned. Send a message to The Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Arleen King and tell her that we will not be dismissed. It is our right to be respected and to have our health and dignity protected and restored regardless of the circumstances of our ill health. Dr. King has the power to shut them down. The time has come to shut the turbines down!!! Shut them down!!

Grandmother abandons home (Ontario, Canada)

admin — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:32:21 +0000

Stephana Johnston, an eighty-one-year-old former schoolteacher, with a wind turbine visible through her kitchen window, 526 metres from her property in Clear Creek, Ontario. There are eighteen turbines within a 3-kilometre radius of her home. Within days of the turbines going into operation, Stephana says that she began to experience physical symptoms that she hadn’t had before: ringing in the ears, anxiety, a feeling of pressure in her head, and sleep deprivation due to the turbine vibrations.

She now sleeps in a trailer 16 kilometres from her house, where she says those symptoms dissipate.

Stephana was a Green Party candidate in the 2008 federal election and is active in campaigning against proposed wind turbines in areas near homes.

—Peter Bregg, Photographer

Editor’s note: Stephana wrote the following as a comment upon this article, “Clean wind is clean only until it enters the blades. After that it is dirty wind.”

For the last four years, I have been attending Emergency Rooms, where the E.R. physicians don’t know what to do. A family physician has tried to eliminate every cause (Like testing for syphilis! Negative), testing for sleep apnea (negative), West Nile virus (negative), Lyme disease (negative), but has no treatment to offer.

It’s really an uphill battle to educate medical professionals who believe they know more than their patients do about themselves. (Stephana holds a B.A. degree from the University of Toronto in Anatomy—Ed.)

My son has been working on a solution this last winter and spring. He outfitted his trailer, which is 15 km away from IWTs, with hydro (What a shock as to the cost!), built safety features into the entrance and put in a back-up generator. Once the night-time temperatures are 5 degrees C, I will make the change to “roughing it in the bush” until the night time temperatures drop below 5 degrees C again.

While living this simple life, I’ll have to investigate another living arrangement well away from the IWTs.

Reading Thoreau should be a great help.

All suggestions from readers will be most welcome as well.

All the best to every Wind Warrior.

… Read more

Residents across Ireland up in arms over turbines

admin — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:35:43 +0000

Protest groups say talk of jobs and profits are a joke

.
—Jim Gallagher, Sunday World (3/31/13)

To many they have become the scourge of 21st Century Ireland.

Families around the country are being driven from their homes by the noise and disruption of windfarms.

Those living close to the turbines claim their lives have been ruined by the noise, vibrations and light flicker from the giant machines.

Protesters claim windfarms were built without local consultation and without any debate into long-term health effects.

And yet there are plans to bring thousands more of the towers to every corner of Ireland.

Power

Developers boast they will make billions of euro for the country and create tens of thousands of jobs. But opponents demand to know where this mass employment will come from as the turbines are all made abroad and once erected are remotely controlled from places like Germany and Denmark.

The most contentious plan of all is to bring a staggering 2,000 turbines to five midland counties and offshore locations to make power for the UK – because Wales refused to have them.

Two companies, Mainstream Renewable Power and Element Power, are currently signing up landowners across Offaly, Tipperary, Laois, Kildare and Meath to allow the towers on their land, following the signing of “a memorandum of understanding” between the Irish and British governments in January.

Once up and running, all the power created will be sent directly to the UK. The news has sparked the launch of a wave of protest groups to protect the rights of local communities.

Most say they are not against windfarms, but want turbines built away from homes and with proper consultation.

In Co. Cork, seven households have taken the unique step of suing local developer Enercon Services for driving them out of their homes. Life became so tough for the Banteer residents that they quit their properties 18 months ago and never went back.

The landmark case could set a precedent for multiple actions in the future.

Another couple in their 60s were temporarily forced out of their home near Roscommon after becoming traumatised by the lack of sleep. Michael and Dorothy Keane now plan to move to rented accommodation.

Dorothy said they had moved to their rural home for a peaceful retirement, but the constant humming inside their house drove them demented.

“Our doctor put us on sleeping tablets but told us to get out of the house,” she said. “Going into our bedroom is like going into a torture chamber. That relentless pitch drives you insane.”

Furious

Michael said: “When a Galway friend said come and stay with us we left our home.”

The Keanes are furious that An Bord Pleanala gave permission for the windfarm at Skrine Hill with no noise level conditions.

“It’s outrageous. If anyone else makes noise you can ring the police, but windfarm companies have carte blanche to do what they like,” said Dorothy.

In Kilrush, Co. Clare, Astrid Adler said her health had suffered from the Monmore Windfarm 750m away and she now regularly hyperventilates.

“There are seven turbines, but they want to build 45 more.We would leave, but nobody would buy our house,” she said.

“We have tried to track down the mysterious German owners but if you want to complain there is nowhere to go. The original planners sold it on immediately and nobody takes responsibility.”

Philip Hickey (51), lives just 370m from one of six turbines erected in Ballylusk, Co.Wexford, in breach of planning rules which stipulate they should be a minimum of 500m from homes.

“We have to listen to it all day. This was our dream home but they have ruined it,” said Philip.

“If we could move we would, but nobody would buy our house now. It was once worth €300,000, but now it’s worth zero.”

Campaigner Yvonne Cronin, of Moycullen, Co. Galway, said 103 turbines had been given planning permission within an 8km radius of her house and 17 were currently being erected. She said 60 per cent of the land zoned for windfarms by the council was in densely populated areas.

“We’ve had two years of public meetings, but the developers never come. They just do not seem interested in defending what they do.”

Yvonne said her group had found 14 breaches of planning rules which should have ruled out planning permission.

She said the council was interested only in money – €8,000 per turbine in planning fees and €18,000 in rates for the next 15 to 20 years.

Meanwhile, the Lakelands Windfarm Information Group (LWIG) has been set up to fight the Midlands development.

Biggest

Spokesman Andrew Duncan said it would be the biggest windfarm in Europe, with the tallest turbines, and would cripple local property prices. And all for the benefit of the UK.

The new turbines will be a massive 185m (610 ft), with 75 ton blades, requiring 1,000 ton concrete bases, the size of an Olympic swimming pool.

Landowners were being offered a €1,000 signing on fee, another €10,000 when planning permission is approved and €18,000 to €24,000 annual rent once a turbine begins producing power.

LWIG claims the windfarms will split communities because landowners get the cash, but locals have to live with the consequences. It said claims that 40,000 jobs would be created and the country would make billions were laughable.

“The whole thing is nonsense. It’s a huge money-making venture for the companies and the power is for export,” Duncan said. “It was originally intended for Wales but they won’t tolerate them.”

The LWIG believes the companies will sell off the development once planning permission is acquired and won’t be involved in construction.

“Windfarms should be put in appropriate locations with proper planning to protect communities,” said Andrew.

The action group called for a moratorium on windfarms while the government reviews its outdated 1998 guidelines. A report is due at the end of the year.

A Mainstream spokesman said yesterday that the sale of 5,000MW of energy to the UK would be worth €2.5 billion. And he said the aim would be to build the giant turbines in Ireland by persuading foreign manufacturers to open a plant here.

“Once we know where we want to build the windfarms we will start an environmental impact assessment and will go out to every area to hold information days,” said the spokesman.

“We will always act within the regulations. We are not developers who build a wind farm and then run away.”

“Clean wind is clean only until it enters the blades. After that it is dirty wind.”

admin — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:00:39 +0000

Editor’s note: Wind energy is billed as “clean” by its promoters—as in the slogan “clean, green, renewable.” The truth of the matter is wind turbines are major “noise polluters.”

Noise engineers Richard James and Robert Rand explain.

Noise polluters is the proper way of framing the issue with wind turbines. An honest discussion about wind energy that is based on evidence from operating projects would have to say that “clean wind” is “clean” only until it enters the blades. After that it is “dirty” wind. The interaction between in-flowing air and the blades of the wind turbines changes the wind from something that is healthy and refreshing to something that causes people and animals to become sick. How can any machine that changes wind from healthy to unhealthy claim to be “Green” or “Clean?”

When nuclear energy was first promoted it, too, was promoted as a safe, clean way to produce electricity. Even if there had been no risks associated with radiation, there were consequences to the environment which included heating of the water used to cool the reactors, which altered fishing and other natural habitats.

With wind energy production, the turbine blade alters the air moving across it. The consequences of this change are complex and not always intuitive. New studies are giving rise to concerns about warming of areas around large arrays of turbines. In addition, the pressure changes that appear as large wakes propagating at the speed of the wind and also noise emissions which propagate at the speed of sound have been shown to be detrimental to weather radar and have produced radar “blind” spots in communities with big projects.

Both sources of modulating pressure have effects on people, agricultural animals, wildlife, and structures—effects that were not properly accounted for during the design of the machines or mitigated by evidence-based safety margins when siting projects. Given that wind energy is only produced during periods with sufficient upper level winds, there is still a need for backup electric production, with the result that the anticipated benefit of less pollution from coal and gas-fired utilities has not occurred.

In sum, wind turbines are neither “clean” nor “green.”

—Richard James, E-Coustic Solutions (Okemos, Michigan)

“Noise polluters” is an appropriate way to refer to wind turbines and those who operate them with adversely affected neighbors complaining.

Acoustically speaking, wind turbines are “dirty”: they create noise pollution, also known as unwanted sound. We know this from reports by affected neighbors. It is worth noting that the wind coming into the turbines is not always even and smooth; the fuel, as it were, is “dirty,” and the wind turbine acoustic output is also “dirty.”

Just like a gasoline or diesel engine stumbling, thumping, and backfiring on dirty fuel, a wind turbine is noisier when running in turbulent or shearing winds. Turbulent and shearing winds are the norm in many areas where wind turbines have been located.

However, the wind turbine test standard IEC 61400-11 prevents a full accounting of wind turbine acoustic emissions by (1) requiring testing be done only under very smooth airflow conditions (shear <0.2), and (2) requiring A-weighting which filters out low-frequency emissions from analysis, and (3) requiring time averaging which hides dynamic modulations.

People often ask me, “What is a safe distance for a wind turbine?” I appreciate the question because it indicates the questioner has some concept that there can be noise pollution problems for people (and animals) near wind turbines. After reading the reports from Australia, and especially since April 2011, when Steve Ambrose and I got clobbered by the wind turbine noise & pressure emissions in Falmouth, Massachusetts, I have been replying that I know of no safe distance from wind turbines at this time. Ambrose & I suggested in our reports that we experienced a dose-response relationship between the wind turbine pulsations and adverse health effects, with a time onset and a time to recovery, and recovery related to our being many miles away or the wind turbine being off.

—Robert Rand, Rand Acoustics (Brunswick, Maine)

Can’t sleep at night because of Wind Turbine Syndrome?

admin — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:32:52 +0000

WTS keeping you awake at night? The wind company won’t believe you? The govt. won’t believe you? Are you forced to spend nights in a hotel?

Your solution may lie in the picture, below. If you live in Canada or another country with free medical care (not really “free”; it’s paid for by taxes), consider checking into—not a hotel room—but a hospital and spending the night snoozing in a hospital bed. Free!

After all, you’re sick, right? You’ve probably got vibrations going on inside, perhaps a headache & nausea, and you awaken in the night in a panic—all classic WTS symptoms. When you’re sick, do you . . . check into a hotel? No! You get admitted to a hospital!

Do this whenever you’re suffering from WTS at night. If enough WTS victims do this, by golly the government might start taking you seriously.

This clever solution was suggested by Jackie, below. Consider it as a form of civil disobedience.

My heart goes out to all WTS victims. I fear that very soon I will live the same tragic experiment.

Recently, an Industrial Wind Turbine project leader asked, “If WTS is a problem, then why aren’t our hospitals full of these so-called sick people?” Our anger & discussions led to a “lightbulb” moment. Fortunately, we have a national healthcare system in Canada. I urge all victims to go to your local hospital, to get a good night’s sleep. The nurses might wake you up occasionally to take your temperature, but this would be better than spending your hard-earned tax dollars on a hotel room.

If they won’t do health studies, then a regular trip to the hospital, several nights in a row, may make them pay attention.

—Jackie

“Truly, I was dying” (Arizona)

admin — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:01:28 +0000

·
Editor’s note: The following is a “cry of the heart” from a wind turbine refugee. Itasca Small (in the grainy photo, below) is a registered member of the Chickasaw (American Indian) Nation in Oklahoma. Wind Turbine Syndrome drove this woman from her home. She wrote her letter as a comment to “Wind Turbine ‘Hosts’ Get Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia).” I took the liberty of elevating her letter to a posting in its own right.

Itasca’s comment underscores the need for WTS victims, including WTS refugees, to unify. We must give them a forum, a “safe haven,” where they can commiserate with one another, give each other strength and support, and forthrightly, without fear of ridicule (Simon Chapman, are you reading this?) express their suffering to the rest of us. God bless you Itasca for doing so!

Andreas Marciniak is a South Australian whose comment to ”Wind Turbine ‘Hosts’ Get Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia) prompted Itasca’s response. Andreas had to abandon his home and for the past year or two has lived—believe it or not—in a shed on his aged mother’s property.

I was once a professor of history at a big, fancy university. I am enraged as I write the above paragraphs—enraged this inhumaneness is happening. Inhumaneness to “little people.” I remember that the corporate machinery of History has often ground vulnerable people to a fine powder. As long as I have breath, I will give these victims a voice; I will let them bear witness to what has been done. I care not about their literary skills, their religious enthusiasms, or political party; I care they are being brutalized.

I used to write learned books. I do so no longer. My books did nothing to save people from the atrocity recounted, below.

Dear Andreas Marciniak,

I am very sorry that you are a “Displaced-Refugee Victim” of IWTs, as am I. I thank God that my sister has been able to give me shelter in her home. Otherwise, I don’t know what I would have done when my adrenal glands were driven down into Addison’s Disease by the IWTs at least approximately 11.25+ miles from my home. TRULY, I WAS DYING! I am still striving to recover from the devastating effects.

Other neighbors are experiencing effects from the IWTs at least as far as 12.5 miles distant, and I haven’t talked with “neighbors” farther away. Unless my calculations are wrong, 12.5 miles is roughly equivalent to 20.1 km. This distance is to the closest turbine, the others are farther away across the total miles of the “wind power plant,” which originally affected me with just 30 IWTs, and now consists of 60 – 2.2MW IWTs.

The distance the infrasound travels depends upon more factors than just measured distance! Ten km is not a sufficient setback in some locations; who knows just how far the damaging influence extends given the right conditions? After all, it is the infrasound generated and propagated that is measured across-the-globe to monitor earthquakes and nuclear weapon tests!

These perniciously destructive monsters SHOULD NOT BE SITED ANYWHERE ON EARTH! Living beings are located within the contaminated, or threatened, areas over most of the face of the earth! I can’t locate the report right now, but in addition to Ivan Buxton’s revealing report, there is an excellent study that reveals just how insidiously destructive off-shore-sited IWTs are to sea-based lifeforms and to the entire oceanic environment.

And, that doesn’t even address all the other reasons why this TRULY Man-Caused Plague should be eliminated from the planet!

We must fight on a larger front than 2 km setbacks! NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard) applies to any willingness to accept arbitrary, measured setbacks in any location. Until Warriors Against the Wind come to grips with this truth, we will not be united in an effective way, and we and others will continue to be injured in many ways by those who still believe wind and solar energy will save the planet—just not in their backyard! Well, although I am not a pantheist nor a Gaia-worshiper, the WHOLE EARTH IS MY BACKYARD! And, THE WHOLE EARTH IS EVERYONE’S BACKYARD!

But, the carpetbaggers will continue to reap unconscionable, ill-gotten profits aided and abetted by those well-meaning, misguided, indoctrinated minions who honestly believe they are saving the environment. (“Carpetbaggers” is a pejorative term for the unscrupulous Northerners who infested the American South in the aftermath of our Civil War of the 1800s, feeding upon the misery and misfortune of the defeated Southerners.)

I pray that We, the Displaced-Refugee Victims of Industrial Wind Energy, will not long continue to suffer the devastating effects caused by our misguided fellow-human beings.

Amen.

Wind Turbine Syndrome continues to decimate rural Australia

admin — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:45:33 +0000

Editor’s note: Watch this video and weep. Watch this video and burn with anger.
·

With appreciation to the Editor of Stop These Things! If you are not regularly reading STT, you are missing one of the great revivals of investigative journalism. Just when you thought journalists were ciphers (ass-kissers) for government and industry, STT joined the blogosphere. Thank God!

Wind turbine “hosts” get Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia)

admin — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 01:07:17 +0000

·
Editor’s note: The couple, above, leased their land to a wind company. They subsequently became ill with Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). They were recently interviewed by Australia’s radio talk-show host, Steve Price. Joining them in the interview is the CEO of the Waubra Foundation, Dr. Sarah Laurie.

Click here for the interview.

Professor Simon Chapman, a sociologist in the School of Public Health at the Univ. of Sydney (Australia), insists WTS is contracted by the power of suggestion. (No, I’m not kidding!) It turns out this is news to Mr. & Mrs. Mortimer, who think Mr. Chapman’s thesis is—dare I say it?—horseshit.

“Wind power works great, if . . .”

admin — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:06:42 +0000

·
—Jim Wiegand, Naturalist (California)

Just remember, wind power works great if you are being paid to sell it.

Wind power works great if politicians can help the wind industry food-chain steal tax credits from taxpayers and then turn around and reward them again with carbon credits.

Wind power works great if ridding the world of species like whooping cranes and eagles is not a concern.

Wind power works great in PowerPoint presentations, animated clips, and sappy commercials.

Wind power works great if you would rather see an industrial landscape over god-given beauty and productive ecosystems.

Wind power is fantastic if your goal is to waste time and resources on a non-solution to society’s energy needs.

But wind power works best of all when Democracy takes a back seat to an assembly-line of corruption allowing outsiders to plunder and pillage communities.

I would take any other energy source over wind.

It is essential that people realize that no energy source comes anywhere close to killing as many raptors as wind energy does. No other energy companies are allowed to pick up bodies of rare and protected species from around their production sites on a day-to-day basis, year-in and year-out. No other energy producer has a several-thousand-mile mortality footprint (the highly endangered whooping cranes’ migratory corridor), like what wind energy has.

Wind is not clean energy. It is nothing but a filthy, disgusting excuse to bleed taxpayers.

Wind Turbine Syndrome is forcing elderly woman to abandon her home (Australia)

admin — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:37:26 +0000

“Wanted: Five acres to bury dead birds” (Michigan)

admin — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:09:40 +0000

Editor’s note: Since posting this, I have corresponded with the writer, Ella. She has given me the specific, blow-by-blow details of her claim that a wind company employee indeed approached a local resident, inquiring about renting 5 acres to use as a surreptitious burial site—for turbine-slaughtered birds. The resident declined. I will take the matter further and, if given permission by Ella and her associates, will reveal more. Suffice it to say, for now, that I have verified the accuracy of her claim—to my satisfaction, at least. (See my earlier comment, at the bottom of this posting.)

·
—Ella (last name withheld)

Need some cash, anyone? (Sarcasm!)

In Gilford Township, Michigan, 75 newly installed turbines that went on line in December 2012 are looking to rent 5 acres to bury birds.

They are trying to install 3000 IWT in the Thumb of Michigan, which is rated as the 3^rd best agricultural soil on this planet.

“Please Lord Jesus, help us all!” Why do these farmers not realize their soil is Black Gold, the Saudi Arabia of soils on the planet?

I can only pray someone will read this. I can only pray someone will document the slaughter in Gilford. I can only pray this madness stops.

·
Editor’s note: Some readers are contacting me privately and wondering why I posted this, with nothing more than this woman’s “say so.” I don’t want to dismiss her claim out of hand. It’s an intelligently written comment, and the remainder of it seems sound. I have contacted her for clarification.

My gut leads me to credit, more or less, this kind of statement. Largely because it’s obvious birds are getting whacked. It’s also clear that bodies are being hidden. What’s surprising is not (a) birds being slaughtered, or (b) an effort made at “cover-up.” What’s novel is the company passing the word around that it needs a burial site. There is so much chicanery by wind developers (“chicanery” is putting it politely: These people are pathological liars), that I’m gonna assume this woman’s right till proven wrong.

Incidentally, there is nothing to say the wind company intends to “fill” 5 acres with birds. Be that as it may, I’ll be interested to hear the writer’s reply to my request for more information.… Read more

Do you really believe corporate claims of getting “all” their energy from “renewables”?

admin — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:53:35 +0000

Editor’s note: The following illustrates how corporate claims about getting 100% of their energy from “renewables” is “rhetorical trickery” joined to “political appeasement.” Read Chesser’s editorial and you will never again fall for this nonsense.

“Apple’s 100% Renewable Claim Fails the Sunlight Test”

This is America, where the rich and politically powerful can cut deals for their own benefit and shift the costs onto those less able to afford it.

·
—Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center, 03/26/2013

Apple, Inc. has grown into a widely admired and one of the most valuable companies in the world, producing terrific products that generate long waiting lines every time a new innovation is announced. You would think executive leadership would not feel the need to bow to environmental pressure groups to appear it is eco-friendly.

But apparently acceptance by the likes of Greenpeace, and a warm reception at Silicon Valley liberals’ cocktail parties, still ranks high in importance in the corner offices in Cupertino, Calif. – even though their boastful claims aren’t true.

The latest example surrounds Apple’s absurd assertion that its electricity-sucking data centers, which support services like cloud computing and iTunes, are powered completely by renewable energy. Why the Mac-makers would brag about a phony achievement that is so easily debunked makes you wonder how smart they really are.

“Our goal is to power every facility at Apple entirely with energy from renewable sources…,” the iCompany proclaims on its Web site. “So we’re investing in our own onsite energy production, establishing relationships with suppliers to procure renewable energy off the grid, and reducing our energy needs even as our employee base grows.

“Our investments are paying off. We’ve already achieved 100 percent renewable energy at all of our data centers, at our facilities in Austin, Elk Grove, Cork, and Munich, and at our Infinite Loop campus in Cupertino…. We won’t stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple.”

The iCompany is particularly proud of its new computer server farm in Maiden, N.C., where it has built what it calls “the nation’s largest end user–owned, onsite solar photovoltaic array” on land that surrounds the facility. The supposedly eco-friendly project – which spurred the London Daily Mail to label it “Apple’s NC iSore” last year – killed 100 acres of trees, which the clear-cutters initially burned until the smoke and soot inhalation got to be too much for the neighbors. Apple has embarked on another round of forest cleansing to build a similar-sized array on adjacent property, to generate more erratic power (only when the sun shines) by the end of 2013.

Calling the Maiden solar swath “end-user owned” is about as far as you can stretch the truth without calling it the opposite. If Apple truly depended on the electricity generated from its solar farm, customers would be smashing their iPods and iPads in frustration over sporadic cloud computing services. Instead what Apple does is sell much of the sun power to Duke Energy, which puts it on the grid where dependable sources – coal, nuclear and natural gas – provide the consistent electricity that Apple actually needs.

The same kind of arrangement exists for Apple’s 10-megawatt fuel cell facility – also adjacent to the Maiden data center – the nation’s largest such project to generate electricity that doesn’t belong to an actual utility. Apple contracted with Bloom Energy, a start-up company with big investor friends (including Al Gore) in Silicon Valley, to build the power generation project. As The News & Observer of Raleigh reported last April, “According to a recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fuel cells are among the world’s most expensive forms of electricity, costing $6.7 million per megawatt….”

Fuel cells are considered “renewable” because they require natural gas, but can use “biogas,” which can be captured from landfills and animal waste. Only Apple won’t be using biogas in its cells, but instead will buy renewable credits for landfill gas that is injected into natural gas pipelines. Gigaom.com reported in December that the fuel cell electricity and the renewable credits Apple earns will also be sold to Duke Energy.

So what’s on the surface – and what Apple wants everyone to believe – is that these large renewable projects are powering its massive data center in the foothills of Western North Carolina. But in reality, Apple is generating the very expensive electricity and selling it to Duke Energy, which will then recapture the cost in the overall rates it charges Tar Heel State businesses and residents. Meanwhile the power that Apple is actually using – which must be uninterrupted, round-the-clock and cheap – is sold to them at a sharply discounted rate by Duke.

If there was any doubt about that, it evaporated when Wired.com discovered on Duke Energy’s Web site a four-page paper (since removed, but saved by Wired) from its business development team that explained how they were able to convince Apple to come to North Carolina. As Wired recounted:

“Data center operators such as Apple are ‘the type of customer where the meter spins and spins at an exponential pace,’ said Clark Gillespy, a Duke vice president of economic development, according to the paper. ‘It may be the most ideal customer we could have.’ Their top concerns include ‘power cost and reliability,’ Gillespy said. ‘We were able to convince Apple that we were capable of providing the low cost and reliability they needed for their operations.’”

Besides the attractively priced electricity rates, Apple also was granted $46 million in special tax breaks from state and local government for the Maiden facility, which added to the savings. But no aspect of the location could have been more important than the power cost, which represented the single greatest ongoing expense they’d need to control in perpetuity.

So Apple’s claims that its massive server projects are “100-percent renewable” can be attributed to rhetorical trickery and political appeasement rather than reality. Duke gets 98 percent of its grid power from nuclear and coal plants, which is the real reason Apple was drawn to North Carolina and has been joined there by Google and Facebook, which also have been big cloud computing support facilities there. As Wired noted, Greenpeace in 2011 called the three tech giants the “dirty data triangle.”

The sale of solar and fuel cell power to Duke also helps the crony capitalism cause. As NLPC has reported, Apple worked with Bloom Energy to build the costly, otherwise unjustified fuel cell project. Al Gore, an Apple director, is a senior partner with Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, which in 2002 helped launch Bloom on its independent mission to “make clean, reliable energy affordable.” Kleiner Perkins and its high-profile partner John Doerr – a friend of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs – are identified by Bloom as its first investors, and Bloom is also credited as Kleiner Perkins’s “first clean tech investment.” Thus Gore has a conflict of interest in his dual roles as an Apple director and as a beneficiary of a sales deal with Kleiner Perkins client Bloom Energy.

In a world without cronyism, renewable mandates, and utility monopolies, electricity-hungry Apple would have laughed at Bloom Energy after hearing its sales pitch about some of the most expensive power on the market. But this is America, where the rich and politically powerful can cut deals for their own benefit and shift the costs onto those less able to afford it.
·

Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and publishes CarolinaPlottHound.com, an aggregator of North Carolina news.

Wind energy’s stupendously false claims (United Kingdom)

admin — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:00:25 +0000

·
“Call for Full Facts on Wind Turbines”

—Tony Wakefield, Rutland & Stamford Mercury (UK), 1/9/13

In the 60s I was professionally involved in the design of wind turbines for electricity generation. Even then it was clear that they could never be an economical source of energy for the Grid.

It is always inefficient to convert low-level energy into high-level energy.

Our applications were confined to pipelines in remote desert areas. I have consequently taken a peripheral interest in their development and application ever since, regarding their only good feature being that, unlike nuclear power plants in particular, their decommissioning is cheap and easy.

The picture has been muddied by the apparent environmental implications, both pro (possibly) and con (definitely).

In particular I would mention that it can be argued that anything that increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to be encouraged since that is where virtually 100 per cent of our food supply comes from.

A letter appeared in Professional Engineering in 2012, the organ of the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers drawing attention to a report listing the five common assertions made by the wind industry, Government representatives and agencies.

(1) “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”

(2) “The wind is always blowing somewhere.”

(3) “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”

(4) “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”

(5) “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”

An analysis using publicly available data for a 26-month period between November, 2008 and December, 2010, and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:

(1) Average output from wind was 27.18 per cent of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14 per centin 2010, and 24.08 per cent between November, 2008 and December, 2010 inclusive.

(2) There were 124 separate occasions from November, 2008 til December, 2010 when total generation from wind farms metered by National Grid were less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).

(3) The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November, 2008 and December, 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

(4) At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72 per cent, 5.51 per cent, 2.59 per cent and 2.51 per cent of capacity at peak demand.

(5) The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only five hours then it drops to 1060MW, finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

The myths surrounding wind energy’s contribution have to be scotched.

The analysis is very detailed and show that in the period from November, 2008 until December, 2010 wind power generation was below 20 per cent of capacity for more than half the time.

The extremes are revealing. At 3am on March 28, 2011 the entire output from 3,226MW of installed capacity was 9MW. Three days later at 11.40am the output was 2618MW, the  highest ever recorded. So discussions about energy balance and availability efficiencies are pretty meaningless in the face of such wild swings in output.

One must read the report to fully appreciate how using average wind speed to infer average power output has been very misleading. The instantaneous values are what really matter.

The assumptions that periods of high pressure are confined to summer and that the wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK is wrong. High barometric pressure and low or no wind can occur at any time over the whole of the UK.

In Northamptonshire there are planning applications in place for no less than 53 windmills out of a total of 94 new windmills currently projected for the UK.

Northants does not have any areas of outstanding natural beauty, National Parks, big cities or major airports, which makes it relatively plain sailing for windfarm developers to defeat local concerned groups.

It also has relatively low wind speeds—about 6m/s—but that doesn’t stop the use of average values hoodwinking the gullible into believing some inflated projections for electrical energy production.

During the Industrial Revolution when the steam engine and electrical power generation appeared, local cereal millers became less cost effective and went out of business because their windmills were an unreliable source of power. Nothing has changed.

It is disturbing to find Government policy still, in defiance of irrefutable evidence freely available from National Grid still pushing ahead with a policy discredited at every level.

Claims made by vested interest, in which I have to include Government members, are demonstrably at variance with the facts. We have a right to expect integrity, at least from our Government, but we are not getting it.
·
Tony Wakefield, who lives in Little Casterton Road, Stamford, is a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and a Fellow of the Association of Consulting Engineers.

Wind Turbine Syndrome: Physician tells couple to leave their home (Ireland)

admin — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:02:40 +0000

Stamp out wind turbines (Scotland)

admin — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:01:18 +0000

“Ten ways to kill Big Wind” (Hawaii)

admin — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:42:13 +0000

—Mike Bond, Professional Writer (3/8/13)

Despite many victories, communities around the world are still facing a plague of industrial wind projects that like hideous War of the Worlds steel monsters are destroying communities, mountains, and wildlands, slaughtering birds and bats, sickening people and driving them from their homes.

Even though these wind projects do not reduce greenhouse gases or fossil fuel use, they have dreadful environmental, social and economic impacts on whole regions. But they are a tool for energy companies and investment banks to make billions in taxpayer subsidies that get added to our national debt.

The good news is that communities worldwide are learning how to defeat these dreadful projects. More and more laws and moratoriums are being passed against them, while other projects are defeated on legal grounds or by overwhelming public opposition.

In Hawaii, an industrial wind project that would have constructed ninety 42-story turbine towers across seventeen square miles of Molokai has been defeated by a determined two-year effort of the island’s residents. In the process we learned many tactics, which I’ve tried to summarize below and are further described in Saving Paradise:

Show wind projects for what they are: industrial. Not environmental, not green, not renewable, and cause no reductions in greenhouse gases or fossil fuel use, no long-term jobs and few short-term ones.

Don’t be nice. These wind developers are your enemies: they want to destroy where you live, steal your money (property values), and are quite happy to literally drive you from your homes. They will lie, cheat, bribe, buy politicians, and do whatever else they can to win. They won’t be fair and you can’t trust them.

Create a group and get your community behind you. Point out property value loss, human health issues, environmental destruction, tourism impacts, and all the other dreadful results of industrial wind. If you have a homeowners’ associations, make them aware of the danger so they can join the fight.

Publicize your case. In the newspapers, TV and radio, on blogs and in nationwide petitions. Use good graphics. Go viral, worldwide. Develop a good professional website with lots of information and ways for viewers to participate. Community members should write op-eds and letters to the editor. A very powerful tool is frequent press releases that pass on news reports from National Wind Watch and other groups about the devastating impacts of industrial wind. These press releases should be sent to all relevant media outlets and local, state and national legislators.

Do mailings to everyone. In Molokai we sent two mailings to all the island’s 2,700 addresses. The first mailer described the dangers of the project and included a survey with a stamped return envelope. We had a massive response, with 97% of responses against the project, and our group gained hundreds of new members. A year later we sent a second mailer with photo mockups showing how the turbines would tower over homes and landscapes. This mailer also included a bumper sticker which many residents then put on their cars.

Be visible. Put up lots of signs, both homemade and professionally done. Put up billboards if you can. Professional signs show you mean business, and are taken more seriously.

Find legislators who will help you. On the state level, Republicans are often more responsive and more concerned about the environment than traditionalist Democrats who have bought the idea that wind is environmental (or who are receiving contributions from wind companies).

Litigate. Find every avenue to impair or slow the wind developers. Once the Washington industrial welfare subsidies are removed, industrial wind companies will vanish overnight.

Get property value loss appraisals. Average losses of 40% or more are being reported; in Molokai, one of the reasons the landowner planning the project cancelled it was they estimated a 75% property value loss on their lands near the project. Publicize the loss of assessed value at county level, and how that will reduce tax revenues. In most cases, property value loss far exceeds any revenue the county might receive from the project.

Civil disobedience. Politicians and energy companies are terrified of this. Don’t be afraid to go to jail to protect the land and homes you love. On Molokai we planned if necessary to start a hunger strike on the island, and there were people ready to starve to death to protect our island. The level of your commitment is equal to the level of your success.

Doctors blow the whistle on wind turbines (Global)

admin — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:34:26 +0000

Editor’s note: The following is a news release from the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW).

An impressive number of health practitioners, researchers and acousticians around the world are voicing their concern about the effects of wind turbines on people’s health. The list was just published by the Waubra Foundation, the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North-American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW), the latter two representing over 600 associations of windfarm victims from 27 countries.

These health professionals should be honored, assert the three NGOs: it takes courage to uphold the rights of victims against the powerful coalition of vested interests which supports the wind industry.

In Australia, where the controversy is reaching new heights, a wind industry executive has been singling out Dr Sarah Laurie in a bid to make the public forget the many other health professionals who alert to the dangerous effects of wind turbines: “. . . the largest public relations issue for the industry at the moment is the theory of an ex-doctor [“ex-doctor” is false—Ed.] that infrasound or low frequency noise from wind turbines is likely to make anyone within 10 km of a wind turbine sick.”

The Australian blog, Stop These Things, which rose to prominence denouncing the wind industry, responded: ”So, the largest public relations issue for the wind industry is Sarah Laurie? One woman against the deep pockets of the pro-wind lobby. One woman speaking with local communities.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Marine wind turbine construction harms porpoises’ hearing & survival (Germany)

admin — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 14:12:10 +0000

“Wind park building noise ‘can kill porpoises’”

—Unsigned article, The Local: German’s News in English 2/26/13

German scientists are working to prevent the noise from building oceanic wind parks from damaging the hearing of whales and dolphins, after it emerged that the noise could be deadly for sea mammals.

Anja Gallus, from the German Oceanic Museum in Stralsund, said the noise created by hydraulic hammers used to ram the steel base pipes into the sea bed, could kill in particular porpoises in the area. (Editors note: You may contact Ms. Gallus at anja.gallus@meeresmuseum.de.)

“Damage to hearing means the loss of their navigation and thus the possibility of hunting. If the hearing damage remains, the animals mostly die,” she told Die Zeit weekly newspaper.

Porpoises navigate, hunt and communicate with each other with echolocation, making clicks and other noises and hearing the reflection of the noises off objects such as fish, to create an understanding of what is around them.

But the level of noise created by underwater building sites needed to set up the wind parks drown out these subtle noises. Each wind turbine requires an 800-tonne steel base which must be fixed 30 metres deep into the sea bed – and is simply hit with a huge hammer to ram it in.

“The construction work is very noise intensive,” [Professor] Otto von Estorff, from the Technical University Hamburg-Harburg told the paper. “The particularly conductive quality of the water means the noise can be clearly heard for several kilometres.” (Editor’s note: You can reach Prof. Estorff at estorff@tu-harburg.de.)

He and his research team have measured around 200 decibels at the construction site – and it remains at around 180 decibels within 750 metres of the work.

“The maximum noise levels as prescribed by the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency for underwater are at 160 decibels – which is about the noise level of an Oktoberfest band on land. The average noise level around the German coasts is around 90 decibels,” von Estorff said.

The most effective way to keep the noise at site is to create a bubble curtain around the work which acts insulation against the sound waves in the water – effectively breaking them up so they do not travel so well.

The bubble curtain – created by laying a pipe with holes in it on the ground around the foundation work and pumping air through it – can be badly affected by heavy seas though, as strong currents can simply whip the bubbles away, leaving no noise barrier.

Von Estorff and his team are working to try to evaluate other possible methods of reducing the noise pollution from the construction, Die Zeit said. Delays due to adverse conditions preventing the bubble curtains working can easily cost €90,000 for each wind turbine, but there is not yet any other way, said Cay Grunau, from Hydrotechnik Lübeck, a firm which lays the bubble curtain pipes.

“If we are deciding upon environmentally friendly energy, we also have to protect the environment with the building measures necessary. Anything else would be a big contradiction.”

Why the wind industry’s turbine noise measurements are worthless

admin — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 03:37:49 +0000

Why dBG, dBC, and dBA “hide” the true “dose” of infrasound below 10 Hz

The actual level of infrasound in this figure at 1 Hz is above 90 dB. Measuring infrasound with dBG at 1 Hz gives a level of only 50 dB. Thus 40 dB is “hidden.” Forty dB is a huge amount of sound energy, which will not be heard at that level, but may be perceived.

The graph also demonstrates why dBA is useless at accurately measuring below 200Hz. Measurement with dBC likewise fails to measure the true low frequency noise and infrasound level once you get below 100 Hz.

The figure below came from the following sources:

» Salt, A.N. and Kaltenbach, J.A. (2011). Infrasound from Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Science. (Aug 2011). 296-302. (Downloadable from here. Scroll down to the fourth article.)

» Van den Berg, G. P. (2006). The sound of high winds: The effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise. PhD dissertation. University of Groningen, Netherlands.

The “Waterloo Wind Farm Refugees” (Australia)

admin — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:37:09 +0000

Wind turbines at sea get Wave Resonance Syndrome (Norway)

admin — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:55:36 +0000

Editor’s note: Turns out ocean waves create a phenomenon called “ringing.” Ringing makes a resonance (vibration) which can break turbines and other such structures (oil rigs) “like matchsticks.”

The problem is, turbine towers are just the right size to be “vibrated apart” (my term) by ocean wave resonance.

Thus far it has not been possible to measure the force exerted by ringing. Laboratory measurements show that the biggest vibrations in the wind turbines occur just after the wave has passed and not when the wave hits the turbine. Right after the crest of the wave has passed, a second force hits the structure. If the second force resonates with the structural frequency of the wind turbine, the vibration is strong. This means that the wind turbine is first exposed to one force, and is then shaken by another force. When specific types of waves are repeated this causes the wear to be especially pronounced. This increases the danger of fatigue.”

—Professor John Grue, University of Oslo

This is akin to what happens inside a house. Turbine infrasound creates a resonance (vibration) within certain-sized rooms, in some cases shaking the house apart. (Witness the home of Anne & Mark Cool, Falmouth, MA, where nails are coming out of the walls in a relatively new home. Annie Hart Cool is a Sotheby’s realtor, incidentally. WTS.com has heard similar accounts from homeowners, elsewhere.)

Can you see the irony? Turbines at sea being vibrated apart by a resonance from ocean waves! Turbines getting Wave Resonance Syndrome (WRS)!

How many marine turbines do you think will want to, er, abandon ship? I can imagine the Australian sociologist, Simon Chapman, arguing turbines are faking WRS because they’re envious of land-based turbines, which get most of the media attention. Others might counter that marine turbines are getting WRS because of a nocebo effect.

Wind energy has entered the realm of slapstick. Three Stooges comedy. Except, it’s so tragic.

“Windmills at sea can break like matches”

Medium-sized waves can destroy wind turbines at sea, causing them to break like matches. Mathematicians are trying to explain why.

·
—Yngve Vogt, Apollon: Research Magazine, University of Oslo (Norway) 2/26/13

When waves above 13 metres hit wind turbines, an unfortunate force arises at the rear of the turbine. This is called ringing. Professor John Grue is now looking for a general mathematical formula that can explain the special phenomenon.

Medium-sized waves can break wind turbines at sea like matches. These waves occur even in small storms, which are quite common in the Norwegian Sea. “The problem is, we still do not know exactly when the wind turbines may break,” says Professor John Grue from the Department of Mathematics at the University of Oslo. Grue is one of the world’s foremost experts on wave research. In 1989 he discovered an inexplicable wave phenomenon called ringing, which is a special type of vibration that occurs when choppy waves hit marine installations. The discovery was made in a 25-metre long wave laboratory located in the basement of the mathematics building at Blindern Campus.

So far scientists have studied ringing in small and large waves, but as it turns out, ringing is more common in medium-size waves.

For wind turbines at sea with a cylinder diameter of eight metres, the worst waves are those that are more than 13 metres high and have an 11-second interval between them.

Financial ruin

The ringing problem may increase significantly in the years ahead. There are plans to build tens of thousands of wind turbines at sea.

“If we do not take ringing into consideration, offshore wind turbine parks can lead to financial ruin,” warns John Grue.

Today, the largest windmill parks at sea are outside the coasts of Denmark and Great Britain. They are nevertheless like small miniatures compared to Statkraft and Statoil’s enormous plans on the Dogger Bank outside Scotland. This windmill park is to produce as much electricity as 60 to 90 Alta power plants. A windmill park with the capacity of two Alta power plants will be built outside Møre og Romsdal.

“Thus far it has not been possible to measure the force exerted by ringing. Laboratory measurements show that the biggest vibrations in the wind turbines occur just after the wave has passed and not when the wave hits the turbine. Right after the crest of the wave has passed, a second force hits the structure. If the second force resonates with the structural frequency of the wind turbine, the vibration is strong. This means that the wind turbine is first exposed to one force, and is then shaken by another force. When specific types of waves are repeated this causes the wear to be especially pronounced. This increases the danger of fatigue.”

It is precisely this secondary force that creates ringing and that the mathematicians until now have not managed to calculate.

Unfortunate vibrations

All structures have their own vibration frequencies, whether they are wind turbines, bridges, oil rigs or vessels.

When the vibration matches the structural frequency, things get tough. This phenomenon is called resonance, and can be compared to the steady march of soldiers on a bridge. If the soldiers march in time with the structural frequency of the bridge, it can collapse.

Unrealistic calculations

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have already made a number of calculations of ringing. Ecole Centrale Marseille and the French Bureau Veritas have also made such calculations. Det Norske Veritas is among those who use versions of these models.

“Current models are the best we have, but the estimates are too rough and erroneous. The theories are applied far outside of their area of validity. This means that we cannot calculate the fatigue adequately.”

Ringing is not related to turbulence. Ringing is systematic and is about high underpressure at back of the cylinder.

Difficult mathematics

Internationally, very little has been done on this phenomenon. John Grue now has two Doctoral Research Fellows calculating these movements. He also collaborates with the Danish research community on wind power at Risø National Laboratory and the Technical University of Denmark.

“Ringing is very difficult to calculate. There is great uncertainty. We want more precise descriptions of the physics of ringing. We are now trying sophisticated surface elevation models and complex calculations to reproduce these measurements accurately. We want to show that the ringing force arises systematically according to a general mathematical formula.”

Saga Petroleum has previously conducted an extensive set of measurements of the ringing force in waves.

“These fit our measurements very well”, says Grue.

Differences between deep and shallow waters

The scientists must also consider whether the installations are in deep or shallow waters.

“The structural frequency also depends on the conditions on the seabed.

You can compare it to a flagpole in a storm. The flag pole vibrates differently depending on whether the pole is fixed in concrete or on softer ground.”

“There has been no research on the connection between vibrations and the conditions on the seabed.”

Oil rig damaged

Ringing does not just harm wind turbines. Ringing has already been a great problem for the oil industry. The designers of the YME platform did not tak ringing into account, and lost NOK 12 billion.

“It is possible to build your way out of the ringing problem by strengthening the oil rigs. However, it is not financially profitable to do the same with wind turbines”, says John Grue.

Improves the models

Arne Nestegård, Chief Specialist in hydrodynamics at Det Norske Veritas, confirms to Apollon that wind turbines at moderate depths may be exposed to high-frequency resonant oscillations if the waves are extreme, but they safeguard against this. Nestegård says that in the past twenty years, Veritas has developed ringing models and that they now work on improving the models for wind turbines at sea.

Video: Suffering from windfarms (Australia)

admin — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 01:44:36 +0000

Hard data on why wind energy is bullshit (New York)

admin — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:48:42 +0000

“Lessons from New York”

—Jack Sullivan, MS (Nuclear Physics, Cornell University), Rutland Herald 2/14/13

As Vermonters grapple with the pros and cons of industrial wind power, many of their questions may be answered by studying the track record of northern New York wind projects.

This area has been host to hundreds of turbines for nearly five years. The wind resource of northern Vermont is very close to that of northern New York. We can certainly expect nearly the same performance from turbines in both locations. I have tracked four northern New York projects since their inception with a comprehensive study centered on the Noble Chateaugay project, which has 71 GE 1.5 SLE turbines and is capacity-rated at 106.5 megawatts. The capacity rating is the maximum sustained output of the project.

The actual annual output of the Chateaugay was only 23 megawatts, giving an efficiency (capacity factor ) of 21.6 percent. The other northern New York projects had similar capacity factors. This is quite far removed from the 30 percent to 35 percent commonly predicted by wind developers.

All northern New York wind projects had more than 1,200 hours annually that they produced no electricity at all (that’s the equivalent of 50 24-hour days) or 14 percent of the time with zero generation. It appears wind developers notoriously inflate expected capacity factors to entice investors and increase chances of permitting approvals.

Both Vesta and GE turbines have a manufacturer’s life expectancy rating of 20 years, yet no northern New York wind project is on track to sell enough electricity in 20 years to pay for itself. There are few locations in the Northeast that have a sufficient wind resource to support a viable wind generating project;; not only are area winds light compared to the Midwest, but they have a huge problem of being very intermittent.

Wind power can never supply a steady base-load power, nor can it supply reliable and predictable electricity in any amount. This is especially true in marginal wind areas like New York and Vermont. Large-scale power storage is only a future dream, so a huge influx of wind power only increases its inefficiency.

Vermonters must look carefully at the current rush to cover their ridgelines with giant industrial wind turbines. Wind advocates, including Gov. Peter Shumlin, claim Vermont must switch to wind power in order to avoid another Hurricane Irene.

If this wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable. Irene originated in the Caribbean, so I find it hard to believe that a few wind turbines on Lowell Mountain can stop a major storm forming in the Caribbean. If storms of Irene’s ilk are caused by climate change, then Vermont’s electrical generation is a very minor concern, since 96 percent of its carbon dioxide is caused by heating and transportation. It might make more sense for Vermonters to concentrate on conservation and energy efficiency rather than destroy their ridgelines with inefficient wind turbines.

An in-depth study done by the prestigious Pacific Research Institute found that a wind project needed to have a capacity factor of 35 percent before it could erase its carbon footprint within its life expectancy. Manufacture, transport and construction of a wind project produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide emissions;; for example, just moving a single turbine across northern New York produces nearly five tons of carbon dioxide.

Even if Vermont wind projects produced less emissions, little reduction would occur since most of Vermont’s electricity comes from hydro and nuclear, both already emission free.

A driving force behind the Shumlin administration’s strong support of wind power seems to be the desire to destroy Vermont Yankee. The fact of the matter is that it would take more than 1,000 3-megawatt wind turbines to produce the average output of Yankee, and that output would be erratic and unpredictable.

Since Vermont electrical generation produces an infinitesimal part of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, there is no way they have any measurable effect on climate change.

The Lowell Mountain project is interesting in that Green Mountain Power claims its 21 three-megawatt turbines will produce an annual average of 20 megawatts. This would mean a capacity factor of approximately 32 percent, rather unbelievable for a Northeast installation. I fear the people of Vermont are being sold a bill of goods not unlike what happened in northern New York.

Other considerations in the northern New York wind projects were changes in the rural ambiance of the landscape, a major factor for Vermonters as ridgelines are scalped and bulldozed. Here in northern New York woodlot and meadow scenery gave way to an industrial array of 500-foot turbines. The landowners who were near turbine sites found their property values decreasing. Studies in New York, Texas, Wisconsin, the United Kingdom and Ontario all agree that sites in view of turbines less than a mile away lost 20 percent to 50 percent of their value once they were installed.

Additionally, we have had cases of ill health caused by neighboring turbines, a condition known as wind turbine syndrome and verified by medical professionals worldwide. A further negative effect that wind developers in northern New York have generally denied is the death of birds and bats due to wind turbines. It has been alleged that some projects have employees who scour the areas around turbines and remove carcasses, thus literally “knowing where the bodies are buried.”

Vermonters should remember that once their ridgelines are dynamited, bulldozed and covered with giant wind turbines they will never be reclaimed.

Jack Sullivan is a town councilor in Malone, N.Y.

Wind turbines coming down! “Timber!” (Falmouth, MA)

admin — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:15:35 +0000

“Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise”

—Molly Line, FoxNews.com (2/26/13)

Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings — but they’ve created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.

“It gets to be jet-engine loud,” said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They’re suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they’ve lived for more than 20 years.

“Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse,” said Andersen. “And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It’s extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave.”

The first turbine went up in 2010 and by the time both were in place on the industrial site of the town’s water treatment facility, the price was $10 million. Town officials say taking them down will cost an estimated $5 million to $15 million, but that is just what Falmouth’s five selectmen have decided to move toward doing.

“The selectmen unanimously voted to remove them. We think it’s the right thing to do, absolutely,” Selectman David Braga said. “You can’t put a monetary value on people’s health and that’s what’s happened here. A lot of people are sick because of these.”

·
Click here to read more and watch the video.

“Acoustic trauma produced by large wind turbines is real and significant,” Sandy Reider, MD (Vermont)

admin — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:43:43 +0000

Editor’s note: The following testimony was given by Harvard Medical School-trained physician, Sandy Reider, MD, to the Vermont Energy & Natural Resources Committee on January 31, 2013.

Dr. Reider documents classic, textbook Wind Turbine Syndrome among his patients. (If he is aware of Dr. Pierpont’s peer-reviewed book on the subject, he chose not to mention it.)

Good morning, thanks very much for the opportunity to speak about some clinical observations regarding the health impacts of living in close proximity to large wind turbines.

My name is Sandy Reider. Since graduation from Harvard Medical School in 1971 I have practiced more or less continuously in VT in various capacities, most recently for the past 17 years in a primary care setting in Lyndonville.

In the brief time I have, I’d simply like to share some of my clinical observations and impressions regarding the health impacts related to living near these turbines and leave a review of the available science to others. (Parenthetically, I am delighted you will be hearing from Stephen Ambrose, because it was his on-site Falmouth, MA, study that I selected to pass on to Commissioner Chen when he came to speak in Newark this past summer.)

At this point I have seen 6 persons in my office with symptoms that seem to stem from these turbines, but for the sake of clarity and brevity, I will describe just one case in detail … keeping in mind that the symptoms described by all those I have seen are quite similar and characteristic of what has become known, somewhat euphemistically, as Wind Turbine Syndrome.

This was my first patient who turned out to suffer from this syndrome, and I must say that it took a few months for us to connect the dots. He was a healthy 33 yo man who I had treated for several years and knew quite well. He had no preexisting medical problems, took no prescription meds, was happily married (no children), and had lived in his home for several years before a single NPS 162 foot wind turbine was installed in the late autumn of 2011, approximately 1800 feet from his residence. At the time of installation he paid no attention at all to the turbine and had no particular feelings about it one way or the other, aesthetic or otherwise.

About 3 weeks after the installation he began to experience quite severe insomnia, something he had never dealt with before, and he had no clue why. He worked at home and spent most of his days as well as all nights there, unlike his wife who worked in Newport and was gone most days. He complained of abrupt waking 30-40 times a night, like a startle reflex, associated with some anxiety. As a result he was almost never able to fall into a deep restful sleep, very distressing for someone used to sleeping soundly for 10-11 hours every night.

Additionally he developed a kind of pressure headache, ringing in his ears, and slight dizziness. These symptoms weren’t constant but varied from day to day (eventually discovered to be related to wind speed and direction). His ability to concentrate diminished and it became difficult to get his work as a financial advisor done, as well as feeling irritable and somewhat depressed.

On his 3rd visit over 6-8 weeks during the spring of 2012, he quite emphatically declared that he was experiencing something called WTS. At the time I inwardly rolled my eyes, but after conducting some research, I decided it might just be possible. To test this hypothesis, he and his wife went on a 3 week vacation, and within 1-2 days of being away from home, ALL his symptoms resolved. On return, the same distressing sensations gradually returned. This amelioration when away was confirmed dozens of times … he became aware that when the wind was coming out of the north or northwest he was particularly affected, and so arranged to sleep at a friend’s house on those nights …. Generally he spent 3-4 nights away from home throughout the spring and summer of 2012, and on those nights felt and slept well.

Interestingly, at no time at home did he actually hear any noise … his distress was likely the reflection of very low frequency sound/vibration, sound below the audible range. In trying to compare this to something in my own experience, the closest image that comes to mind is that of a teenager driving around in the spring with those big bass speakers in the trunk of his car … a rhythmic thumping that can be sensed, and felt, from over a block away, while the rest of the higher frequency musical tones cannot be heard at all.

Most patients have complained about audible noise as well as a rhythmic flickering shadow as the turbine blade crosses the sun, also the rhythmic flashing glare from the reflection of the sun on the blades (such flickering lights are known in the medical literature to precipitate seizures in susceptible individuals ), and these are of course significant, but I have chosen to describe this case because so little attention has been given to inaudible low frequency vibration. My patient was fortunate, he and his wife were able to afford to abandon their home, and they are now living happily far from any wind turbine and feeling quite well.

As I said, I have seen 5 other individuals with similar syndromes, and it easy to imagine how this state could easily presage more chronic illness … depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, chronic headaches, the list goes on … and all the pharmaceutical drugs that these maladies might eventually necessitate. I would be concerned for those whose nervous systems are sensitive and vulnerable …. infants and small children, children with ADHD or autism spectrum syndromes, and constitutionally nervous adults. I know you will hear stories this morning from Vermonters who have already been directly impacted.

The old saw that a doctor’s best teacher is his patient is true and obviously applicable here. From a purely clinical perspective I believe the acoustic trauma produced by large wind turbines is real and significant, and that this makes the siting of these turbines especially critical.

Keep in mind that the turbine affecting the person I described previously is only 160 feet high, whereas the turbines already spinning in Lowell and Sheffield are about 450 feet high, and those proposed for the Newark/Brighton/Ferdinand project are close to 500 feet. I note that a minimal setback of 1 mile from the nearest residence is specified in S.30 , but due to the great variety of atmospheric conditions and geography in VT, who knows if even this is adequate?

Also, I was surprised that in the bill there is no specific mention of effects on health, though “quality of life” comes close. These health effects are more than nuisances, a term used in much of the literature to characterize the symptoms. A nuisance might be something like black flies buzzing around your head, whereas these vibratory and acoustic effects are something else altogether, and describing them a nuisances seems a disservice and demeaning to those who experience them. What about “chronic vestibulo-acoustic trauma syndrome” … we certainly need better science, and more study is needed.

I believe these health impacts should be specifically cited in the bill, with a recommendation directing the VT Department of Health to adopt a more direct, proactive role in the public health issues raised by these huge turbines.

I fully support the three year moratorium on all industrial wind development as outlined in the current bill, in order to try to understand more clearly the sacrifices we are asking of our citizens and of the complex ecology of our sensitive and beautiful ridgelines.

Sandy Reider, MD
P.O. Box 10
East Burke, VT 05832

(802) 626-6007
sandyreider@yahoo.com

Pierpont comments on “Effects of Industrial Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep & Health” (Jour. of Noise Health)

admin — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:20:15 +0000

Editor’s note: This past autumn, 2 physicians and a statistician published a significant article in the journal Noise & Health on the “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health.” This website didn’t feature the article, worthy as it is, until we could twist Dr. Pierpont’s arm to review it—peer review it, if you like. She has now done so, below.

.
—Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD (1/28/13)

Comment on: Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. 2012. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health 14:237-43.

.
This paper demonstrates a significant relationship between distance from wind turbines (as a marker for noise intensity) and questionnaire assessments of sleep disturbance, daytime sleepiness, and mental well-being. Physical well-being was also assessed by questionnaire but had no significant relationship to distance from turbines.

This is a good paper. Its strengths are:

» Study and control populations (near and more distant from turbines, respectively) were selected by a random sampling method and assessed identically using the same questionnaires.

» The questionnaires are published and have been used and statistically refined in other populations for other kinds of problems.

» The data was analyzed in a complex multivariate fashion by a statistician.

» Significant relationships were found even though the sample size was small.

It appears to me that the investigators limited the scope of their inquiry to maintain the above conditions with the goal of keeping the study focused, easily explained, and publishable (a strength). In the process, however, they disregarded salient aspects of the wind turbine noise problem which are harder to explain and more controversial (a weakness of this study from my point of view).

Specific comments are as follows:

» The focus on sleep quality and use of general questionnaires about well-being exclude the unique and striking health effects from wind turbines, which are at present borne out by the recent Shirley, Wisconsin (2012) noise study. These effects include nausea, headache, and cloudy thinking independent of sleep disturbance (see Pierpont 2009, Ambrose and Rand 2011, Rand et al 2011, Shirley Wind report 2012).

» The sampling process for households and individuals within households is not made clear. Data are presented for numbers of adults sampled, but not for numbers of households sampled. The process for sampling households near turbines is clear (all were approached), but not the process of sampling the adults within the households (were all asked to participate? who and how many declined?). The process of choosing more distant households is also not specified, nor the process of sampling adults within these households. (To get a random sample, you can use all, a random selection [e.g., drawing straws], or a regular selection [e.g., every third entry in a tax list of properties]. Refusal to participate biases the results, as do processes that involve volunteering to participate. Thus all studies have some degree of sampling bias.)

» Physical well-being was assessed but results were not presented. Negative or non-significant results can also tell us something about a phenomenon and should perhaps be included.

» The statistical modeling process used for drawing the regression (relationship) curves on the graphs is not clear. In what way, for example, were age, gender, and site incorporated into the regression (as noted in the descriptive legends of Figures 1-3)? How much of the variation in survey scores did these variables account for?

» However, there are simpler results presented numerically in Table 3, showing near vs. far comparisons for the various measures used, with their degree of significance. We find there, for example, that the average Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index is significantly higher (meaning worse sleep) close to turbines, with a significance level of 0.046 for near vs. far. The percentage of high results is not significantly different. The result for the Epworth Sleepiness Scale is similar, with the near vs. far difference in average value being significant at 0.032. The near vs. far difference in the average Mental Health well-being score is significant at 0.002, meaning it is 15 to 20 times more likely to be a real, non-random difference than the sleep measures. Significance levels for the calculated regression equations (relating scores to distance as a continuous variable and incorporating some other variables) are similar, as shown in the descriptive legends for Figures 1-3.

» You can see this difference if you compare Figure 3 to Figures 1 and 2, looking at the patterns of scatter of the data points close to turbines compared to far away. The fact that you can see a clear difference between near and far in the mental health results, but not for sleep results, is reflected in the degree of significance of the results. The difference is due to the dense cluster of low points (poor mental health) for locations close to turbines, compared to only scattered, isolated low points for the locations far from turbines.

» I am pleased that, unlike an earlier, draft version of their report, the authors no longer attribute the mental health effects to the sleep deprivation, but just note that both are significant health effects that vary with distance from wind turbines. They recognize that other symptoms they did not study may contribute to the mental health effects, drawing a parallel with low-frequency-noise-induced Sick Building Syndrome (page 242).

» The discussion of mechanism is measured and seeks to comfortably embed wind turbine effects with other types of noise disturbance. In fact, there are qualitative differences due to the dominance of inaudible, low-frequency or infrasonic components over the audible components in wind turbine noise (see Shirley Wind report 2012).

» These authors, like others who study wind turbine noise effects, asked their subjects before-and-after questions about their subjective experiences and preferences. These authors present these data in Table 3, showing significant near vs. far differences in responses to questions about changes when the turbines began operation, differences sleeping at home vs. away from home and turbines, and desire to move away. These kinds of subjective explorations are typical in studies of wind turbine noise, the results often discussed informally in an introduction or discussion. Face-to-face with affected people, researchers tend to step down from their posture as people who only measure objectively, ask natural before-and-after questions, find their own reasons for believing people, and present the information so gained as critical for their understanding of wind turbine noise effects (e.g., Ambrose and Rand 2011, Rand et al 2011, Shirley Wind report 2012). Only my study (Pierpont 2009) documented before-and-after effects systematically in a natural experiment case-crossover format, basing the entire analysis on the premise that believing what the subjects have to say about their experiences of wind turbine noise is both reliable and the most efficient means to develop understanding of these significant new noise-related phenomena. Though the scientific posture doesn’t recognize this kind of approach, every researcher does it anyway, because it is real and valid. Even Eja Pedersen did this, though she confined the results of her in-depth interviews (in which she discovered people driven from their homes) to her thesis (2007), never publishing them in a journal.

» New research proposals in this field are wisely suggesting case-crossover formats. The 2012 Shirley Wind report, for example, recommends a short-term, prospective, experimental case-crossover exposure format using previously affected people, asking them to quantify their immediate sensory responses to wind turbines being on or off without other knowledge of the state of the turbines. This approach could clarify experimentally the sensory, low-frequency-noise-associated phenomena that disturb physical sensation and mental processes apart from sleep, contribute to sleep disturbance, and differ among exposed people.

References

A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin. Submitted in expurgated form to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on December 27, 2012 and in complete form on December 28, 2012; both forms are available with commentary here.

Ambrose SE, Rand RW. 2011. The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse Health Effects Produced by Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed. Available here.

Rand RW, Ambrose SE, Krogh CM. 2011. Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 31: 359-362.

Pedersen E. 2007. Human response to wind turbine noise: perception, annoyance and moderating factors. PhD dissertation, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. 86 pp.

Pierpont N. 2009. Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Santa Fe, NM, K-Selected Books. 294 pp.

Nurse experiences wind turbines as “absolute, living hell” (Ontario)

admin — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:44:17 +0000

James Lovelock on wind energy as “vandalism” (UK)

admin — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:55:14 +0000

Editor’s note: The following was sent by James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Principle and a founder of the international Green movement, to the Torridge District Council as testimony against the proposed Witherdon Wood Wind Turbine project. He by-lined it “Carey and Wolfe Valley Opposition to wind turbines.” His statement was circulated by his wife, Sandra Lovelock.

Click here for the original.

December 11, 2012

I am James Lovelock, scientist and author, known as the originator of Gaia theory, a view of the Earth that sees it as a self-regulating entity that keeps the surface environment always fit for life.

When I was a schoolboy in the 1930s, I cycled from my home in Kent to Land’s End and back. England then enjoyed a countryside that was seemly and probably the most beautiful anywhere; every mile of my joumey was along quiet lanes in fresh air unperturbed by traffic. I passed through an ever changing landscape that reflected in its vegetation a diverse geology going from the recent rocks of Kent back almost to the Precambrian in Cornwall. Our land had evolved by chance to become a place where humans lived in peaceful coexistence with the natural world and so became a part of it.

In that humane ecology, animals and plants benefited from our presence as we did from theirs. Blake’s dark satanic mills existed, but within densely populated cities that occupied only a small part of the whole and, from those cities, untouched countryside was no more than a tram journey away.

Sadly, that splendid countryside has all but vanished; replacing it is an agribusiness, factory farming that is more efficient at producing food but dull to look at and ecologically poor. At the same time, better cars and roads have enabled a vast expansion of suburbia and of second homes. England is becoming one large town haphazardly interspersed with ‘Greenfield sites’. The few sizeable stretches of original countryside that remain are in rural North and West Devon and Northumberland, and here people and wild life still coexist in a more or less seemly and sustainable fashion; these are places where woodland and hedgerows still serve both humans and wild life.

This remaining English countryside is much more than an aesthetic asset; Earth scientists now recognise our planet to be a self-regulating system that sustains habitability for its inhabitants and for this function we need the natural forests and life in the coastal and deep ocean waters to interact with the air and ocean and so keep a constant and habitable environment.

Ideally, humans should live in coexistence with the other forms of life so that our presence is benign; but in most of the world this rarely happens. We need to treasure the few exceptions, such as the North Devon countryside, so that they can be an example of how humans can live sustainably with the Earth. A whole library of books, going from Gilbert White’s Natural History of Selbourne to the New Naturalist series of the 1960s, testifies to the richness, health and beauty of England as it once was. We are fortunate indeed that some of it remains in North West Devon and we must look upon it as our most precious of assets.

It is true that we need a better way of producing energy, and there is little doubt among scientists—and I speak as one of them—that the burning of fossil fuels is by far the most dangerous source of energy. By using it to power industry, our homes and transport, we are changing the composition of the air in a way that will have profoundly adverse effects on the Earth’s ecology and on ourselves.

Anything we do in the United Kingdom about energy sources is mainly to set a good example before the other nations; if we drew all of our energy from renewable sources, it would make only a small change in the total emission of greenhouse gas. But such examples are needed and are something to be proud of. The benign way we, in North Devon, live with our countryside is also an example to set before the world about how to live sustainably with the Earth.

How foolish to set two such noble ideas in conflict and arrange that one good intention destroyed the other. To erect a large wind turbine on the Broadbury Ridge above the Carey and Wolfe Valleys is industrial vandalism that will diminish the regard with which the countryside is held and make the region vulnerable to urban development and unsustainable farming. Even if there were no alternative source of energy to wind, we would still ask that this 84 metre high industrial power plant was placed in less ecologically sensitive areas. Better still, we should look to the French who have wisely chosen nuclear energy as their principal source. A single nuclear power station provides as much as 3200 large wind turbines.

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Green, but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs.

We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

James Lovelock

The Wisconsin Towns Assoc. calls for immediate wind turbine moratorium

admin — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:48:09 +0000

The above image was “pinched” from Stop These Things

.
Editor’s note: The Wisconsin Towns Association is calling on the State of Wisconsin to halt further installation of wind turbines across the entire state, until proper and thorough studies are done to clarify the impact of turbine infrasound and low frequency noise on human health. The trigger for this startling and welcome resolution (by the WTA) was the Shirley ILFN Report, completed last month and described in detail, here.

Folks, this is a big deal! A very big deal! The WTA represents virtually all the towns and villages throughout the State of Wisconsin. I have copied the following from the WTA website.

The Wisconsin Towns Association (WTA) is a statewide, voluntary, non-profit and non-partisan association of member town and village governments in the State of Wisconsin controlled by its Board of Directors. WTA’s twin purposes are to (1) support local control of government and to (2) protect the interest of towns. In furtherance of those goals WTA provides three types of services for its members: legislative lobbying efforts, educational programs and legal information.

If you visit the Home Page of the WTA, you will read the following.

WTA Board of Directors Action Regarding Wind Power

(1/23/13) The Wisconsin Towns Association has expressed concern since PSC 128 [Public Service Commission bill #128] was released about two years ago that the setback distances from non-participating residences to large industrial wind turbines of only 1,250 feet is too little.

In addition, a recently released report [Shirley ILFN Report] including work by four separate acoustical consultants has recommended that additional study be conducted on an “urgent priority basis” regarding the possibility of any human health effects from low frequency sound and infrasound generated by large industrial wind turbines.

Wisconsin Towns Association is not opposed to alternative energy, including wind turbines. However, serious health concerns have been raised by individuals and supported by this report that warrant further study.

We are urging the PSC to stop permitting the installation of large industrial wind turbines until such studies can be completed.

Click here to read the official resolution issued by the WTA.

And so forth. It ends with the following earnest request.

Richard Stadelman, Executive Director of WTA, has added the following commentary. Click here for a copy.

It is significant that this report was prepared by four acoustical consultants with differing backgrounds and relationships with the wind turbines, in part with funding from PSC to a non-profit organization (Clean Wisconsin) who coordinated the survey who is generally pro-alternative energy such as wind turbines. It is also significant that all four consultants agreed upon the recommendation on an “urgent priority basis” for more study on the impact of low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines.

Several towns in the area of the Shirley project and in towns in nearby counties where additional wind turbines similar to the Shirley project have been proposed, have been pushing for this type of additional health study to determine the impact of such low frequency sound and infrasound on humans living near these types of turbines. Two towns in Manitowoc County asked the WTA board of directors to consider adoption of a resolution in support of asking the PSC for a moratorium on permitting and installation of any additional large wind turbines pending the completion of a sound survey and health study as recommended by the consultants in the report.

The WTA Board of Directors on Monday, January 21, 2013, adopted such a resolution with the following resolved clause:

Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, by the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Towns Association that the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the State of Wisconsin enact a moratorium to stop the permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found, and the State’s wind siting rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address ultra low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents.

The Wisconsin Towns Association has expressed concern since PSC 128 was released about two years ago that the setback distances from non-participating residences of only 1,250 feet was too low. In addition this report of four acoustical consultants has recommended additional study be conducted on an “urgent priority basis.” Wisconsin Towns Association is not opposed to alternative energy, including wind turbines. However, serious health concerns have been raised by individuals and supported by this report that warrant further study. We are urging the PSC to stop permitting the installation of large industrial wind turbines until such studies can be completed.

As always, we dedicate this story to that learned professor of public health, Australia’s very own Professor Simon Chapman.

Falmouth Town Meeting asks Selectmen to “Take Down the Turbines!” (Mass.)

admin — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:00:56 +0000

“Falmouth residents: ’Take the turbines down!’”

.
—Sara Mannal, Falmouth Patch 1/24/13

Nearly one hundred Falmouth residents attended a Board of Selectmen meeting last night to peacefully protest and speak out against the ongoing operation of three identical industrial wind turbines in the Falmouth Industrial Park, pleading with selectmen t [sic]

The public was invited to provide comments at Wednesday night’s meeting in Town Hall related to various options that will be presented to voters at town meeting this spring.

Prior to the meeting, dozens of residents held a candle light vigil and prayed that the selectmen would not only hear their voices, but also take immediate action to stop what they described as a nuisance and danger to their health.

Nearly 50 residents voiced their opinion during the public comment session, with almost every comment opposing the future operation of the turbines.

Eric Sockol’s home at 819 Falmouth Highway is just 1,000 feet from Wind 2, a town-owned industrial wind turbine. Sockol passionately urged selectmen to remove the turbines immediately. He said Falmouth has an obligation to protect the health of its citizens, despite any economic consequences that may come from tearing down the turbines.

“Understand there are some issues that are more important than simply economics,” Sockol said.

Richard Bowen’s home also neighbors one of the town-owned turbines. Bowen said that the town had somehow made a great error by installing the turbines and feels town officials are not willing to own up to the mistake. Bowen also urged selectmen to take the turbines down.

“Do the right thing, please, for our sake,” Bowen said.

John Ford, a resident living on Blacksmith Shop Rd., said neighbors of Wind 1 and Wind 2 have lost peace and quiet and good health. Ford suggested using solar panels as an alternative to wind power.

“I request that you join your fellow residents and neighbors and decide to remove the wind turbines and replace them with people friendly photovoltaic arrays,” Ford said.

Judy Fenwick does not live near the turbines, but she was a member of the working group that was organized by the town to develop options for dealing with the wind turbines. Fenwick told selectmen that after much deliberation she believes that the health of Falmouth residents should be placed above any financial repercussions of removing the turbines.

“I ask that you don’t be counter dependent and that you ask the state for help before you ask the Falmouth taxpayers,” Fenwick urged.

Residents who were unable to make Wednesday night’s meeting can still submit a statement to the Selectmen’s Office by 4:30 p.m. Monday January 28th. Statements can also be emailed to townmanager@falmouthma.org by the deadline.

“Big Wind” is today’s “Big Tobacco” (Wisconsin)

admin — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 19:50:43 +0000

—Steve Deslauriers, Green Bay Press-Gazette 1/23/13

The wind energy industry is today’s “big tobacco.” Big tobacco fabricated studies, denied the truth and tirelessly pushed lies upon the American people at the grave expense of the health and lives of the American people.

For decades, big tobacco successfully suppressed the inconvenient truth that smoking harms people’s health. The wind development industry closely follows big tobacco’s deception playbook — taking advantage of people’s best intentions to protect our environment as they desperately cling to outdated and inaccurate studies.

While society said “enough” when it comes to smoking, especially as it pertains to public spaces and second-hand smoke, the wind industry unapologetically continues to force its harmful product on Wisconsin families — not just intruding on public spaces, but primarily invading people’s homes with devastating effects.

The wind industry has proven time and again that their corporate greed is unencumbered by the inconvenient truth that turbines near people destroy lives.

The wind industry does not share the fact that many homes in Wisconsin have been purchased and some even bulldozed by wind developers because of unlivable conditions, or the fact that residents in every wind development in Wisconsin report common and debilitating effects from being forced to live in close proximity to industrial turbines.

Your child screams because of the pressure in her head. Your elderly mother suffers from debilitating headaches, dizziness, and heart palpitations. A soldier fighting for our country overseas has to learn that his wife and children are sleeping in the basement in a futile attempt to escape the conditions in their home. Or, at Duke’s Shirley Wind, three families have abandoned the homes they still own.

These experiences are not isolated to a few people in Glenmore. Just in this relatively “small” wind project of only eight turbines, sworn statements representing more than 50 Glenmore residents have been presented to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin attesting to their own suffering that is alleviated once they are away from their homes near the turbines.

What about the fact that the current peer-reviewed science (that the wind industry says does not exist) validates the experience of these wind project prisoners and refugees. This reality is confirmed by the words of the wind industry’s own experts after testing at Shirley Wind for low-frequency noise (LFN). Their own expert said, “The completed testing was extremely helpful and a good start to uncover the cause of such severe adverse impact reported at this site. … The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies … We recommend additional study on an urgent priority basis…”

Predictably, the industry and the organizations they substantially fund, like Clean Wisconsin and RENEW Wisconsin, seem to be doing everything they can to minimize the impact of the study of Shirley Wind in Glenmore despite its raw data and findings being circulated and studied throughout the scientific community. The current wind industry practice of irresponsibly siting turbines near people needs to stop until the harm already levied upon innocent people in Glenmore and elsewhere is completely understood and addressed.

It is beyond understanding how an industry that claims to be built on the desire to help the environment appears not to care for the people, livestock, or wildlife living in that environment. Read the Shirley Wind Study, and note the words of the wind industry’s own experts. Read current peer-reviewed literature on wind turbine noise. Listen to the experiences of those currently suffering near turbines. Do any of this, and we think you will agree that it seems the wind energy industry has now perfected the unconscionable tactics of “big tobacco.”

Despite the millions of dollars they have spent attempting to rewrite the facts, the truth cannot be altered.

.
Steve Deslauriers is a spokesperson for Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, a community-based and community-funded nonprofit organization.

“Europe’s Ill Wind” (UK video)

admin — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:03:51 +0000

Big Wind and the “winning” of the New West (California)

admin — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:00:24 +0000

Editor’s note: Huge windfarms are being planned for southern California, inland from San Diego. The following excerpts are taken from an alarming article describing the process. Note that there is already a relatively small windfarm on a Native American reservation, where people even 3 miles away are reporting Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Most disturbing is the revelation that the federal government seems intent on turning large areas of wilderness into an “energy corridor”—a sanitized phrase meaning, “We are going to drive out the residents of these rural places, and turn the landscape into a massive industrial zone. We will also drive out the wildlife, which are likewise repelled by turbine ILFN. So we can power Los Angeles, San Diego, etc.”

If you live in rural America, you’d better give some thought to the idea that your federal government may be planning on driving you off the land. Sound outlandish? History is filled with illustrations of this. Look no further than American history itself, when Native Americans were systematically run off the land in what was called, romantically, “the winning of the West.” Now, the New West is being turned over to Big Wind (Big Energy), and that landscape is going to be “won” from—you and what remains of the wildlife.

Some of you free-spirited westerners, who’ve read the Constitution, might want to hang onto your Winchesters. Fire a few shots in the air when the wind turbine salesmen, working for the foreign company that’s gonna run you & the wildlife off the land, drive up in their fat little white trucks (all of them leased, by the way).

To read the entire article, click here.

“The Betrayal of Boulevard: Can This Happen to Your Town, too?”

—Miriam Raftery, East County Magazine (1/11/13)

Retired tugboat captain Don Renard worked hard all his life before purchasing a little piece of heaven in San Diego’s rural East County. He bought a historic house, the former Ruby Store, once a stage coach stop in Boulevard. He and his family have been working to restore it—in between savoring quiet times spent watching the hawks, owls and song birds among the old oak groves around their home.

Iberdrola, developer of Tule Wind, successfully fought to remove significant protections in Boulevard’s Community Plan during the County’s General Plan Update – changes that made it easier to build massive energy projects. Supervisors approved those changes in August 2011, tossing out years of planning by residents. Those changes appall the vast majority of those who live in this quiet rural community.

But even more changes lie ahead. Boulevard Community Plan amendments are proposed in the County’s Wind Energy Ordinance and Soitec’s Programmatic EIR for the company’s four projects planned in Boulevard. The changes would remove protections and allow big wind and solar projects to be built next to homes, livestock, sensitive habitat and other resources even though the area is not zoned for commercial or industrial development.

Supervisors and Planning Commissioners for the County are also considering zoning the area as a renewable energy resource zone. Astoundingly, the proposed amendment claims renewable energy projects such as wind and solar are not considered “industrial-scale projects or facilities” for the Community Plan. Those changes align with the federal government’s plan to turn the region into an “energy corridor” – a designation made in Washington D.C., far from the places that will be impacted.

This energy corridor is to include three massive new wind farms in the Boulevard Planning Group’s jurisdiction – Iberdrola’s Tule Wind, Invenergy’s Shu’luuk, and Enel’s Jewel Valley – slated to cover thousands and thousands of acres. A fourth is planned just south of the border and a fifth, Ocotillo Wind, is nearing completion east of here, impacting habitat shared by local bighorn sheep. That’s in addition to the existing Kumeyaay wind facility on adjacent tribal land.

Tule Wind will despoil McCain Valley, sacred to Native Americans, settled by pioneers, and long a recreational favorite for people across the Southwest for its spectacular scenic visits. On federal Bureau of Land Management property, it is also the gateway to three federal wilderness regions. Do a hundred or more skyscraper-height turbines really belong here, towering over campgrounds and pristine views of this boulder-studded terrain?

Turbines will also be visible at Carrizo Gorge, a place known as “our Grand Canyon” to locals. It’s rugged terrain, where the explorer De Anza and the Spanish army once marched, a place where Lost Rock served as a sentinel landmark guiding Native American tribes in their seasonal migrations, as well as later pioneers.

Other projects are in various stages of application. No one at the higher levels of government seems to be looking at the cumulative impacts of multiple energy projects on communities like Boulevard.

The Campo tribe operates the area’s existing Kumeyaay wind facility – with turbines much smaller than the new giants proposed.

But some of Campo’s existing turbines are very near homes – and residents living near them complain of serious health impacts that they believe are related to infrasound and stray voltage—voltage measured at 1,000 times higher than normal in their tribal hall, homes, and church. Stray voltage can travel through the air or through the ground, entering homes through plumbing pipes or powerlines.

Campo built its turbines so close to the boundary of the Manzanita Indian reservation that blade flicker shadows the Manzanita tribal hall, where the thumping and whirring of turbine blades is a near-constant presence. View a video provided by a community member: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RCciotwIY

“In the tribal hall, two women were talking on their phones and a blue arc went between them,” Tisdale says. Pointing to a house about a quarter-mile from the turbines, she adds, “That woman just had part of her kidney removed.” A neighbor has suffered from sinus and ear problems, chronic fatigue, intestinal disorders, and “her well [pump] kept shorting out,” Tisdale adds.

Manzanita tribal members have been accepted into a California State University San Marcos health study to confirm whether cases of cancer and other illnesses are caused by the turbines, as an epidemiologist who measured the stray voltage believes. But even some residents far off the reservation claim to be negatively impacted. Don Bonfiglio, who lives three miles away, has written that he is kept awake by turbines. He has also stated that he witnesses a dozen slaughtered large raptors being placed in a golf cart for disposal after they were killed by the wind turbines at Campo.

My own ear throbs and hurts near turbines in the Campo area, easing as I move farther away.

We turn onto a road leading through the La Posta reservation. A La Posta tribal member who was exposed to turbines both at home and work said they were “making her crazy,” Tisdale noted.

From Receptor 98288 to Auschwitz 98288 (Editorial)

admin — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:55:38 +0000

—Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

If you live within the shadow of a “windfarm,” did you know that you are no longer considered a “person”? You’re now a “receptor” and you’re given a number. Say, Receptor 15.

You think I’m joking? I’m not. Wind companies now refer to people as “receptors” — a receptor with a number assigned by the wind company.

Thus, my name is Calvin Martin, except, if I live within a windfarm, I would be Receptor 15 — or whatever number I am assigned by Big Wind.

I’m going to repeat this. I am no longer a human being—a person—suffering from wind turbine infrasound & low frequency noise; I am Receptor 15 who is “annoyed” by what I “allege” to be infrasound & low frequency noise.

The people driving me out of my home and destroying my health, the people driving my livestock to distraction and driving away the wildlife, the people turning my bucolic landscape into an industrial wasteland and turning me and my neighbors against one another — these people call me Receptor 15.

Or Receptor 98288. (Just a bigger number.)

Consider Leon Greenman. Mr. Greenman was “Leon Greenman” till he found himself living within the boundary of a concentration camp in Hitler’s Germany. A concentration camp where the Third Reich was engaged in the “natural experiment” of liquidating what the National Socialists (Nazis) considered the “weaker” and “less desirable” members of the human species.

Thus Mr. Greenman got hauled off to a camp called Auschwitz, and was stripped of his name. To the staff at Auschwitz, he became No. 98288.

Here’s what keeps me awake at night. How short a step is it from Receptor 98288 to Auschwitz 98288, I wonder? Both programs being necessary—Were they not?—for the greater good of society, for the greater good of the earth (to avert global warming, in the case of wind energy), and of course the greater good of the fatherland. Both create jobs—don’t forget that bonus. And both create a large redistribution of income. Both are technological, organizational, and propaganda marvels—one showcasing the ingenious technology of mass genocide-while-pretending-it’s-okay (inspired by the Chicago stockyard/slaughterhouse model, some historians argue), the other the ingenious technology of mass illness-while-pretending-it’s-not-happening.

Both programs are altogether brilliant “natural experiments.”

Blaming the victims of Big Wind (Curt Devlin)

admin — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:02:02 +0000

—Curt Devlin, Guest Editor, WTS.com

During my years at Boston College, I had the good fortune to study with Dr. William Ryan, then Professor of Social Psychology and author of a the acclaimed book, “Blaming the Victim.” At the time of its writing, Dr. Ryan focused attention on pressing social issues of the day, such as poverty and racism.

He contended, for example, that we blame the poor for poverty and that we blame minorities for their own disfranchisement. We fault victims for somehow inviting the social inequities they endure. In effect, we hide behind an ideological façade rather than face our responsibilities to redress these injustices.

Lately, I have been struck by how Dr. Ryan’s description of this phenomenon applies to the victims of Big Wind—to those who have become ill or were forced to flee their homes to escape the toxic effects of industrial wind turbines sited in close proximity to them.

Just as we blame the poor for their poverty, we seem compelled to blame the victims of Big Wind for their own illness. Apostles of the wind industry, like Dr. Dora Mills, Dr. Robert McCunney and Australia’s Professor Simon Chapman, are only too happy to furnish the tacit explanations needed to justify blaming these victims for their own plight. These typically include psychosomatic causes, hypochondria, delusions, and other forms of mental illness. Interestingly, these “diagnoses” are always arrived at without benefit of examining a single patient, conducting an independent study, or even speaking with those suffering adverse health effects.

It is guilt is by reason of insanity. In this inverted logic, the victims are to blame, not the turbines.

In some cases, we are told the illness associated with these toxic monsters is actually caused merely by the negative perceptions created when someone is ill-disposed to renewable energy—as though anyone could be against such an idea in principle. This is the always-handy nocebo effect.

The justification for blame is particularly absurd and reprehensible because it flies in the face of a simple fact. Most of the people who become ill were actually in favor of wind energy; that is, until they gained firsthand experience of turbines spinning near their homes.

Why are so many ready to blame the victims of wind? Why so willing to receive these explanations without skepticism, without demanding the same scientific rigor demanded of wind critics? Dr. Ryan’s work is especially useful on this question. The answer is simple; it is a convenient form of social denial. People prefer blaming victims over taking responsibility for confronting the real issue. It is much easier, for example, to blame someone in poverty for laziness, than to accept responsibility to find the true causes of economic inequities, much less take action to correct them.

This pitfall is easier to fall into than one might think. It is easy to believe that if we feed the hungry, we risk rewarding them for being hungry. It’s much harder to make sure they find ways to help them feed themselves. Accepting personal or social responsibility requires change, action, or personal sacrifice to effect positive change or prevent harm. It forces people to confront the contradictions and absurdities in their dogmas and replace them with facts, to reject social delusions and face inconvenient truths.

In short, it is much, much easier to blame the victims—than ourselves.

The overwhelming body of medical and scientific evidence demonstrates that infrasound, low frequency noise, and vibration of the kind produced by industrial wind turbines cause serious adverse health effects. The evidence has mounted steadily for more than 30 years. It shows compellingly that the symptoms and illnesses called Wind Turbine Syndrome and Vibro-Acoustic Disease are caused by exposure to this toxic form of sound energy. Despite the vocal denials of the wind industry, there are no independent studies of merit to contradict this finding. There are only the groundless, though profuse, assertions and rhetoric of the windy industry assuring us that their denial of the real dangers is well founded.

There is also incontrovertible evidence that industrial wind turbines produce excessive quantities of this dangerous form of sound and vibration. Recently, the wind industry itself is being forced to gradually admit this fact. But even if the underlying causal connection were a complete mystery, the simple empirical evidence that many, many people become ill when they are near turbines is undeniable to anyone with eyes, ears, or one iota of common sense. Of equal importance, the same people who become ill near turbines, feel better when they get away from them. This simple form of evidence, referred to as case-crossover data by epidemiologists, matches common sense. It furnishes irrefutable proof that, in fact, the turbines are to blame, not the victims.

Wind turbines cannot eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels. They will not reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, nor save us from climate change. Wind turbines are not safe, they are not clean, and they have proven to be economically unsustainable—time and time again. Wind power will not prevent irreparable harms to people as well as the environment caused by our own insatiable appetite for energy. Wind cannot alleviate our obligation to one another to use energy wisely and conservatively.

There is virtually no benefit to justify the harm caused to victims. Even if such benefits existed, they could hardly outweigh the harm being done to people. If we continue blaming the victims and denying this truth, we will soon become victims of our own devices. This ironic little reversal of fate is what Hegel referred to as dialectic, and it is inevitable. We will become the victims of our own blindness and we will be blamed for it—though perhaps only by history.

This last thought is cold comfort to those who must face the steady erosion of their health, their families’ and financial reserves, and the destruction of their very livelihoods that is created by living too close to turbines. The victims of Big Wind are like so many canaries in the mine shaft, who flee or fall in the face of this industrial toxin. Those who blame them are like unwitting miners who stand staring dumbfounded at the obvious, wondering what these canaries have done to bring this catastrophe upon themselves—and then continue along their merry way down the mine shaft, oblivious to the clear and present danger as though they are immune to it. Until it is too late.

“Life under the blades is no life at all” (Mass.)

admin — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:01:56 +0000

Editor’s note: Today, in Falmouth, MA, there is a protest demonstration against wind turbines—against the industrial turbines which have been destroying people’s lives in Falmouth for the past 3 or 4 years. Watch Nina Pierpont’s video interviews of these Falmouth victims.

.
“Speak out, Stand up, Be Heard!”

Families in Falmouth can’t endure any more torture. They need your help now.

The Falmouth Committee on Human Rights invites you to attend a public demonstration in support of windturbine victims everywhere.

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 there will be public protest throughout the town of Falmouth. The demonstrations start at 2:00 pm in advance of the 6:30 pm Selectmen’s meeting.

Meet in front of the town hall at the Village Green parking area, Falmouth, MA. Contact Dave Moriarty, 774-521-8474 for more details.

The Board of Selectmen will be taking public comments on the newly released $388,000 report.

Unless the conversion to a solar installation is adopted from among the recommendations of the Wind Turbine Options Group, Falmouth will be complicit with the State ofMassachusetts in continuing its unethical experiment on adversely affected wind turbine victims.

Turbine victims fear the report will be used to quiet citizen revolt against the failed energy policy of siting wind turbines near homes. If the town votes to continue operations, the result will be to extract residents from their homes.

Taxpayers and electricity customers of Massachusetts, who don’t want to see their hard-earned dollars used against their friends and neighbors, can make their comments known.

Media contact: David Moriarty, 774-521-8474

Province’s Chief Medical Officer lying about Wind Turbine Syndrome? (Ontario)

admin — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:37:52 +0000

Editor’s note: The following is an Open Letter from a member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament to the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada. Read between the lines of the letter, and you smell something rotten in the Chief Medical Officer’s office.

.
January 21, 2013

Arlene King, MD
Chief Medical Officer of Health
Province of Ontario
Canada

Dear Dr. King:

I am writing to you today to express my growing apprehension over the revelations arising from recent Freedom of Information requests that were released. In November 2012, emails from the Ministry of the Environment, released through the FOI process, reveal that provincial field officers had confirmed adverse health effects from wind turbine noise as far back as 2009, and were working on an abatement plan to assist affected residents. The released documents indicate that, in response to a redacted email from government staff, the MOE officers agreed to stand down.

I also have concerns with another FOI document I received, in which Q&A’s were prepared in response to your report, The Potential Health Effects of Wind Turbines. In one section of these Q&A’s, the track changes indicated that you should “add the word direct as studies would show a link through annoyance.” As the Chief Medical Officer of Health, I am sure you are aware that the World Health Organization has determined that annoyance is a health effect of wind turbines.

In another section of the Q&A’s document, this statement was made in relation to health and wind turbines: “there are no known indirect links.” Except, in the track changes comment box it said, “Not really true. The link between perceived noise and symptoms is probably linked to annoyance. The link with annoyance should be recognized.

The last section I would like to draw your attention to is one more Q&A. One answer stated: “Although some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches and sleep disturbance, available scientific evidence does not demonstrate a causal link to wind turbines noise.” The track changes of this comment tells a different story, where you were told, “this answer isn’t credible. Either fess up to the annoyance link or delete.

Dr. King, Dr. Gloria Rachamin acknowledged under oath in the Kent Breeze wind farm case that your study did not look at the indirect health effects of wind turbines. These indirect health effects are the ones that cause the sleeplessness, depression, dizziness, headaches among other health problems.

I am asking you today to acknowledge publicly that your report did not study the indirect health effects of wind turbines. I also have many questions surrounding not only your report, but health complaints that were received by either the Ministry of the Environment, Energy or Health and Long-Term Care. For one, did the Ministry of Environment advise your office that complaints about wind turbines and health were being received? Were you contacted to investigate any of these complaints? Why were any of the reports from MOE field officers in 2009 not included in your 2010 report?

Respectfully, I ask that you review your 2010 report for clarifications between the direct/indirect link between wind turbines and health effects. I can respectfully acknowledge that the likelihood of a wind turbine blade falling off and hurting someone (a direct link) is highly improbable, but the valid health effects (indirect links) need to be studied so we can help families who have been displaced from their homes and are dealing with serious health consequences. I am sure that we can agree that the health and well-being of Ontario families is first and foremost for both of us.

I appreciate your time to review my correspondence, and I and many Ontario families await your response.

Sincerely,

Lisa Thompson, MPP- Huron-Bruce*

*MPP = Member of Provincial Parliament

Uproar over wind turbines (Taiwan)

admin — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:52:52 +0000

.
“TWP requested to suspend Miaoli wind turbine project”

—Helen Ku, Taipei Times (1/19/13)

The Bureau of Energy (BOE) earlier this week requested the UK’s Tongyuan Wind Power (TWP, 通威風力發電) to suspend installing six wind turbines in Miaoli County after protests by local residents who said the company’s construction activities had severely affected their quality of life.

The bureau yesterday said that more than 300 wind turbines have been installed on the west coast since 2000, but the latest incident is not the first time local residents have protested against power companies.

However, the bureau said it would make an overall review of similar projects to avoid causing public anxiety and help wind turbine installations proceed more smoothly in the future.

TWP has built 144 wind turbines in Taiwan over the past 10 years and this is the first time it has encountered protests from residents and been forced to pause construction.

On Wednesday, more than 200 Miaoli residents led by County Representative Liu Bao-ling (劉寶鈴) protested outside the Ministry of Economic Affairs to demand that the bureau end TWP’s wind turbine installations amid concerns the project would damage the county’s landscape, make low-frequency noise and affect drivers’ safety.

“TWP needs to continue further negotiations with residents on its wind turbine installation project. Before the two parties reach a deal, any kind of construction activity is banned, even though the company has obtained construction consent from the bureau,” bureau technician Chen Jing-shen (陳景生) said by telephone.

TWP said that before the construction project started in October last year, the company had reached an agreement with residents of Fangli (房裡), Haian (海岸), Shihpin (西平) and Yuangang (苑港) villages in meetings that were required by the Environmental Protection Administration during an environmental assessment.

“We invited local residents to come to meetings many times by posting announcements on the Yuanli (苑裡鎮) town hall’s bulletin board. However, only 10 to 20 people attended each meeting and the majority showed support for our construction project,” TWP deputy chief executive officer Wang Shuei-yi (王雪怡) said by telephone.

Wang said TWP in June obtained construction licenses for two and four wind turbines in the first and the second phases respectively, but was forced to stop working on the project last month, after local residents protested at the construction sites, saying that the construction had greatly reduced their quality of life.

“We provided evidence that proved our construction process was in accordance with the rules, and invited residents to visit our construction sites, but they were unwilling to accept our accounts for unknown reasons,” she said.

In response to the protesters’ claim that the six wind turbines were installed less than 200m from residents’ houses and that more than 4,000 people, or 56 percent of the township’s population, had said they did not support TWP’s construction project “because it is too close to their houses,” Wang said TWP clearly specified that each turbine was at least 350m from any building, and cast doubt on the petitioners’ reasoning and the figure of 4,000 people.

The company said it will continue talks with residents to avoid wasting equipment and money.

Confessions of a windfarm bird-kill “control specialist” (Michigan)

admin — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:17:12 +0000

Editor’s note: In the 10 years (Has it been that long?) I’ve been documenting Big Wind’s crimes against the earth and all that dwell therein, I must say I have never read a document as poignant and enraging as this one, below. This poem by Mitchell Grabois.

Mr. Grabois was a resident of a new “windfarm” in Ludington (Mason County), Michigan, till he moved away, after fifty-six turbines moved into the neighborhood. Each 1.8 MW. Fifty-six turbines which began generating ILFN, slaughtering birds, and driving the neighbors mad—on Thanksgiving Day, 2012.

I learned about Mr. Grabois from a correspondent who wrote the following.

On Saturday I spent the day with Cary and Karen Shineldecker, “residents” of the ”wind park.” They shared an amazing poem with me, written by one of their neighbors, who, luckily, managed to sell his home and get out. The poem was posted two days ago on an arts and poetry blog.

Cary and Karen are trying to sell their home. They both have significant symptoms. Cary was on Wind Wise Radio last night. They both have headaches. Can’t sleep. Exhaustion.

They also wake up with panic attacks and have to take sleeping pills and beer before bedtime, just to get some sleep. Their pillows are just 1139 feet from the nearest turbine, which is situated on a knoll above them, so audible and low frequency noise funnels down to their bedroom.

I thought you might like this poem, written by a former “wind park” resident and who did get out of his acoustically toxic home. That “park” has a lot of people suffering from symptoms right now. It’s only been plugged in since Thanksgiving. Setbacks are ridiculous. Oh, and there are a hell of a lotta “leasers” who signed easements for a whopping $100! And these people are all gagged and their setbacks are approximately 900 feet!

Only in Michigan would somebody sign an easement for 100 dollars! These are not folks “hosting” turbines; these are folks on tiny properties who got conned.

Birds

I’m an Animal Control Specialist
a special kind
I don’t capture feral cats
or snarling dogs
don’t deal with skunks
or live critters of any kind

I pick up dead birds at the base of wind turbines
and put them in plastic sacks

I sometimes see the
moment of impact
when flight and life simultaneously cease
Once I caught an eagle as it plummeted to earth
I didn’t know what to do with it
On impulse I hugged and kissed it goodbye
then felt stupid
was glad no one was there to see

I never knew birds were so intent on their destinations
so obsessive-compulsive and unaware
I’ve seen them swerve mid-air to avoid my car’s bumper
but up in the sky five-hundred feet
they don’t expect cars

They get into a rhythm of flight
in which their blood assumes
that the elevations are free of
obstacles’ strife
but blades express their evil intent
by spinning

I live within the perimeters of this “wind farm”
in my old family farmhouse
Many of these farmhouses have tumbled down
More will tumble as people escape
the noise and flicker
and the weird unexpected symptoms they bring
the pressure in the ears
dizziness and nausea
the inability to concentrate
I can go on
but part of my contract is that I can’t talk about it
can’t even mention it

So just forget it
You didn’t hear it from me

No one will buy these fucking houses
They are as damned as if they’d been erected
in a Stephen King novel

My grandfather used to sit on the front porch
and listen to birdsong
and he’d say to me: Did you hear that?
Do you know who that is?
as if the bird were a human being I’d met
an uncle or aunt
whose voice I should recognize

Jays, chickadees, robins, red-winged blackbirds
I don’t hear them anymore
can’t hear them through the constant loud drone
of turbine acoustic pollution
the whirring blades
the grinding gears

But I make my living picking up the dead birds
I pluck the feathers
before I dispose of them
and store them in old shoe boxes
in my grandfather’s office
where he wrote poems and published them in farm journals
under the pen name Al Falfa

I know I’m crazy, but I think maybe my dead grandpa
runs his hands through those loose feathers at night
the loose feathers of dead birds
whose ancestors he lived with

You might think my job is not full-time
but it is
because my boss at Consumer’s Energy
wants the birds gone
pronto!
as soon as they hit the ground
if possible
He doesn’t want them laying around
for the anti-windmill photographers
to document
so all day I’m driving my rattle-trap Mazda pick-up
from one end of the township to the other

I grew up here
lived here all my life
but I never knew the place
“like the back of my hand”
until I followed Death around

—Mitchell Grabois
.

The Wounded Angel, Hugo Simberg

“Kiss a mountain on the mouth”: A response to Big Wind blowing up mountains (Maine)

admin — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:50:08 +0000

Editor’s note: The following is a reply to a group of spirited “Down Easters” in the State of Maine, who are planning some “direct action” against the Big Wind juggernaut which has Maine by the throat. They are provisionally calling it, Operation Dirty Laundry. Beyond that, I reveal no more.

Bravo! Now you guys are “cookin’”! Operation Dirty Laundry! Yes!

Here’s a good rule of thumb to follow with wind energy: “What would Dr. Martin Luther King do?” Alternatively, what would Nelson Mandela have done? Or even Gandhi? Or Margaret Mead?

Maine. Maine is holy stone. Kiss a mountain on the mouth. Maine is holy water. Kiss a river and kiss a lake—on the mouth. Maine is holy forest. Kiss a spruce and white pine and hemlock and aspen—on the mouth. Maine is holy loons. Kiss a loon. On the mouth. Maine is holy seacoast. Kiss a Maine seacoast on the mouth.

Maine is not your goddam governor, Dept of Environmental Protection Commissioner, state legislators, congressmen, or US senators. These people are not the custodians of loons seacoast mountains rivers lakes forest marshland moose chickadees ravens or, for that matter, beavers. Nobody is their custodian! They belong to . . . themselves. Mankind in Maine (and everywhere else on earth) is merely a guest, a beneficiary, an applauding spectator.

This fly fisherman is not a “tourist,” here.
He is a guest of this river, of these fish,
of these forests and this very air.

Once you understand the above principles, you are on the road to real life and real success. We the People are guests, here. And the governor DEP commissioner legislature congressmen and, for that matter, US senators, are all the hired help for We the People. (Public servants! Remember that phrase?)

Why else are you folks . . . alive? Why else am I . . . alive? To drag my aging carcass through another 25 years? (I turn 65 in a few weeks.) Hell no! To applaud and be a good guest of This Good Earth—which begins with Maine. Which begins with NY State. Which begins with New Hampshire Vermont Kansas New Mexico California Alaska Ontario Nova Scotia—and so forth.

Let us not be victims of an illusion, after all; let us not think these “state” names mean a goddam thing in the Real World, in the Real Earth, in Real Humanity and Humanness. They are fictions. My life is not a fiction, however. Nor is yours. Those Maine mountains hemlocks white pines aspens moose beaver otter lakes rivers ponds seacoasts loons osprey hummingbirds blueberries—none of these are fictions. They’re as real as “real” gets.

What’s phony is: corporations bureaucrats guys with hard hats bulldozers earth movers tree pulverizers dynamite to blow up ridgelines lawyers guys with badges public meetings town boards public service commissions—and all that. Bogus, all. Inventions, all. Diversions from truth and all that really matters.

Fuck global warming! I’m more concerned at the moment with how Big Natural Gas is fucking over the earth with “hydrofracking” and how Big Wind is fucking over the earth and sea and all that dwell therein with wind turbines—all in the name of “preventing” global warming! If this farce were not so tragic, it would be hilarious!

“The wind industry is a pack of liars,” declares former wind energy lawyer (Australia)

admin — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:44:33 +0000

Editor’s note: This is the story of a man of conscience. The story of a scrappy Australian lawyer who did a complete, 180-degree about face on wind turbines. I have excerpted the story from an exciting new Australian site, Stop These Things.

Most websites devoted to the wind farm scam are limp-wristed, panty-waisted weenies. (The fancy word is “pusillanimous.”) They are polite and courteous to these wind energy thugs and their criminal industry. Stop These Things shines a bright light on the skulduggery of these bums and calls them for what they are: carpetbaggers, hucksters, and carnies, harvesting tax dollars while laying waste people’s lives and the countryside as they ride pell mell the Green Energy gravy train. (Read “The ruinous privileges of renewable energy” for a crash course on “greenwashing” and “greenmail” [a "green" version of "blackmail"] in Australia.)

Lawyer Peter Barber is a seasoned campaigner when its comes to town planning.

Over the last 30 years he has appeared before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the state’s civil justice mediator, hundreds of times.

Frequently he has represented the big end of town: large infrastructure companies, miners, local government.

Like many in the legal profession, Barber has reveled in the battles.

“I did a lot of mining and extractive work … I’ve made hundreds of appearances before VCAT. I’ve challenged QCs … run up against them all.” . . .

His big mistake . . .

I went past some time later when they were under construction and I was absolutely horrified to see the towers going up. They didn’t have their nacelles (hubs) or blades on at that stage but I thought ‘what have I done to these people.’”

Barber leans across the table. “The principal objector … I still remember his name … was passionate. He started to get to me a bit during the hearing because he was genuinely concerned. I heard later he has not been a well man … he sold his place near the wind turbines. He is very saddened and has never been the same again.

“And that adds to my grief, if you like, my sorrow at my involvement. And I repeat, ‘what did I do to these people?’ I wasn’t the only one but I was a contributing factor.”

When did Barber first start to have doubts?

“Before the hearing had even finished,” he says. “I didn’t articulate any of these views at the time because I’m a lawyer. My duty was to my client at the time and to properly and honestly inform VCAT … but there was a moment in the hearing, when I had an internal voice.

“During the hearing I got off my backside and drove right around to the other side of the bay. I looked back along Wilsons Promontory and I thought ‘oh no’. My instructions were to pursue this through, which we did. I followed through on that but I had personal misgivings which were reinforced later on.”

Barber names one of the objectors to the Toora wind farm.

“He was passionate and articulate. He and others took us to local waterfalls and I thought this is not farmland. It’s not national park but there were lovely rolling hills. Now the views up through the hinterlands…”

He stops talking, looks out through the windows. The room fills with silence.

“It’s a damned shame,” he says at last.

Has he returned to the area since the wind farm began operation?

“I didn’t want to show my head down there,” he says. “I was feeling a bit ashamed of myself. What I did notice when I went down there was the community division over the project. It was bitter.

“They had just lost the Bonlac butter factory. Those jobs never got replaced. They thought they would get jobs out of wind farm tourism and this would help the loss … these working families. They thought farmers were going to get money and it would be a fantastic idea.”

Barber talks about the wind farm developer conducting secret talks with farmers to sign them up before going public on the project.

“The wind farm promoter got to the farmers first before they announced the project publicly. That’s their tactic.”

Then, in the strange way of things, something similar happened near Barber’s own backdoor. A Sydney-based company, Epuron Pty Ltd, proposed up to a seven-turbine wind farm five km from Eden on land owned by SEFE.

Barber says he had already become a member of the local chamber of commerce.

“I said at a meeting fairly early on ‘this is a windy piece of coast, please be aware of wind farms. They divide the community and they are not good. And they said ‘this area has been investigated. It is not suitable for wind farms. Next item’.”

That was five years ago.

Now if the chamber of commerce doesn’t fight to block the proposed wind farm, Barber says he will resign from the body and continue to fight the proposal with other concerned residents.

One last question: how would he describe the wind industry?

Barber’s response is immediate: “The wind industry is a pack of liars and con merchants who couldn’t lie straight in bed. I have absolutely no confidence in anything they say whatsoever.”

“A true noise hell”: Wind turbines in Denmark

admin — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:00:08 +0000

Editor’s note: The following is a translation of a recent article on wind energy in a prominent Danish news magazine. There are several parts to the article, including an interesting exposé of Vestas (one of the world’s leading manufacturers of wind turbines) complaining to the Danish government that recently proposed noise standards will severely damage Vestas’s business ventures, both in Denmark and abroad.

The translation was done by a Danish friend of this website. Click here for the original article.
.

“A true noise hell: Erik Nielsen had looked forward to a peaceful retired life, but the idyll and nocturnal sleep are destroyed by giant wind turbines”

“As a consequence of the noise & sleepless nights, Erik & Rigmor Nielsen are looking for a small cottage, where they can get peace.”

While thousands of people have to live in a noise hell from the giant wind turbines, which both [neighbor] associations and acoustic experts are raging over, the politicians have done nothing to investigate the matter properly.

The fact is, according to the Chairman of the Danish Society for Labor- and Environmental Medicine [DASAM], Vivi Schlünssen, it has not been properly investigated whether the many Danes who are daily exposed to tremendous noise from wind turbines are harmed by it.

“We are very concerned that the new regulations [of Jan. 1, 2012] on noise from wind turbines, have been conceived completely without investigating if people are harmed by living in constant noise.”

Doctors not asked

“The noise limits have been determined by engineers. There has not been a single medical doctor involved,” she says.

Vivi Schlünssen emphasizes that wind noise is very different from, for example, noise from a highway.

“Although the noise from the turbine is often lower [in amplitude], it is continuous, especially [a problem] at night, when the annoyance is increased.”

- The new rules [statutory order 1284 of Jan, 1, 2012, including low frequency noise] were conceived far too quickly.

“Our primary criticism is that it is not right that people should have to live with great noise nuisance, especially at night when it can interfere with their sleep,” says Vivi Schlünssen, who emphasizes that the problem of noise from wind turbines should be fully investigated.

“I will cut them down, and I’m prepared to go to prison” (United Kingdom)

admin — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:55:28 +0000

Landowner vows to go to prison over wind turbines*

—Anwen Evans, Shropshire Star (1/16/13)

A protester said he was prepared to go to prison to stop massive pylons being built across Shropshire and Mid Wales.

Landowner Mark Johannsen, from Four Crosses, said he would fight to stop the 46-metre pylons from being built on his land and would cut them down if necessary.

He was one of more than 1,500 people who attended a meeting outside Welshpool Livestock Market last night.

Mr Johannsen said he would do everything in his power to stop the National Grid proposals from going ahead.

“I know landowners will have no choice as the National Grid will have a right to compulsory purchase the land, but I will cut them down and am even prepared to go to prison . . . to stop them being built on my land,” he said.

Myfanwy Alexander, from Llanfair Caereinion, said the Welsh Assembly had a “long and brutal” battle ahead of them. She said: “These are crazy plans for vandalism which we will never forgive them for if they go ahead.”

Campaigner Steve Elliott, of Aston Rogers, near Marton, said people from Shropshire would be joining the people of Montgomeryshire when they travelled to Cardiff to protest.

In a letter of support, which was sent to the meeting Lord Alex Carlile, former Montgomeryshire MP, said: “These plans are an expensive folly and an insult to Welsh landscape.”

Welsh wildlife presenter Iolo Williams also pledged his support against [wind] turbines by letter saying they would damage the whole area.

Alison Davies, of campaign group Conservation of Upland Montgomeryshire, called on people to come together and fight the plans.

She said: “We will be campaigning in Welshpool and Newtown on Saturday and need about 100 people to come forward and volunteer their help for an hour.”

.
*This title is different from that of the original article, which was “Prison vow over pylons plan.”

Family suffering from textbook Wind Turbine Syndrome (Ontario)

admin — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:14:10 +0000

We dedicate this video to Australia’s Prof. Simon Chapman. Chapman is in the habit of now and then favoring the general public with specimens of his learning.

These days you’ll find Mr. Chapman girding his loins and going up and down the land thundering against the heresy of Wind Turbine Syndrome and its spirited champion, Dr. Sarah Laurie. If Green Energy in Australia smacks of a religion, Chapman is its Grand Inquisitor.

Family sues Board of Health over Wind Turbine Syndrome (Mass.)

admin — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:54:01 +0000

.
“Wind turbine causing headaches, nausea, Scituate family says”

—Janet Wu, WCVB Boston (1/12/13)

Mark and Lauren McKeever Friday asked a Plymouth Superior Court for a temporary restraining order against Scituate to halt operations of a giant wind turbine 640 feet from their house.

With three blades each 150 feet long, the turbine runs intermittently throughout the day and night.

“We can’t sleep, my children wake up in the middle of the night because of the noise and humming, and then they go to school where they can’t concentrate because they are sleep deprived,” said Mark McKeever.

He said his family is suffering from sleep disturbances, headaches, nausea, dizziness, extreme fatigue, anxiety, tinnitus and difficulty concentrating since the turbine was erected over their house last March.

On sunny afternoons, light flickers throughout their house and makes it impossible to stay in the house or even to do any yard work.

Mark McKeever said his family had two good weeks of sleep in recent months — when they went to New Hampshire for vacation.

“What they are doing is wrong,” said Mark McKeever, who has pleaded with the town’s board of health to at least shut the turbine down at night.

But town officials have been told by operators of the turbine that one-third of the wind generated is produced at night.

Town officials have said there is no proof that the turbine is causing the McKeevers’ health problems.

Mark McKeever said he has invited every official to come to his house and see for themselves, but none have shown up to date.

He is suing the members of the Board of Health for their refusal to act on his request for relief.

Acoustician explains wind turbine infrasound & low frequency noise (Rick James)

admin — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:29:46 +0000

Editor’s note: We recommend listening to this (lengthy) radio interview with acoustician, Rick James, as he explains the significance of the Shirley (Wisconsin) ILFN Report. (Interview length, 68 minutes.)

Click here for Mr. James’s website, E-coustics.

Wind energy’s “natural experiment” on humans violates Nuremberg Code (Curt Devlin)

admin — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:17:16 +0000

Click here for the clinical ramifications of the Nuremberg Code. Click here to discover the origin of the code.

Now watch this comedian ridicule the victims of wind energy’s “natural experiment.”

Big Wind’s “Production Tax Credit” (US Congress)

admin — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:21:12 +0000

Editor’s note: At the eleventh hour, just before plunging headlong over the much ballyhooed “fiscal cliff,” the US Congress renewed Big Wind’s Production Tax Credit, allowing wind developers to harvest taxpayer dollars for another 20 years.

Twenty years? Yes, you read it right. Any windfarms which are begun in 2013 will be eligible for a tax credit for 20 years thereafter. ”Starting” a windfarm can be as trivial as taking a shovel and moving a pile of dirt—once local approvals have been secured.

All the more reason for communities to stall these projects.

Congress has once again demonstrated its incompetence, in this case, its incompetence to grasp the fleecing of the American taxpayer by Big Wind. (In fairness to the scrambled brains in Congress and the White House, the American Wind Energy Assoc. mounted a full court press, which was obviously effective. Once more, lobbying by Big Money wins the day.)

Is this Congress really able to govern us? Let me rephrase that: Is the Congress competent to govern? Notice how it handles our finances. The following was sent by one of our readers.

Lesson #1

U.S. Tax revenue $2,170,000,000,000

Fed budget $3,820,000,000,000

New debt $1,650,000,000,000

National debt $14,271,000,000,000

Recent budget cuts $38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income $21,700

Money the family spent $38,200

New debt on the credit card $16,500

Outstanding balance on the credit card $142,710

Total budget cuts so far $38.50

Got it?

Lesson #2

Here’s another way to look at the debt ceiling. Let’s say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do? Raise the ceilings or remove the shit?

“Save our sacred space”: Monastery anguishes over impending windfarm (Australia)

admin — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:30:09 +0000

Editor’s note: The following was written on December 18, 2012 by Father Sergei Shatrov, Abbot of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery near Canberra, Australia. First, read this, from the monastery’s website.

The Holy Transfiguration Monastery is a male monastic community of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Founded in 1982, the monastic community presided over by Abbott Hieromonk Sergius, abides in the pristine and rugged valley of the MacLaughlin River situated between Cooma and Bombala, New South Wales, Australia.

The natural surroundings surrounding the monastery influence and impact on the Orthodox traditional monastic spiritual way of life. Monasteries have traditionally sought a degree of isolation from the secular world, whether it was the desert ascetics of fourth century Egypt or the great Northern Thebaid monastic settlements in northern Russia as a means to spiritual enlightenment and salvation. However, in keeping within the traditions of hospitality, monasteries have always welcomed travellers and pilgrims that come to its doors. In providing this website as a tool for pilgrims and for those interested in Orthodox monasticism, we maintain a certain detachment from the world in order to preserve our spiritual heritage and disciplines.

In the past there were sermons on offer to visitors to the website. We hope that in the near future that we can provide further material.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery is to have a wind turbine farm erected adjacent to its property in 2013. In principal, we remain opposed to this intrusive development and you can click here to follow developments and offer your support for this important cause. Your support is crucial in helping preserve our monastic heritage of the Orthodox Church.

For all request and enquiries please Contact Us here.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s position on wind turbines.

The Russian Orthodox monastic communities on the MacLaughlin and Snowy Rivers are environmentally self-sufficient and conscientious. Long before the Renewable Energy Certificate Scheme was set in place, we invested heavily into solar energy and environmentally sustainable projects as an expression of our deep relationship with the pristine and often fragile landscape. What the landscape gives in our spiritual and religious vocation is fundamental to the traditions of the monastic way of life. This is why we chose the Monaro as our home thirty two years ago; it is, simply put, a very beautiful part of Australia. To suggest that we are victims of scare-mongering and ignorant to the blight of Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) debate, is something I strongly reject and refute.

Having been to Hatay, Turkey, in early 2012 and spent time with the locals there who have over thirty 120 metre tall IWTs planted right in the middle of their villages by the German government, they described in careful detail the serious health concerns that are debilitating and greatly affecting their quality of life after the installation. To describe simple, poor people with little if any contact with the Internet as simply victims of the “nocebo affect” would be insulting.

Having also visited eight separate IWT farms and communities in NSW, South Australia and Victoria last week in person, the problem of the lack of independently verified data (the Federal Hansard noted that wind mast data hasn’t been released in the recent Senate Estimates Committee which I attended), lack of any proper community consultation, silencing dissent or protest toward IWT developments, the divisive and vexed issue of turbine host payments, and complaints unheeded with disdain and in some cases contempt—are some of the common themes I am constantly hearing.

We chose the Monaro as our spiritual home and we don’t want the landscape industrialised. Member of Parliament, Dr Mike Kelly, expressed recently that he personally didn’t want Eden’s Two Fold Bay IWT (now failed) development to go through because of “landscape aesthetics and damage to potential tourism.” Cynic that I am of the political opportunism, I am afraid the Monaro wasn’t aesthetically pleasing enough for blocking development. In this age of Greed Energy, whatever happened to common sense?

Click here to read the travail of this monastery, powerfully written up in Australia’s “Stop These Things.”

“If I were head of the US Fish & Wildlife Service” (Jim Wiegand)

admin — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:25:53 +0000

—Jim Wiegand, Wildlife Biologist (California)

I was presented with this question recently. “How would I respond if I was running the USFWS (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and was not allowing this agency to cover for the wind industry?”

First of all we would have an accurate count of all the whooping cranes in Texas along with the sub adults and juveniles so real condition of this population could be disclosed to the public. After all over 200 are missing from this population and there are now thousands of deadly wind turbines that litter their habitat.

I would have USFWS personnel responsible for checking the GPS transponders on whooping cranes, checking on their well being every 6 hour period during daylight hours. Presently the whooping cranes are not checked on unless there is a lack of movement for 24 hours. This huge gap gives a wind farm more than enough time to move any dead whooping cranes.

I would have every gag order ever written into a wind industry dismissed under eminent domain laws for the sake of protecting our natural resources. It would seem to be an easy matter because is all too obvious that the extinction of wildlife and destruction our natural resources are far more valuable to our society and future than the small amount energy produced from wind turbines.

With the gag orders out of the way a complete investigation would be conducted into the history of operating wind farms. I would concentrate on the wind farms located in the habitat of endangered species.

I would have a federal law passed so it would be a felony to conceal the death of any protected species killed at a wind farm. Owners that profited from the concealment of bodies would lose their land much in the same way a drug dealer does. I would also have rewards, big rewards because we would be fishing for big fish.

I would initiate a series of truly constructive wildlife studies to determine the cumulative damage that has been done by these wind turbines. These studies have been avoided for over 28 years. Not one of the sell-out experts that worked on bogus wind industry studies would be a part of any of these new studies. I would set up a DNA data bank that would prove to the world that eagles and other species killed at wind farms were being killed from populations thousands of miles away. The USFWS is already in custody of many such carcasses. Analyzing these carcasses alone and comparing them to remote populations would probably be enough to establish vast mortality footprint of wind turbines.

I would have cadaver dogs searching wind farm properties for buried carcasses that were hidden from the world. Some locations in particular I would bet would have body dump sites that look like the Auschwitz.

I would try not to bother Congress with any of this because their time is much better spent investigating really important matters like Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and Rodger Clemens.

Yes, it would feel pretty good to see a Dirty Harry sent in to clean house and kick some wind industry asses. God knows they sure need it. But justice usually only happens on the big screen. That is why so many films are successful.

Abandoned homes near wind turbines discovered to be saturated with infrasound (Wisconsin)

admin — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:05:27 +0000

—Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

That quotation is taken from the “Shirley, Wisconsin, ILFN Wind Turbine Report,” which came out a few weeks ago, just before Christmas, (It has a longer, more formal name, but this is the name it’s going by as it ricochets around the Internet.)

The report was commissioned and paid for by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC requested the report because, in the course of taking testimony for the so-called Highland Wind Farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon (St. Croix County, Wisconsin), WTS victims from the existing Duke Energy “Shirley (Wis.) Wind Farm” presented testimony declaring they had to abandon their homes due to ILFN from nearby wind turbines. (In case you don’t know, “ILFN” is shorthand for “infrasound and low frequency noise.”)

“Yikes!” responded the PSC. “We’d better check out these jaw-dropping Shirley claims before allowing Highland Wind Farm, LLC, to build another one of these wind farms!” (The words are mine, not the PSC’s.)

Are you with me, so far? (I know, it’s a little confusing.)

So, the PSC commissioned two agencies to arrange for proper, (hopefully) unbiased turbine noise measurements at selected homes within the Shirley Wind Farm. They chose Clean Wisconsin, a statewide outfit well-known for being vigorously pro-wind turbine (virtually in people’s backyards), and Forest Voice, Inc., which opposes the proposed Highland Wind Farm (because its turbines will be virtually in people’s backyards). Hence, between them, Clean Wisconsin and Forest Voice selected the acousticians. The following is taken from the report.

Four acoustical consulting firms would cooperate and jointly conduct and/or observe the survey. Channel Islands Acoustics (ChIA) has derived modest income while Hessler Associates has derived significant income from wind turbine development projects. Rand Acoustics is almost exclusively retained by opponents of wind projects. Schomer & Associates have worked about equally for both proponents and opponents of wind turbine projects. However, all of the firms are pro-wind if proper siting limits for noise are considered in the project design.

And this is what the four concluded:

The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.

However, you need to read the entire report; it’s highly instructive and, for people around the world suffering Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) from absurdly and criminally-situated wind turbines—it’s a positively religious experience. Hallelujah!

Robert Rand’s submission is especially enlightening regarding turbine noise/vibration as it relates to Pierpont and others’ understanding of Wind Turbine Syndrome.

(Note that Rand gets WTS each time he measures turbine ILFN. God bless him for subjecting himself to this, once again, in the line of professional duty! Bear in mind that, as Pierpont points out in her book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” WTS effects are cumulative. In short, Mr. Rand is damaging himself in the interest of science and humaneness—he doesn’t need the money. The man’s a hero!)

The plot thickens. It turns out Clean Wisconsin “redacted” (fancy word for “purged,” “removed”) some vital text from the report before submitting it to the PSC. This is explained in Attorney Anne Bensky’s subsequent submission to the PSC. (Open the report and scroll to the end. Bensky’s submission to the PSC immediately follows the report.) I have appended the section which Clean Wisconsin thoughtfully struck out—without telling the PSC. (You can’t make up this stuff!)

One other thing. Before reading the report, I recommend reading Rick James’s analysis, reprinted here with his permission. James is a seasoned acoustician who has been pioneering the proper and accurate measurement of wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise.

Please find attached a report for a wind utility in Wisconsin that was the focus of a study requested by, and partly sponsored by, the Wisconsin PSC. The purpose was to determine whether infrasound was present in the homes of three families in the footprint of the Shirley Wind project (owned by Duke Energy). These families have reported adverse health effects since the wind turbine utility commenced operation. All three have been forced out of their homes. They report experiencing symptoms of the type associated with wind turbine syndrome. These families offered to act as intervenor’s in another Wisconsin case, Highland Wind, which is in the application hearing phase. Affidavits were filed representing 50 residents near the utility, describing adverse health effects and home abandonment for the eight-turbine Shirley Wind project (click here for video) using Nordex N100 2.5 MW wind turbines.

Three homes were studied. R1 is about 3500 feet from the nearest wind turbine. R2 is about 1100 feet, and R3 is about 7000 feet away. All three homes were found to have measurable infra and low frequency sound from the wind turbines, with levels decreasing as distance increases. The peak acoustic energy was found at the wind turbines’ blade passage frequency, which is less than 1 Hz for the Shirley Wind turbines.

Most modern, upwind, industrial-scale wind turbines, including the 1.5 MW turbines commonly installed over the past 5 years, can operate with hub rotation speeds that are similar to those of the Nordex. As turbine sizes (blade length, tower height, and in general power output) increase, the more likely it is that the hub rpm will be in the range similar to that of the Nordex units.

Rob Rand has a chart in the Team Report that shows the range of rpm’s against the frequency associated with inducing nausea that shows this trend. This is an important chart for showing how the conclusions for this PSC study of a single wind utility has implications for other wind utilities using other makes and models of wind turbines.

A revision to that chart did not make it into the report as posted on the PSC site, so I have included it, below.

Initially the PSC was going to have the study conducted by George and David Hessler. This posed a problem for credibility with the intervenors and others who know their position from other projects. The attorneys for the citizens’ group, Anne Bensky and Peter McKeever for Forest Voice, and Glenn Reynolds, the attorney for the Town of Forest which also opposes the project, wanted the tests to be conducted but were concerned that the Hesslers would produce a biased study. It was decided they would push for a study that included four acoustics experts, some on the wind industry side (Hesslers), independents (Schomer and Walker), and one who has demonstrated the ability to find infrasound inside homes (Rob Rand).

The purpose of the study was to collect high quality audio samples during periods when the family members were present and “feeling” the wind turbines (emphasis added). Wind speed and direction data at the outdoor microphones and from the wind turbine hub-level anemometer were also collected. Wind turbine power production was also collected. (The data from wind turbines is under a protective order and only available to select reviewers.) The Team Report summarizes the data and protocol. It also includes a Team conclusion and separate appendices from each acoustician, providing additional information about what they observed or derived from the study. They can also file follow-up reports as can other qualified experts within the time frame for responses to the PSC.

Mr. Walker’s equipment was the best of any of the acousticians, and became the focus for data collection. Unlike the instruments traditionally used by acousticians studying wind turbine infrasound, Mr. Walker’s equipment could accurately measure sounds in the lower region of infrasound. It allowed synchronized sampling and recording at multiple sites inside and outside a home over the frequency range from 0.5 Hz to 100Hz. These audio samples have been made available to Wade Bray and me for analysis using Head Acoustics’ software in a similar manner to what was done for the Bray/James study and Noise-Con 2011 paper on the GE 1.5 MW turbine in Ubly, MI.

Although there are details in the report that I would take issue with, I can say that the Team portion of the report presents a major step forward in the discussion about why adverse health effects are being reported by people living near modern, industrial-scale, upwind wind turbines. The primary conclusion of the Team is:

“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.”

The argument about whether wind turbines produce infra and low frequency sound and, if they do, is it sufficient to cause adverse health effects, has taken a big step forward with this conclusion. That infra and low frequency sound is a primary characteristic of wind turbine acoustic emissions was established by the Team. The argument that infrasound produced by modern, upwind, wind turbines does not have sufficient amplitude to reach the threshold of hearing (set for steady, pure tones, not the complex mix of tones emitted by wind turbines) raised by the wind industry through its experts like Dr. Leventhall and the many acousticians and others who parrot his opinion, is now discredited.

I think this is a major step forward. We still need to establish what levels and other characteristics of infra and low frequency sound are needed to produce adverse health effects, but the argument that it is not present is shown to be false.

The wind industry and its supporters can no longer say that wind turbines do not produce significant levels of infra and low frequency sound just because the sound pressure levels do not rise to the Threshold of Perception of audible sounds.

Thus, “What you can’t hear, can hurt you” is the surviving paradigm.

Richard James, INCE

“What you can’t hear, can hurt you” is the surviving paradigm.

Except in this man’s mind.

Geoff Leventhall, PhD (Physics)

“Geoff Leventhall,” begins an online puff likely written by himself, “is a consultant, formerly an academic, who works internationally. His main research and consultancy interests have been in problems of low frequency noise and in active attention of noise.

Whilst at the University of London he developed a highly regarded research group in acoustics, personally supervising more than 30 PhD students and a much larger number of MSc students. He left London University as Reader in Acoustics to join W S Atkins, a large UK engineering consultancy, as Head of Acoustics. In 1982 he established the Journal of Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and was editor for the first 18 years. In 1988 he was invited back to an academic post as Professor and Head of the Institute of Environmental Engineering in London, where he stayed for about 5 years. Since then he has been practising as a sole consultant, but continues to examine doctoral theses in acoustics. He is well known in the world of UK acoustics and has been President of his professional body (Institute of Acoustics). He is an Honorary Fellow of the Institute. He is, by invitation, a ‘Distinguished International Member’ of the US Institute of Noise Control Engineering.”

All this may be true. These days, however, he is regarded by many as an enigma, even to fellow scientists who worked with him over the years.

Malcolm Swinbanks, PhD, used to work with Dr. Leventhall

One would think Leventhall would be a “natural,” even the standard-bearer, rallying to the overwhelming evidence that wind turbines generate infrasound which triggers a cascade of pathology now globally referred to as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS).

In this you would be mistaken. Leventhall’s opinion of WTS is one of denial bordering on contempt.

Wind Turbine Syndrome, in his estimation, is basically a hysteria epidemic concocted by Dr. Amanda Harry (the UK physician who, a decade ago, blew the whistle on wind turbines causing ill health), Dr. Nina Pierpont (the American physician who elaborated on Harry’s research, giving its cluster of pathologies the name “Wind Turbine Syndrome”), and Dr. Sarah Laurie (the Australian physician who has further elaborated on Harry and Pierpont, and is now the most prominent physician, globally, battling for government recognition of WTS).

I first realised there might be a problem associated with wind turbines when I was introduced to a couple living near a wind farm in Cornwall. The distance from their home to the nearest turbine is about 400 meters. They told me about poor sleep, headaches stress and anxiety symptoms brought on when the wind was blowing in certain directions. At times, they told me that they have been so disturbed by the noise that after several disturbed nights sleep, they have sought refuge in a nearby bed and breakfast establishment (far enough away not to be similarly affected by the noise).

Since that meeting I have spoken to and/or corresponded with 39 people living between 300meters and 2 km from the nearest turbine of a wind farm all of whom were suffering from the consequences of the noise coming from the turbines. This disturbance is by no means always there and is worse in certain wind directions.

The cases mentioned below are from several wind farms in the UK with a variety of turbine sizes from the smaller, older turbines to the taller more modern turbines. However I have had correspondence from people living near wind farms in New Zealand and Australia and have evidence from other sources, (newspapers, journals and papers) of people being similarly affected in France, Germany, Netherlands and the USA.

What this shows is that there is number of people suffering from the consequences of noise from the wind turbines. I’m sure that the cases mentioned here are probably the “tip of the iceberg” and further independent investigation is warranted. The cases are kept anonymous in order to protect the individuals concerned. There is much concern within communities that if one is seen to complain about the noise that if they decide to move away their properties will be difficult to sell and possibly devalued as a result. Therefore they feel that they are in a “Catch 22” situation.

—Amanda Harry, MD (2007, although she did her first study 3 or 4 years earlier)

There are many things one can say about Geoff Leventhall’s cottage industry of trashing Wind Turbine Syndrome. Perhaps the most salient is that he is not, by any stretch of the imagination or in any capacity whatsoever, a clinician or physician. He’s a PhD in physics. That’s it, folks! He’s no more qualified to comment on clinical medicine than a used car salesman.

Except, this does not deter him. In this he hoists himself, in the manner of Cervantes’s hapless hero, in ever more spectacular ways.

“I’m sick!” ”No you’re not!” (Australia)

admin — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:30:07 +0000

Editor’s note: The following satire is copied from a new and wickedly delightful Australian website, “Stop These Things: The Truth about Wind Farms in Australia.”

Maybe it’s because it’s the end of the year.

But today we are, for some reason, reminded of Monty Python. Black is white. Up is down. The Ministry of Silly Walks and a dead parrot.

So in this spirit, here’s our contribution. It’s called the Department of Wind Farms.

Let’s call our two characters … um … Simon and Noel.

Knock! Knock!

Simon: Yes? Come in. Sit down.

Noel: I’m sick.

Simon: No you’re not.

Noel: Since the wind turbine started next door I’ve been feeling crook.

Simon: You’re imagining it.

Noel: No, I’m really sick.

Simon: What are your symptoms?

Noel: Headaches, nausea. And I can’t get to sleep.

Simon: Bollocks!

Noel: What do you mean?

Simon: You’re jealous

Noel: Jealous? Of what?

Simon: All the money your neighbors are making.

.
Click here to continue . . .
… Read more

“Wind Turbine Syndrome is real” (Vermont)

admin — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 03:38:37 +0000

“First, do no harm”: The role of medical professionals in corporate wind energy-sponsored torture (forthcoming)

admin — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:00:53 +0000

For the sake of the redemptive promises of Green Energy, we self-righteously torture and torment people even as we pretend it’s not happening. As the epidemic of systematic torture unfolds, physicians turn a blind eye and deaf ear to people’s pleas for medical intervention—medical common sense—to stop it. Physicians who speak out are vilified, threatened with harm, and defamed, while their medical colleagues by the thousands stand silently by—uninvolved, indifferent, frightened.

This disturbing yet brilliant image is borrowed, with appreciation,
from the website, fenbeagleblog.

Consider the following testimony from the Michaud family, Ontario, Canada

September 4, 2011  Six years ago we moved our family from the city, thought maybe it would be nice to live closer to nature, maybe grow our own fresh food, live off the land. It was beautiful, the night sky, the wildlife. We worked hard, built a home and a hobby farm. Then one day we found a letter in the mailbox that read “Occupant.” It was a notice about the Wind farm proposal. Little did we know it was the last of many planning meetings discussing this event. We attended but realized that these things were coming no matter what we had to  say!

Two years later here we are. All four members of our family are each experiencing devastating adverse effects! Illnesses that do harm our lifestyle, effects that take away our enjoyment of life, and interfere with our work, effects that are impacting how we live day to day and how we interact with others around us. Our peaceful country home is no more!

We did not know anything about this wind syndrome until we all started getting sick and only now have I been becoming educated in this phenomenon. In reading all the controversy on this subject sickens me, how can a doctor whose oath is “do no harm” stand there and say there is no harm here?  I do not understand anyone can bush off someone’s suffering so easily!

We did not ask to have these Wind Turbines placed in our back yard, nor did we ask for the illnesses you call an “Annoyance”. I believe that the symptoms that my family and I have been living with the past 5 months are real and in fact life threatening, not only to ourselves but to others. If one of us suffers a bout of Vertigo while operating a motor vehicle, that results in an accident, then it becomes pretty damn adverse, especially if we injure or kill  someone! If we go to our place of employment after too many sleepless nights, and make a mistake or get injured, that may result in our job loss or again loss of life—that seems pretty adverse as well!  It is a sad state we live in when we cannot trust those hired and elected to protect the little people!

Sick of being sick on the Dew Drop we call home!”

September 14, 2011  Thank you for sticking by us … we really need to raise public awareness … we were all so affected the day they filmed that piece … with the nausea and vertigo … the past two weeks our heath has declined to a constant state of unbalanced fatigue, vertigo, nausea, disorientation, unusual stomach cramps … medicated by SERC my daughter is so tired and feels unwell but still works up 6 days a week, she’s a real trooper…  my husband and son have had to leave work early a number of times in the last two weeks …  my son is so upset that his health has declined so much and he has no balance, it has affected his work ability and his musical talent is suffering …  his greatest fear is that his hearing will be affected and he will no longer be able to play or write music … it might take 6 months for him to see an audiologist and vertigo specialist.

I never thought I would hear from either of them that they are considering moving if they don’t start feeling better soon … they both have worked so hard here and love this place so much.  It’s just no fair to be run off our home & land … Canada is better than this, or so I thought.

Oh, and today I got a nose bleed … I hope I don’t get more.

Oh, and I think one of my goats had a false pregnancy … she looked pregnant and acted so then, nothing, no baby … It’s so weird.

We hope to remain strong, but I can see now why some people leave their homes and hopes and dreams behind them, and why some turn to suicide … it eats at your soul!

P.S. The wind is so strong today and the turbine behind me has been so loud, I called the MOE [Ministry of the Environment] twice in 12 hours … I have been sitting in my beautiful sunroom for about 20 minutes and I feel like throwing up … this was my favorite room in the house… my happy place but it is slowly becoming a storage area, that I have to retreat from that retreat too!”

June 27, 2012  We are unsure what to do … I have spoken to people who are in [the] direct path of these monsters … they are  suffering but wish to remain out of the battle … for various reasons … part of me gets it, but part of me doesn’t … we know we need to continue to take a stand, but at the same time, unless there is a show in numbers, then is it really worth the violence that could ensue?  But then, again, this area is soon to be overwhelmed with the numbers of turbines coming … it’s sickening and maddening and disheartening … what can we do?

I’m sure there will be another ERT set up for this area, but will anything come of it? So many around here are beaten down and losing hope, and that’s exactly what the MOE, the Government and the Wind Industry are waiting for! I have heard that “the head-hunters” have been out in force in our area, attempting to sign up more leaseholders … soon there will be nowhere for any of us to live!

THIS IS SO WRONG!!! WE ARE ALL BEING ABUSED IN OUR OWN HOMES … HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO JUST SIT HERE AND TAKE IT?  I WONDER IF THE MAYOR WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE? I THINK WE SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND LAY A LAWSUIT ON HIS DOORSTEP!

The following is from the New England Journal of Medicine review of “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation,” ed. George J. Annas & Michael A Grodin (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992). We feel it has relevance for the Michaud’s testimony, above.

In August 1947, 15 Nazi physicians were convicted by one of the Nuremberg tribunals of immersing concentration-camp inmates in freezing solutions, exploding them in low-pressure chambers, infecting them with typhus, forcing them to drink sea water, and killing them in order to study their defleshed skeletons, all in the name of science. In deciding the case, the tribunal enunciated a set of ethical principles for experimentation with human subjects that came to be known as the Nuremberg Code.

The first and central principle of the code states, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” But Jay Katz, perhaps the most insightful contributor to this unusual collection of essays and documentation on the code, points out that the tribunal erroneously assumed that the principle of voluntary consent had been firmly embodied in medical ethics up to that time (which it had not) and that it was the gravamen of the doctors’ offenses. On the contrary, as is excruciatingly evident from the detailed accounts of the “experiments,” the doctors committed these crimes against humanity because they were able to deny the humanity of their subjects and even, at some level, must have been satisfying bizarrely sadistic impulses.

Another essayist, Leonard Glantz, observes: “These matters [informed consent] were of no concern to the Nazi doctors. From their perspective [it] was more akin to animal research . . . [although it] would violate current animal research regulations.” Consent was not even an issue.

Other contributors suggest the inadequacy of the Nuremberg Code’s provisions to address issues such as those in the Nancy Cruzan case and those in the controversy over the use of fetal tissue for research. Indeed, the code is not helpful in drawing distinctions between clinical research and therapy. What seems to me too sharp a focus in the book on the informed-consent principle results in an inadequate treatment of the recent court case on the propriety of a Food and Drug Administration waiver of the informed-consent requirement for use of an investigational new drug; in that case the drugs covered by the waiver might have been needed to protect troops in combat against the effects of Iraqi-dispensed poison gas.

Yet an examination of the post-Nuremberg record by still other contributors suggests that the informed-consent issue is still alive. The medico-legal community in the United States has not been without sin. Examples cited include the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, continued until 1972; experiments conducted at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in which live cancer cells were injected into chronically ill and debilitated patients in 1963; the administration by the Central Intelligence Agency of mind-altering drugs to unwitting subjects beginning in 1953; and the Supreme Court-sanctioned exposure by the Army of a serviceman to lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) while telling him he was testing the effectiveness of protective clothing against chemical warfare.

The book is rich in data both on the Nazi doctors’ trial and on the subsequent history of the informed-consent doctrine in clinical research. It contains the full documentation on the Nuremberg tribunal, including the impressive opening statement of Brigadier General Telford Taylor, chief counsel for the prosecution; the 1931 Reich Circular on human experimentation (as well as the 1933 law against cruelty to animals); and the text of the World Medical Association declarations on clinical research adopted in 1964, 1975, 1983, and 1989 (Helsinki I, II, III, and IV). It also contains full documentation on the FDA waiver of informed consent in the Gulf War situation described above.

For anyone interested in the problems of clinical research on human subjects, this compendium should be a valuable reference work and a source of insights as well as relevant facts. Because it addresses a complex problem from the perspective of what may be the most extreme cases imaginable, it casts deep shadows, even while illuminating parts of its subject. But at the same time it serves to remind the reader of the temptations to which even the most scrupulous physicians, operating on the frontiers of clinical research, are exposed.

Question: Do the physicians in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada, and in Massachusetts and Maine, USA, and public health specialists in Australia who openly deny Wind Turbine Syndrome—who in some instances go out of their way to publicly ridicule and persecute physicians like Drs. Pierpont, Laurie, and Harry—do these people, through their denial and outright ridicule of WTS and the physicians documenting it, qualify as enablers of what Dr. Pierpont has pointedly and disturbingly called the “natural experiment” of Wind Turbine Syndrome?

The following is quoted from Pierpont’s book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” (2009), pp. 5-6. Bear in mind as you read it that this “natural experiment” is no longer a mystery; Wind Turbine Syndrome has been unequivocally proven in clinical case crossover studies like Pierpont’s. Voluminous testimony from around the world by victims like the Michauds, above, amply documents what is going on.

Wind energy’s “natural experiment” might have been, at one time, inadvertent and thus excusable; now, it can no longer claim to be either of these. Now, its dirty little secret has been “outed,” exposed, as outrageously immoral and medically unethical, and it is medical doctors who should be loudest and most vehement in demanding that this torture be stopped—now. (See also here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.) To quote Pierpont: “Natural experiments . . . have an important role in clarifying the impacts of potentially toxic, man-made exposures.” The “natural experiment” known as Wind Turbine Syndrome has been demonstrated, ad nauseum, to be a toxic, man-made exposure.

“Doctors, why the hell are you not enraged that this toxic, man-made exposure continues, unabated?”

Which brings us to what is known in science as a “natural experiment”: a circumstance wherein subjects are exposed to experimental conditions both inadvertently and ecologically (within their own homes and environments). Obviously, it would be unethical to expose people deliberately to potentially harmful interventions. Hence natural experiments, while less controlled, have an important role in clarifying the impacts of potentially toxic, man-made exposures.

The ecological dimension in the phrase natural experiment is worth emphasizing, since many elements of an exposure may not be reproducible in a laboratory, such as round-the-clock exposure, exposure over months, or impacts on customary activities. For symptoms related to wind turbine sound there are also technical difficulties in reproducing in a laboratory the types of sound, air pressure variation, and vibration that my subjects’ observations suggest are involved. Failure to provoke the same symptoms in a laboratory setting may tell us more about the limitations of the laboratory situation than about real-world effects.

“Wind turbine infra and low-frequency sound: Warning signs that were not heard” (Bulletin of Sci., Tech., and Soc.)

admin — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:00:45 +0000

Editor’s note: The following article, by American noise engineer Rick James, is currently in press. Click here to access the website for the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, from where, hopefully, you can access the full article. (We are not allowed to post the entire article, since it is proprietary.)

Abstract

Industrial wind turbines are frequently thought of as benign. However, the literature is reporting adverse health effects associated with the implementation of industrial-scale wind developments. This article explores the historical evidence about what was known regarding infra and low-frequency sound from wind turbines and other noise sources during the period from the 1970s through the end of the 1990s. This exploration has been accomplished through references, personal interviews and communications, and other available documentation. The application of past knowledge could improve the current siting of industrial wind turbines and avoid potential risks to health.

Radio interview with physician, Dr. Alan Watts (Australia)

admin — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:17:44 +0000

Storks slaughtered by wind turbines? (Poland)

admin — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 06:18:56 +0000

Photos of 17 storks who reportedly ran “afoul” of industrial wind turbines in Poland.

Editor’s note: Click here for the source of these photos. The text accompanying them has been (clumsily) translated from Polish to English, using on online service called “Google Translate.”

More than 17 dead storks in power line near wind turbines in ditches

During our conversations with residents girls performed at the beginning of November 2012 we learned about the mass death of several young storks (photo below taken in August 2012). Residents of females mówiili us also about the many dead storks and birds of prey found in the field during haymaking. According to eyewitnesses, young storks fell while learning to fly in a gust of wind turbine blades, and many of them have been “thrown” in the direction of medium-voltage lines where Razon died shock. Witnesses also told us about the direct collisions of storks and birds of prey with blades of windmills. Carina witnesses also spoke about it in public during gołdapski conference—video report.

The photos below, together with information the inspector personally handed the security department in the county gołdapskim środowiaska. Now we are waiting for an answer/explanation/investigation/intervention …

Here is the Polish original.

Ponad 17 martwych bocianów pod linią energetyczną w pobliżu turbin wiatrowych w Suczkach

Podczas naszych rozmów z mieszkańcami Suczek przeprowadzonych na początku listopada 2012 dowiedzieliśmy się o masowej śmierci kilkunastu młodych bocianów (zdjęcia poniżej wykonane w sierpniu 2012), Mieszkańcy Suczek mówiili nam także o wielu martwych bocianach oraz ptakach szponiastych znajdowanych w polu podczas sianokosów. Według relacji naocznych świadków młode bociany podczas nauki latania wpadały w podmuch śmigieł elektrowni wiatrowej i wiele z nich zostało “rzucanych” w kierunku linii średniego napięcia gdzie ginęły rażone prądem. Świadkowie mówili nam także o bezpośrednich kolizjach bocianów oraz ptaków szponiastych ze śmigłami wiatraków. Kilu świadków mówiło o tym równiez publicznie podczas gołdapskiej konferencji—relacja wideo.

Poniższe zdjęcia wraz z informacją osobiście przekazaliśmy inspektorowi wydziału ochrony środowiaska w powiecie gołdapskim. Czekamy teraz na odpowiedź /wyjaśnienie /dochodzenie /interwencję…

“Wind Turbine Syndrome is real,” reports clinical psychologist (Australia)

admin — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:51:20 +0000

“Based on my recent experiences and interactions with such affected individuals, I am satisfied that this WTS condition is real. . . .This syndrome is not, in my view, a psychosomatic illness or a nocebo effect.”

.
Editor’s note: The following statement was formally submitted to the Australian Federal Senate as it ponders a bill to curb excessive wind turbine noise. The bill currently goes by the name, Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012. Whether the Senate passes such a bill remains to be seen, of course.

Click here to read Mr. Trask’s testimony in the original (submission #162 in the list).

—Peter Trask, MA Applied Psychology, Licensed Clinical Psychologist

I support the proposed amendments to the Renewable Energy Act (Excessive Wind Farm Noise 2012). Whilst there is much unknown about why people are becoming unwell in the environs of large industrial wind turbines, anything which increases the transparency of the wind industry with respect to actual noise emissions will assist with better understanding of the dose of sound energy being received by the residents.

At present it is my understanding that the noise and wind mast [tower] data is not made available, and therefore it is impossible for the residents to know what they are exposed to, or whether the wind turbines are compliant with state government noise regulations.

The consequences of non-payment of renewable energy certificates in the absence of evidence of compliance would seem to be appropriate, given the gravity of the known effect of excessive noise on human health.

Throughout human history, well-intentioned, innovative, creative, insightful and determined individuals have been ridiculed, sometimes demonised and often criticised for discoveries that challenged institutionalised behaviour and the related contemporary beliefs and and/or theories. It was not necessarily that these people were wrong but rather that they revealed what Al Gore more recently popularised as being ‘an inconvenient truth’. To this very day, this condemnation of such ‘messengers’ continues and as history demonstrates, we have not always learned well from these experiences of the past. Indeed, vested interest of times past and now use many means to deny, deflect, avoid, distract and resist those individuals and groups revealing such emergent discoveries of ‘inconvenience’.

I believe that this process of obfuscation is now occurring in Australia regarding those affected by the so-called ‘wind turbine syndrome’ (WTS). Presently in Australia there is a quite vicious and dismissive attitude toward those people allegedly being affected by WTS. Rather than seeing such people as akin to the ‘canary in the coal mine’, they are dismissed as misguided, disingenuous, dishonest or mentally unstable. Of course, for those so affected, this vilification compounds an evolving trauma experience, and as a leading neurosurgeon recently said, what is worse than people disliking you is when they dismiss you.

As a practising psychologist, I have only recently become aware of this WTS first-hand, although for some years I have had some peripheral exposure, via the mainstream media. More recently, however, I have met many individuals directly affected by WTS, and have had the privilege to be providing two individuals with psychological treatment and support.

Based on my recent experiences and interactions with such affected individuals, I am satisfied that this WTS condition is real. This conclusion of mine is based upon both hearing the stories of affected individuals and being aware of and having access to the limited yet growing scientific body of evidence highlighting this deleterious syndrome.

This syndrome is not, in my view, a psychosomatic illness or a nocebo effect. If this syndrome was primarily a psychosomatic condition, the genesis of the WTS would be rooted in inappropriate or irrational cognitive processing and my assessment of affected individuals elicits no evidence to support this. Moreover, psychosomatic conditions require a level of conscious awareness of adverse stimuli to activate somatic symptoms in the body. Conversely, I believe that the WTS affects people at a sub-conscious level, creating somatic symptoms without a conscious (or cognitive) awareness of why. Accordingly, this WTS is potentially a very insidious syndrome as the usual cognitive associations are not established till much later. At this later stage, psychosomatic responses may emerge, similar to people affected by post-traumatic stress disorder, but only retrospectively.

With regard to the nocebo effect (believing that one will be adversely affected in exposure to specific stimuli previously labelled as toxic or dangerous), the various theories of motivation ought to be acknowledged. Clearly, motivation among humans is a complex phenomenon. Nevertheless, for those affected by WTS that I have met and treated, there is no plausible motivation-based explanation for why they would want to be sick nor expect to be so, based on their prior life and medical histories. Furthermore, these are people who have possessed a very close affinity and love for their homes and locations, and so, have endured this syndrome for extended periods, and then in desperation, like environmental refugees, have had to leave their homes, with substantial regret.

I shall leave the scientific and/or neurological theories and explanations to the experts. Nevertheless, the existence of low frequency sound energy, produced by wind turbines, and inaudible to the human ear, may be the reason for this syndrome. While this low frequency noise or sound energy (aka infrasound) may be inaudible and thus not able to be consciously perceived by the human ear, it does appear that the ear’s vestibular system is still capable of perceiving the presence of this infrasound, and so send signals to the central nervous system for processing, in this case without the conscious awareness of the affected individual. Despite this, it appears that this infrasound stimuli activates the automatic survival response, more commonly known as the fight/flight/freeze response. Consequently, somatic symptoms are experienced by affected individuals. These symptoms include hyper-arousal, anxiety, racing heart, nausea, muscle tension, panic, concentration and attention problems, memory difficulties, and more. At night, these symptoms can lead to insomnia and sleep disturbance, and consequent stress and emotional instability in the waking hours.

On the basis that this syndrome is not a psychosomatic illness (in the first instance) or nocebo effect, relief for affected people may only be achieved by removing them from the environment apparently responsible for catalysing their symptoms. Dialogue with affected people provides anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of this approach. Sadly however, chronic exposure to infrasound over an extended period, may more permanently alter the neurological state of affected people, and in such cases, we observe trauma-like symptoms among this cohort.

In my opinion, this is a serious health issue affecting a relatively small number of people in rural areas only, and so they lack the critical mass to adequately advocate for their rights. Vested interests, including government, business, environmental groups and communities want wind energy generation to be accepted and propagated across our country. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on governments at all levels to ensure the safety of fellow Australians. To this extent I appeal to the Senate of Australia to investigate this health issue, to allocate funds to undertake further research into the apparent WTS, and to consider a moratorium of further wind farm development until adequate and robust research is concluded and analysed. In the meantime, I would also ask that our elected representatives listen with open minds and hearts to those people currently substantially and chronically affected by a health problem that remains poorly understood.

“We shall never surrender” (Winston Churchill)

admin — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:01:28 +0000

Editor’s note: The following image has been shamelessly “pinched” from fenbeagleblog, a UK satirist and artist worthy of a Nobel Prize—in Literature, maybe? The man (woman?) behind fenbeagle is a mystery with, alas, no contact information. (Otherwise, I would have contacted him/her and asked if I could borrow the drawing, below. I added the famous Churchill text.)

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end.

We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

—Winston Churchill, June 1940

.
From time to time—truth be told, quite often—we get a comment which is, well, “off the charts” for eloquence and cogency. This posting catalyzed one of those. I have moved it from Comments to an editorial in its own right. Read on.

Now, we fight.

There is the great void of difference between what we want to do and what we had to do. There is a universe of things we wish to do. To follow one’s heart’s delight, to give from one’s heart with endless passion—that is the golden ideal.

But every time we did what we had to do, we lost a bit of our free will. Every time we were forced to compromise on our dreams, to give ground to the powerful, the inevitable, we surrendered a little, died a little inside.

Now I am older. Maybe it is not wise to keep fighting. Maybe it is not wise to resist, to refuse to take one step backward.

You see, I can’t. All my ancestors and all my heroes in spirit stand behind me. I’m at the edge of my cliff.

Do you remember what General George Patton, that huge pain in Gen. Eisenhower’s ass, said to the Stars and Stripes reporter after his triumphant rescue of the paratroopers at Bastogne after the battle of the Bulge in Belgium?

The reporter asked, “General, Sir, how do you account for your amazing military success?”

And Gen. Patton answered him in French. He looked him in the eye and said, “L’audace. L’audace. L’audace. Toujours, l’audace!”

Now, in this lopsided David and Goliath fight, we must pick up the sling and the pebble. We must stride out in front of the gathered armies. We must ask for guidance. We must act with audacity.

It is the last armament left in our hearts.

—Marshall Rosenthal (Massachusetts)

Medical doctor discusses the published, peer-reviewed literature for Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia)

admin — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:06:33 +0000

Editor’s note: The following report was submitted on 11/22/12 by Dr. Sarah Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation (Australia), to the Australian Federal Senate as testimony in support of the “Excessive Noise from Wind Farms Bill.”

To read the entire submission, click here.

The Range of Clinical Pathology and Symptoms Reported Directly to the Waubra Foundation with Exposure to Operating Wind Turbines and Some Other Sources of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise and Vibration (ILFN & V)

Clinical Framework

The considerable range of clinical pathology and symptoms reported by sick residents and their treating doctors is best understood in the way clinicians assess symptoms with respect to the pattern of reported symptoms, the category of clinical specialty or body system they relate to, and how the symptoms and problems change over time with cumulative exposure.

Only the pathology and symptoms reported directly to me are included in this list. Most of my information has come from residents in Australia. It is included only when I have been satisfied that it appears to be correlating with the operating wind turbines (or other sources of ILFN & V), that is, there is a clear and consistent pattern in the resident’s account of the symptoms or observations which consistently varies with exposure, or is unmistakably linked to it if it was a discrete episode of illness, or where there is relevant research which supports the linking of the symptom or described problem with ILFN & V.

I am aware that other trained medical practitioners who have taken first-hand clinical histories from sick residents, such as Professor Robert McMurtry and Dr Nina Pierpont, have had other pathology reported directly to them, which may not be listed here. There is nothing inconsistent with that, rather it is to be expected when the range of expression of this pathology in each individual is so varied. It is the PATTERN of exposure resulting in new or worsening symptoms, correlating with exposure to operating wind turbines or ILFN & V from other sources, which is the common link.

For the purposes of understanding which pathophysiological processes might be involved, these reported symptoms and problems have been divided into acute and chronic pathology. Because of the considerable complexity and range of information required to put the symptoms into the context of current clinical knowledge, I have first provided some background information.

Acute Exposure Symptoms

These include but are not limited to:

Symptoms of Vestibular Disorders

These were investigated and described in considerable detail in a group of residents living near wind turbines from locations around the world by American Paediatrician Dr Nina Pierpont MD PhD, and given the name of “wind turbine syndrome.” Other rural medical practitioners had collected data some years earlier, including Dr Amanda Harry (UK) and Dr David Iser (Australia).

This cluster of symptoms was known previously to medical researchers and clinicians working in the fields of inner ear diseases, disorders of balance, and Meniere’s disease, and is grouped together by clinicians as “vestibular disorders.” Internationally acknowledged researchers who have worked in this field include Dr Owen Black MD. I have attached an affidavit written by Dr Black in 2009 which places Dr Pierpont’s work in this context. Dr Black was one of a number of expert peers who reviewed her work. The continued assertion that her work is not “peer reviewed” is untrue.

Editor’s note: It’s worth reading the NASA Technical memorandum 83288, “Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Noise from Large Wind Turbines,” 1982, which Dr Black sent to Dr Pierpont after Black had reviewed Pierpont’s book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” Dr Black, who died this past year, was a consultant to NASA and the US Navy on vestibular disorders suffered by astronauts and deep sea divers. It’s clear that by 1982 the US federal government realized “large wind turbines” were causing unspecified “annoyance,” which, despite the article’s title, it artfully sidestepped by categorically denying any “noise/vibration” impacts below 20 Hz—on the assumption that the human ear did not and could not detect these. That assumption has been since proven spectacularly wrong by Dr Alec Salt. See, for instance, this article about Salt’s research. You can also do a Search function for “Alec Salt” on this site, and find numerous other articles, most of them by Salt himself.

Dr Pierpont connected the pattern of symptoms described to her by sick residents, to the symptoms known to acousticians with existing knowledge and research in this field of low frequency noise exposure, and recognized that vestibular disorders were the basis of much of the symptomatology being reported by these residents. These symptoms and their correlation with exposure to low frequency noise are also well known to some occupational physicians and also to acousticians, such as Professor Geoffrey Leventhall, and Dr Malcolm Swinbanks, both from the United Kingdom.

Professor Leventhall [an acoustician, not a physician] has stated he is well aware of these symptoms and their connection to exposure to low frequency noise, and the precise quote from his court evidence and its source is listed in my attached letter to Professor Simon Chapman. Also attached is the table from page 49 of Leventhall’s 2003 DEFRA literature review, listing the symptoms identified in a case control study in 2000 identifying identical symptoms which were reported by residents to occur in response to LFN exposure. This DEFRA document is the same document which I highlighted in my oral evidence to the Senate inquiry as a serious omission from the NHMRC’s Rapid Review of 2010, and can be accessed here.

Dr Malcolm Swinbank’s comments in a recent letter are reproduced below:

I would comment that I first became aware of the physical effects of infrasound when working extensively on site with an industrial gas turbine in 1980. I identified specific aspects which were closely related to some symptoms of sea-sickness with which I was very familiar, being a keen offshore sailor. Thus I did not doubt that infrasound under some circumstances can cause adverse effects, and the relationship to sea-sickness implied that there was probably some interaction with the balance mechanisms of the inner ear. So the more recent work of Dr Nina Pierpont did not strike me as heresy—rather, it endorsed an opinion that I had formed from my own direct, first-hand experience in an entirely different context, almost 30 years earlier.

Dr Swinbanks is not the only acoustician to have developed symptoms of low frequency noise exposure whilst working in an environment measuring ILFN. Robert Rand and Stephen Ambrose had the same experience while measuring the full acoustic spectrum inside a home in Falmouth, USA, over three days. They have both since stated it took days to weeks to recover from the experience.

Symptoms of Acute Sympathetic Nervous System Stimulation, or activation of the fight/flight response. These include symptoms such as a tachycardia (rapid pulse), hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety, and other rare pathologies related to acute elevations of circulating adrenaline, a stress hormone. These include specifically Tako Tsubo Heart Attacks, and Acute Hypertensive crises, both of which are reported to be occurring in the presence of known ILFN but in the absence of the usual clinical precursors. Such a precursor includes a sudden stressful traumatic event in the case of Tako Tsubo Heart Attacks (death of a close relative is the usual example cited) and an underlying tumour of the adrenal gland called a phaeochromocytoma in the case of an acute hypertensive crisis.

As Dr Pierpont and others have pointed out, there is overlap and connections between these two groups of acute pathologies and symptoms, which is grounded in the known science. Vestibular disorders which stimulate the fight/flight response or, as Professor Salt has called it, “the alerting mechanism,” will inevitably lead to a physiological fight/flight response as a consequence.

Dr Swinbanks has also recently highlighted the research by a Chinese team from 2004, showing that infrasound exposure in humans in a laboratory situation for a very short period of time causes increases in heart rate and blood pressure as well as symptoms such as nausea, which confirms the coexistence of the physiological sympathetic nervous system stimulatory effect and the vestibular disorder symptoms (nausea). The link to Dr Swinbank’s paper placing this important Chinese research in its correct context was presented to the InterNoise conference in New York in August 2012.

Chronic Cumulative Exposure Symptoms/Problems

Consequences of Cumulative Sleep Deprivation

The commonest reported symptom or problem by residents is disturbed sleep. Sometimes residents report hearing the audible noise of the turbines when they are woken, but other times they cannot hear the turbines and report a characteristic pattern of “waking suddenly in a panicked state.” This can occur when they cannot see the turbines (they are asleep!), cannot hear them, and have no way of knowing at the time inside their home whether the turbines are operating. This can happen numerous times each night, and correlates with wind direction and certain weather conditions which acousticians confirm are likely to enhance the perception of sound energy.

Being in a well insulated home can make the symptoms, including sleep disturbance worse, which fits with the research evidence of Professor Alec Salt, confirming that the inner ear responds very differently when there is predominantly low frequency sound energy present, which can result in stimulation of the “alerting mechanism” of the brain. It fits with the acoustical survey data collected by Rand and Ambrose in the USA and at multiple locations in Australia by Steven Cooper, where the acoustic profile inside a well insulated home can be quite different from that obtained concurrently outside the home. This is why internal home measurements of the full acoustic spectrum are so important; external measurements do NOT reflect the actual experienced ILFN exposures inside the home, and cannot be used as a substitute.

This identical pattern of sleep disturbance and, on occasion, perception of vibration through the bed, has been reported by residents living near wind turbines and also by those living near coal mining activities in the Upper Hunter, where the mine was at least 5km away, through a hill. Independent acoustic measurements taken at multiple locations near wind turbines and coal mining confirmed the presence of sound frequencies below 200Hz, regardless of the source of the sound energy. These residents consistently report that their sleep pattern improves on those occasions when there is no sound energy from the source of ILFN & V, or when they are away from their homes.

The cumulative effects of sleep deprivation are very well known to clinical medicine, and result in both new disorders and exacerbation of existing conditions, regardless of the cause of that sleep disturbance. Conditions include mental health disorders (depression, anxiety), metabolic conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular pathologies such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and impaired immunity leading to increased infections and, in the long term, malignancies (cancers). A recent meta-analysis by Professor Capuccio from Warwick University provides a useful summary of the importance of sleep with respect to cardiovascular health. . . .

.
Click here to read more

.
References:

F.P. Cappuccio et al. “Sleep duration predicts cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies,” European Heart Journal (2011).

Bruce S. McEwen, “Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 338, no. 3 (Jan 15, 1998), pp. 171-79.

S.G. Shannon et al., “Effect of vibration frequency and amplitude on developing chicken embryos,” U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Report No. 95-1 (Oct 1994), 39 pp.

“Sleep specialist” physician treats patients with Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia)

admin — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:36:11 +0000

Editor’s note: The following letter was formally submitted to the Australian Federal Senate as it ponders a bill to curb excessive wind turbine noise. The bill currently goes by the name, Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012. Whether the Senate passes such a bill remains to be seen, of course.

Click here to read Dr. Spring’s letter in the original (submission #136 in the list).

Dear Senators,

I support the provisions of this bill. I am concerned about the impact of unregulated noise pollution on people close to the wind farms. If noise pollution is occurring, and people’s sleep and health is suffering as a result, the proposed amendments will at least help to detect it.

As a Sleep Physician, working in Ballarat in Western Victoria, I have already been seeing patients from Waubra, Leonard’s Hill, Glenthompson and Cape Bridgewater who have disturbed sleep which has coincided with the commencement of operation of nearby wind farms. I do not believe that we yet know the full extent of the consequences to these people of their exposure to wind farms or even the cause of the untoward effects which may not just be from “noise.” Nonetheless, assessment of noise is a start in the monitoring of what is going on.

I am happy to attend the Senate inquiry and answer questions in person depending on the day or alternatively appear by video link.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Wayne Spring M.B., B.S., F.R.A.C.P., F.R.C.P.
Consultant Physician

“There is something horribly wrong with wind turbine technology,” says physician, driven out of her home (Australia)

admin — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:41:06 +0000

Editor’s note: The following statement was submitted (#141) on 11/1/12 to the Australian Federal Senate Committee which had requested testimony regarding the proposed Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012.

.
I fully support the Bill because of (a) impact of noise on human well-being and (b) lack of regulations and lack of independent monitoring. I am most concerned regarding the ill effects due to wind turbines’ audible and sub-audible noise.

I was living in a conservation area which is only 1.5 km away from industrial turbines. I myself, my family and most neighbours are experiencing the same cluster of symptoms from the same time since the turbines started operating ( June 2011). As a result of this our family had to move.

My [name deleted] also developed tinnitus and dizziness and I wonder how many other children are suffering around wind farms.

As a rural General Practitioner I am wondering how long will our health be compromised until somebody takes some action and recognises there is a real problem?

Infrasound is being laughed at because people do not understand the science involved. For example, UV light is invisible, but now we know it causes skin cancer. Infrasound is below our hearing range and to find out the effects it must be measured by proper, special machines. A-weighted measurements of noise tells you nothing about infrasound noise.

I tried to explain the need to measure infrasound noise around wind turbines (as I believed it is a cause of the most of the symptoms) to the authorities at my Shire, but they refused because the New Zealand Standard (NZS6808: 1998) do not require this.

I have observed in my clinic that some residents who live around wind turbines are suffering the same symptoms, which include headache, tinnitus, earache, palpitations, blurred vision, anxiety, sleep deprivation, nausea etc.

It is obvious that there is something horribly wrong with the wind turbine technology and someone has to be accountable for all the suffering they have caused to so many people.

From my point of view, rural Australians should not be neglected. The government should use all the Health Laws to protect us and solve this serious problem urgently.

Your sincerely,

Dr. Andja Mitric-Andjic… Read more

Wind Turbine Syndrome in the cartoons

admin — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:56:18 +0000

Editor’s note: Wind Turbine Syndrome sufferers do, indeed, flock to their doctors for an explanation of what’s going on and some sort of remedy. We hear about this all the time. The pity is that most physicians don’t have a clue as to what’s happening to these people, and generally treat them with anti-depressants. The good news is that more and more physicians are realizing it’s the turbines that are in fact making these people sick—and they are still giving them anti-depressants.

Can these “docs” do anything further for their patients? No really. Some advise the afflicted simply to move away—which of course is not a simple thing to do. Yet fleeing your home remains the best cure for WTS.

With appreciation to Wintoons.com, which has been lampooning wind energy for many years.

“My life has stopped”: Wind Turbine Syndrome in the Netherlands

admin — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:00:45 +0000

Editor’s note: The following testimony was submitted by Mrs. Elisabeth Jonkman, Netherlands, to the Australian Federal Senate this month, as the Senate considers legislation designed to address Wind Turbine Syndrome (a term the Senate does not use, by the way).

Click here to access Mrs. Jonkman’s testimony. Scroll down to Submission #29. (Bear in mind that English is not her native language. I have lightly edited her text, to make it conform more to conventional English composition.)

—Elisabeth Jonkman, The Netherlands (10/27/12)

I would like to inform you what happened to my life after I started hearing and feeling low frequency noise. . . .

My name is Elisabeth Jonkman, I am a woman of 53 years old and mother of two sons, 22 and 18 years old now. I live in the middle of Holland, in Almere. Forty years ago the land was sea. When I came to live here in 1994 there were 94,000 inhabitants; nowadays there are nearly 200,000 inhabitants in this new city. Of course there are consequences for the energy-supplies. My city is still growing.

There are more than 600 wind turbines and their number is still growing, with much larger machines. Nuon/Vattenfall is also extending their energy supplies with new pipes and installations.

On 6 November 2011 a disaster happened in my life; I became furnarable for [vulnerable to] low frequency noise.

I don’t know why it happened to me, I only can guess. Since then my house is hell on earth. I constantly hear the sound of a kind of machine in my house. It is a pumping, rhythmic and low, heavy sound such as a big transport car near your house. It is nearly almost [always] there: in my living-room, my toilet, my bathroom and the worst of all: my bedroom.

It also gives a feeling of pressure in the air and it makes my body tremble. The area around my heart is trembling when I am in my house. It is very scaring [scary] and sometimes I think I just die if it doesn’t stop. At such terrible moments I have to go outside my house, even when it is late at night. Outside the house my body picks up the vibration and I can hear the sound in the air although it is not so damaging as it is in the house.

I still have a son to attend for. He is autistic and not ready to lose his mother yet. You may ask yourself: “Why doesn’t she move and go to live elsewhere?”

The answer is that now that I am sensible for [sensitive to] LFN, I can hear it almost everywhere in Holland. It is a small and crowded country with lots of wind turbines, gas fields and pipes, and lots of other industrial plants.

My son told me he can hear the noise since he was born. His father and I, we never understood his complaints about his heart trembling and the noise in his head. We never understood why he shook his head as if he wanted to chase an insect, why he couldn’t sleep and why he was so tired. We visited doctors and they examined him but they never could find a reason for his complaints except that he was autistic. This year the pieces of the puzzle fitted in.

My life has stopped, I cannot work any longer, and I just try to survive and stay the mother that my sons need. There is hardly medical support for the victims of LFN. Doctors don`t know how to help us and they prescribe pills for depressive people. There is an unknown amount of victims in Holland right know, registration fails.

I fear we are economic collateral damage, a proof of what is going to happen to lots of citizens who now think it is a thing that is never going to happen to them.

“Wind power has thoroughly corrupted the political system,” says retired High Court justice (Denmark)

admin — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 01:52:43 +0000

“The myth of Denmark as a corruption-free country”

.
—The Honorable Peter Rørdam (retired), The Copenhagen Post (11/16/12)

It’s a widely held conception that Denmark is one of the world’s least corrupt countries. The message is always warmly received, but this isn’t the same as saying that Denmark is free of corruption.

I’m not qualified to speak about corruption in general, but there is one area in which I do have an in-depth knowledge: wind power, which is an industry that has managed to thoroughly corrupt the political system.

The law approving construction of a test centre of large land-based wind turbines near the Jutland town of Østerild was forced through parliament despite warnings about the effects it would have on the natural environment in the area and its impact on residents. The bill was able to make its way through parliament thanks to a complete manipulation of the facts—both by keeping some information under wraps, and by directly misinforming people.

But it wasn’t parliament that was misled. Members of parliament that voted for the law were fully aware of the truth, yet they turned a blind eye so the law could be passed. It was, in fact, voters who were tricked into thinking that they had been told the whole truth.

The only thing that matters for wind turbine makers is money. You can wonder why law makers would play along with their game, but as soon as they threatened to move jobs abroad they did as they were told.

Laying out all the details of this sitation would require more space than is available here, but for those that read Danish, Peter Skeel Hjort’s book ‘Besat af wind’ (Obsessed by the wind) provides a harrowing look into of the industry and the political system.

Collaboration between the industry and lawmakers didn’t stop with the approval of the test centre. Since then, there has been a flood of complaints from people who were unfortunate enough to find themselves living next to large land-based wind turbines elsewhere. The effects, which are well documented, can cause illness and render properties uninhabitable. Their complaints, however, are normally rejected by the authorities, who maintain that living close to wind turbines is not associated with any detrimental effects.

On October 9, Berlingske newspaper published an article by three Aalborg University scientists, who proved that the official noise calculations are wrong, and that the manipulated figures tone down the problems associated with living near a wind turbine. The authorities have done nothing to show that they have scientific evidence to base their claims on. Their only reaction has been to say that the Aalborg University study is wrong, because it does not jibe with the wind power industry’s own findings. We heard this most recently from the environment minister, Ida Auken, who is either being led around by the nose of the people whose interests she’s looking out for, or—as was the case with her predecessor—she is taking part in the misinformation.

It’s worth noting that the compensation homeowners living near wind turbines are given to make up for lost property value is based the falsified noise calculations—which means that people are, in fact, being cheated out of the full amount they are actually owed.

Corruption is defined as moral decay, and that is precisely what we are witnessing here. The fear that Denmark could lose jobs and the near religious obsession with wind power has made politicians deaf and blind to objections to wind as a source of energy, and led them to take part in the industry’s fraud. The environmental and human impacts of what they are doing appear to have no effect on them.

It only adds to the embarrassment is that instead of hiring people, the wind industry is eliminating jobs in Denmark. Meanwhile, little has happened at the Østerild test centre. Parliament rushed to approve the establishment of Østerild, because the industry told them it was vital that they could have seven large wind turbines standing in a row. Østerild was chosen because it had the physical characteristics the industry needed. Today, one turbine stands, and it remains to be seen how many more will be built.

There are a lot of people who have plenty to be ashamed of, but we shouldn’t expect that to change much. Moral scruples aren’t what we most associate with Danish politicians.

Holding wind energy companies accountable for people’s health (Australia)

admin — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:31:10 +0000

Editor’s note: Australian barrister (attorney), Peter Quinn, discusses wind energy subsidies in Australia and a new bill before the Australian Federal Senate to withhold those subsidies when turbine noise exceeds 10 dB(A) above ambient noise levels. The bill would, furthermore, require wind companies to post online the energy generation (per turbine) in real time.

Click here to read the official transcript of the Senate Committee as it interviews witnesses—witnesses both for and against the proposed bill.
.

“Health impact of wind farms” (Australia)

admin — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:03:00 +0000

Editor’s note: Australian radio host, Alan Jones, interviews Australians suffering from Wind Turbine Syndrome. He also interviews Australian noise engineer, Steven Cooper, about the noise and vibration from industrial turbines.

.
Instructions:

» Click anywhere above. You will be taken to a window which looks like the above screenshot. The radio interview will begin automatically, as soon as you open the new window. (Be sure your speakers are turned up. You can adjust the volume with the “volume slider” to the right of the red buttons.)

» When the audio begins, you will see a red bar begin to materialize at the left side of the “progress bar.” Click to the right of the red bar, in the gray area, till you reach the 6 minute 35 second mark (6:35). This is where the interviews begin. The material before that is extraneous to the interviews.

“Wind farms make me sick!” (Australia)

admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:58:22 +0000

“Fight over wind farms goes to Canberra”

.
—Nick Perry, News.com.au (11/13/12)

A splitting headache, vibrations and pressure behind the eyes kept Janet Hetherington awake in the wee hours of last Sunday as she tried to rest before her son’s wedding that afternoon.

She says she wasn’t suffering any common illness but the side effects of low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines near her Macarthur home in western Victoria.

“I don’t know what to do,” she wrote in an email at 4.30am (AEDT) on Sunday.

“I can’t live like this.”

Ms Hetherington was on Tuesday reduced to tears recalling the moment at a rally outside Parliament House in Canberra.

About 40 protesters, mostly from rural South Australia, NSW and Victoria, carried signs claiming wind farms made them ill or they were “wind refugees” forced to abandon their homes.

They want the federal government to support a Senate bill designed to curb excessive noise from wind farms.

The bill, introduced by independent senator Nick Xenophon and Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan, seeks to refuse a Renewable Energy Certificate to wind farms that exceed normal background noise by more than 10 decibels.

One of the bill’s architects, SA barrister Peter Quinn, said he’d received hundreds of emails like Ms Hetherington’s from rural residents concerned about the impact of wind farm noise on their health and their families.

“These things are gutting agricultural communities,” Mr Quinn told the rally, adding claims that wind farms boosted regional economies were a “fraud.”

“Nobody wants to live near these things,” he said.

He urged the protesters to “bombard and shame” their federal MPs into backing the bill.

Under the proposed legislation, the Clean Energy Regulator would be equipped with powers to ensure accredited wind farms don’t create excessive noise within 30 metres of people’s homes, workplaces or meeting spots.

It would also force companies to make information about noise, wind speed and direction and other data publicly available.

Claims that wind farms are causing sleep deprivation, stress and serious long-term health problems have been the subject of much debate and concern in some communities.

In 2010, the government’s National Health and Medical Research Council stated there was currently “insufficient published scientific evidence” to link wind turbines with adverse health effects.

Wind turbines still driving people from homes (Ontario)

admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:00:56 +0000

Wind Turbine Syndrome: Checking Lungs for Vibro-Acoustic Disease (Scotland)

admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:18:30 +0000

—Kay Siddell (Ayrshire, Scotland)

I have 53 industrial wind turbines in front of the house, a cluster of 10 between 680m and 900m away on the hill overlooking the house. Height is 110m. Two applications for 30 more to the side and the back of the house.

We have suffered over 10 years of noise, and my health is failing. I am now attempting to obtain a biopsy on my lungs to test the accuracy or not of the effects of vibro-acoustic disease. It is supposed to change the internal organs by building up much thicker collagen levels in a unique pattern.

If I am successful, I will report back and other people in our situation can use the evidence.

“Wind warning”: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial

admin — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:20:16 +0000

Wind energy, “an industry that makes no economic sense”

November 11, 2012

Americans should hope that winds of change — and sanity — blowing away pro-wind-energy policy in the United Kingdom waft all the way across the Atlantic, sparing U.S. taxpayers the bills for further subsidies of an industry that makes no economic sense.

Energy Minister John Hayes has announced a moratorium on building onshore wind turbines. It’s a dramatic reversal for the U.K.’s coalition government headed by Prime Minister David Cameron, who in 2008 advocated spending 100 billion pounds on wind farms, according to the Daily Mail’s Christopher Booker.

The U.K. then saw wind farms as needed to meet its European Union commitment to produce nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. But that policy’s now fallen victim to commonsense objections raised by communities and members of Parliament across party lines — objections that are just as valid on this side of the ocean.

The 3,500 onshore wind turbines that the U.K. already has produce only a quarter of their electrical capacity due to wind’s unreliability. And U.K. taxpayers have been subsidizing them at “100 percent on all the power they produce,” making wind power far more costly than conventional energy sources, Mr. Booker writes.

The economic inefficiency of subsidies compounds the electrical inefficiency of wind farms. The U.K. should end its 200-percent subsidies for offshore wind farms, too — and the U.S. should follow suit by ending its own wind-power boondoggles.

.
Click here for the original editorial.

“Wind Turbine Syndrome,” by Polish filmmaker Grzegorz Sadowski

admin — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:52:40 +0000

Wind Turbine Syndrome victims sue noise engineer (New York)

admin — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:15:32 +0000

Big Guy v. Little Guy

.—Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

A team of Syracuse, NY, lawyers is suing the Spanish wind energy giant, Iberdrola, on behalf of scores of people who have succumbed to Wind Turbine Syndrome, loss of property value, loss of living amenity, loss of business income, and damage to domestic animals and livestock. All of the plaintiffs live in the shadow of the Hardscrabble windfarm in Herkimer County, NY.

Click here to read the legal brief, dated October 22, 2012.

What makes the case especially interesting is (a) the number of individuals named as plaintiffs, (b) the uniformity of their complaints, and (c) the fact that they have named several “versions” and layers of Iberdrola in their suit, together with Atlantic Renewable Energy and a shadow corporation identified in the suit as Corporation X.

But what makes the case unique, so far as I know, is that the noise engineer for the wind developer is being sued. Mark Bastasch. Both Bastasch and his employer, an outfit named CH2M Hill, are named in the brief.

Here are some high points from the suit:

94. The Defendants represented to the Town of Fairfield and residents in the areas where the turbines were placed that the subject wind turbines would not be noisy, would not adversely impact neighboring houses, and there would not be any potential health risks.

95. Defendant Atlantic Renewables LLC released “projected” noise levels that showed that the wind turbines would not go over 50 dB.

96. The aforementioned 2006 noise level study by Defendant Atlantic Renewables LLC was based on projections for General Electric 1.5LSE, 389-foot tall turbines, and not the Gamesa G90, 476-foot turbines, that Defendants collectively placed in the Hardscrabble project.

98. The Defendants failed to adequately assess the effect that the wind turbines would have on neighboring properties including, but not limited to, noise creation, significant loss of use and enjoyment of property, interference with electrical functioning of homes such as satellites, television, internet and telephone services, diminished property values, destruction of scenic countryside, various forms of trespass and nuisance to neighboring properties, and health concerns; among other effects.

99. Despite the foregoing, and in opposition to many residents who own property in close proximity to the wind turbines, in 2010 the Defendants erected 37 Gamesa G90 wind-turbines that stand 476 feet tall in and around the Towns of Fairfield, Middleville, and Norway, New York.

102. In 2011, the Defendants conducted a noise study that showed noise levels as high as 72 dB.

103. As a result of the aforementioned 2011 study, the Defendants thereafter faulted their own study and conducted two additional noise studies to demonstrate compliance with the Town of Fairfield’s Local Ordinance 1 of 2006, which sets the maximum noise level at 50 dB.

104. These new studies conducted by the Defendants show the average wind speeds, direction and expected percentage of operation.

105. The Defendants’ new studies did not measure the maximum wind speeds and do not measure the noise levels in the winter months, when the noise levels are higher.

106. The Defendants’ new studies fail to acknowledge and assess the extent of the problems, including the full log of Plaintiffs’ complaints that are in the thousands.

108. Since the huge wind turbines in this project produce very little electricity, when the government subsidies expire, the people in the Hardscrabble area will be confronted with a poorly maintained and deteriorating wind energy facility that may one day become derelict.

114. The Defendants’ noise studies also fail to address the aforesaid levels of infra and low frequency sounds by only focusing on audibility, and not on other sensations such as vestibular and other symptoms that fit with the Wind-Turbine Syndrome profile or other health concerns.

115. The wind turbines are causing such significant problems and/or injuries that residents, including the Plaintiffs, are continuing to have many difficulties on their properties, house values have been significantly compromised, and some residents were even forced to abandon their homes; among other damages as set forth in this complaint.

121. The aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently created and/or assisted in the creation of the massive wind-turbine structures that have caused and continue to cause significant harm to residents in the area of the turbines.

122. The aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently failed to adequately disclose the true nature and effects that the wind turbines would have on the community, including the Plaintiffs’ homes.

125. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.

Excerpts from the case against noise engineer Mark Bastasch and his employer, CH2M Hill:

128. The studies performed by CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE lacked a total and real assessment as it related to the potential harm.

129. It is a requirement of acoustic engineers, pursuant to the International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering and civil engineers (as per New York State licensure) to protect public safety, health, and welfare.

130. Defendants knew or should have known that the wind turbines erected produce acoustic pressure pulsations that affect peoples’ health.

131. It was the responsibility of CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE to advise their clients and the public, including Plaintiffs, of the potential for adverse health risks and other impacts to property in the Hardscrabble project area.

133. As a result of the aforesaid, the Plaintiffs have suffered significant and permanent injuries as more fully set forth herein.

134. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.

Several other highlights:

136. Plaintiffs have a private interest in their land and Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have interfered with and/or invaded their interest by conduct that was negligent, careless, intentional and/or unreasonable.

137. The wind turbines constitute a private nuisance because: (i) the wind turbines create significant noise; (ii) the wind turbines interfere with the private enjoyment and use of Plaintiffs’ properties; (iii) the wind turbines cause blinking, flashing and/or flickering effects that impact neighboring properties; and (iv) the wind turbines are adversely affecting property values; among other private nuisances.

149. Plaintiffs allege that the giant wind turbines that Defendants have placed around their property results in a trespass by the Defendants due to invasion of their land by noises, lights, flickering, and low-frequency vibrations which penetrate their homes, thereby destroying the use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs’ land; among other trespass.

156. Defendants criteria for the wind turbines are beyond the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization to the detriment of Plaintiffs.

171. Based on the aforesaid, Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants have caused significant damage to the Plaintiffs and that such damage is substantial, irreparable, and was proximately caused by the acts of the Defendants as set forth in this complaint.

233. In addition to the aforesaid, all Plaintiffs are entitled to damages related to the diminution of their property values; compensatory damages for the destruction of their homes and lifestyle; loss of use and enjoyment of their properties; damages in the form of relocations costs and lost time spent relocating their homes; mental anguish; destruction of scenic countryside; physical pain and suffering; difficulty sleeping; nuisance; trespass; interference with electrical functioning of their homes such as satellites, telephone and televisions; loss of business profits; special damages that include anxiety, stress, worry and inconvenience; some Plaintiffs may have a need for future medical monitoring and/or medical care; and the effects of the lights and noise the wind turbines have on the Plaintiffs’ properties; among other injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants on each of the causes of action for the damages stated herein, in an amount to be determined which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with attorney’s fees, court costs and the disbursements of this action.

Unfortunately, the plaintiffs don’t have the funds to hire the experts they need, whereas the defendants have boundless funds to hire the usual parade of charlatans and self-important hacks who prostitute their services as physicists and noise engineers and clinicians to Big Wind.

I say that with a sigh of regret.

Unfortunately, in other words, the plaintiffs will likely lose. But—God bless ‘em in the effort.

“Wind Farm Visit” (Australia)

admin — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:40:25 +0000

“One very tall sign warned visitors that wind towers could cause headaches, nausea, vertigo, sleep deprivation, a feeling of sea sickness and increased ear pressure”

—Michael Cobb, Blayney Chronicle (11/8/12)

After my visit to Melbourne last week I travelled on to South Australia in an attempt to get a better handle on what is upsetting people about wind farms.

Just east of Adelaide are the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Extending in a northerly direction from them are a series of these ranges continuing as part of this same geological feature, and it is on these ranges that a number of wind farms are already built or intended to be built.

The Waterloo Wind Farm, which I chose to visit, is the closest of these to Adelaide, being about 125 kilometres north of that city.

It has been very controversial and constantly in the news since it began operating two years ago.

Because my visit had to be limited to one day, I could not meet everyone face to face that I wanted to.

However, I was able to visit the wind farm, the town of Waterloo, and meet with some residents and farmers.

Those I missed I was able to talk to at length over the phone.

Regrettably I could not speak to any hosts of the wind towers because of confidentiality clauses that the wind companies now require the hosts to sign.

Waterloo Town

The town of Waterloo itself is a small hamlet of 20 plus houses situated almost 3.5 kilometres due west of the wind farm.

It has been described as something of a ghost town.

To my eye it looked more like that a modern day version of the Battle of Waterloo had recently been fought there.

Though several houses are certainly run down and some now abandoned you had to admire the tenacity of the remaining residents who have stayed on.

Such people are the salt of the earth.

You could gauge the feeling of these remaining residents immediately just by reading the signs they have attached to their front gates and fences.

These signs said “Wind farms ruin our town”, called for wind farms to be banned, and that “Wind towers are a health hazard”.

One very tall sign warned visitors that wind towers could cause headaches, nausea, vertigo, sleep deprivation, a feeling of sea sickness and increased ear pressure.

It was hard to escape the impression that these signs would not have been erected up and down the main street unless the residents felt very strongly about what was happening to them.

You were clearly left with the perception that the townspeople were very resentful towards the wind farm, even though it was set back almost double the distance (3.5 kilometres v 2.0 kilometres) of what is proposed in New South Wales.

I learned that one of the townspeople had been forced to move out and was now living in a shed at his mothers.

Another had also moved from his house because of the noise and was now living in a caravan.

One retired couple who had moved to Waterloo for its peace and quiet say their house vibrates when the towers are active.

For relief during prolonged windy periods they have to move away for a few days at a time.

Another lady who suffers from the towers also has to move out of her house and live elsewhere to regain her sanity.

The one business remaining in Waterloo is the quarry on the edge of the town.

The quarry owner lives in his house in town, or did so until recently.

Though his profession is naturally associated with a fair degree of noise to which he is accustomed, I was told he only uses the house through the day now.

He has bought another residence in Saddleworth, several kilometres away, to escape the noise at night and get an uninterrupted sleep.

Hearing these stories, it was hard not to feel a sense of despair for these people.

With a few rare exceptions no one seems to care for them.

Not the wind company, not the health authorities, not the government, and dare I say it, not even their local parliamentary members.

Waterloo Wind Farm

One resident of the area took me down a back road and across a farm paddock, then up the ridge line to see the towers first hand for myself.

The day was dead calm so I saw only one blade move about five feet.

Over $200 million just sitting there doing nothing.

Standing at the base of such gargantuan towers looking heavenward at these fully imported monsters, where you could land a helicopter on the hub, seemed to symbolise the ultimate folly of man.

These towers make the ones we have at Carcoar look like lollipop sticks.

It was hard to take in the scale of these behemoths.

They were strung out along the ridge line for as far as the eye could see, dominating the skyline and overlooking the fertile farming valleys that stretched away on both sides into the distance.

Neighbouring Farmers

The first thing to realise about wind towers is that you do not know if or to what degree they may affect you until they are erected.

That depends on many factors such as tower size, topography, wind direction, distance and your own individual susceptibility.

Though the audible noise can be very annoying, it is often the low frequency and inaudible infra sound that is the most damaging, especially if you are inside your house.

A bit like being inside a drum as opposed to outside it.

The large amplitude waves of infra sound often only ‘take effect’ at long distances from the tower. I learnt that sometimes it is better to live under the tower than some kilometres away.

One farm I visited was over eight kilometres away with a range between the towers and his house.

Though the towers could not be seen the farmer said you could hear them even ten kilometres away at the back of his property.

The description one farmer gave me was of a “constant pulsating, thumping noise that you just can’t get away from”.

He said the wind companies are “the biggest liars. They told me they would be quiet”.

That farmer has now moved from his house to a nearby town and drives out to the farm each day to work.

Another farmer explained that the sensation “wakes you up at night – you can’t get back to sleep. I have ringing badly in my ears at night, but it is better since I moved house three months ago”.

Yet another farmer told me “The constant noise gets to you. You can’t get away from it. It makes you irritable and nervy”.

This farmer was eight kilometres away too in another direction, and also can’t see the towers as he too has a range between him and the towers.

“It was just like a jet the other night”, he said.

“I now have tinnitus (ringing) in one ear. The sound funnels down the valley. The government does not care for the people anymore”.

One other farmer complained to me that the wind farm has “ruined the area. The ridge tops were once a habitat for wedge tail eagles. They are proud, territorial birds, but now the nesting areas are deserted. There are no eagles left here”.

He then added “The politicians have no idea”.

Space considerations do not permit me to tell the other stories of disrupted TV receptions, of the manager of the wind farm who insists on living over 30 kilometres away, and so on.

Suffice to say that as long as the government subsidies continue to flow to the operators and the green voters continue to be appeased in their city apartments, people like those at Waterloo will continue to be the unfortunate “road kill” of these projects I was told.

Because the victims’ numbers are small in the whole scheme of things they can be ignored.

Inhumanity can reign if you are a minority in a relatively isolated area.

It was a long day and I had clocked many miles.

Yet somehow I came away dismayed and saddened that somehow I, too, would be another who would let them down.

Their faces had searched mine for some glimmer of hope. What more could I do?

Perhaps if enough can tell their story, someday, someone in a position of power will listen.

Wind turbines plunge property value 38% (Ontario, Canada)

admin — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:23:40 +0000

Editor’s note: The following “property analysis” is worth reading. It’s by Lansink Appraisals & Consulting, Ontario, Canada. It shows, yet again, that wind turbines have a dire effect on property value.

My favorite part is the letter reproduced at the bottom of this posting. It’s a fuzzy reproduction, unfortunately. Here’s the body of the letter. Names of individuals have been “whited out.”

—Ben Lansink, “Diminution in Value: Wind Turbine Analysis” (October 2012)

Conclusion (p. 62)

Market evidence suggests that ‘dwelling properties’ will be harmed or injured by the construction, use, and maintenance of wind turbines situated on properties located in the vicinity. Real or perceived nuisances resulting from wind turbines produces buyer resistance that results in price diminution.

The erection of a wind turbine creates apprehension in the general public, which makes the property less desirable and thus diminishes the prices of neighbouring property. Continuing scientific uncertainty over the adverse health consequences of wind turbines only serves to perpetuate the debilitating effect of wind turbines on property prices.

By including the Transfer of Easement in Gross in the deed/transfer of the properties sold by Canadian Hydro Developments, Inc., it is reasonable to conclude that Canadian Hydro Developers, Inc. was fully aware of problems associated with…heat, sound, vibration, shadow, flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation of the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities situated…within the Townships of Melancthon and Amaranth, in the County of Dufferin…’ and that the turbines …’may affect the living environment’…”.

The covenants imposed by Canadian Hydro Developments, Inc. and accepted by the five buyers suggest an official admission by Canadian Hydro Developments, Inc. that there are living environment issues with the result that there is a diminution in price as a result of wind turbines.

It is also reasonable to assume that a property that has a wind turbine erected on it will suffer a similar price diminution and will be injuriously affected.

The Future: Given that wind turbines are a relatively new phenomenon in Ontario (2005), it may be that in the future a buyer will simply refuse to purchase a property within the vicinity of a wind turbine. If there is no buyer, there may be no value.

»»»»»»

Plea for “Declaration of Emergency” (Ontario, Canada)

admin — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 23:19:33 +0000

Editor’s note: The following letter was sent by William K.G. Palmer, P. Eng. (Professional Engineer), to the Premier of the Province of Ontario, Canada. It is self-explanatory.

.
“Declaration of Emergency in Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario (Canada)”

October 3, 2012

I write to you to request your immediate attention to declare an emergency in the Municipality of Kincardine consistent with the “Criteria in Consideration of a Declaration of Emergency” issued as a checklist for municipal heads of council under the Emergency Management Act (copy attached). An emergency is defined as “a situation, or an impending situation caused by … an intentional act … that constitutes a danger of major proportion to life or property.”

Yesterday I participated in a meeting between elected officials of the Municipality of Kincardine (MofK), staff of the Ministry of Environment (MofE), staff of the Enbridge Ontario Wind Project (Enbridge), and members of the Central Bruce Grey Wind Concerns (CBGWC), including a number of residents identifying personal adverse health effects identified since the start up of wind turbines near their homes. I have personally been involved as a Professional Engineer, raising concerns related to this wind project since the original project Environmental Screening Report was issued on April 19th, 2006, with communications to Enbridge, the Mof E, and the MofK since spring 2006. It was very clear last evening that in spite of over 6 years of identification of concerns, the issues have not been addressed, have no immediate prospects of being addressed, and the criteria for Declaration of Emergency have clearly been met, requiring immediate action. This situation arose from an intentional act, the siting of industrial wind turbines too near to the homes of citizens, an act carried out by Enbridge, approved by the Municipality of Kincardine, with the approval reinforced by the Ontario Municipal Board after appeals by citizens, and encouraged by the Province of Ontario.

This letter briefly summarizes how the criteria for declaration of an emergency are met, and why urgent action is required to be taken to address the situation.
.

General and Government

I. Is the situation an extraordinary event? This is indeed an extraordinary event, as this is the only situation in this municipality in which citizens have repeatedly identified a threat to their health, have identified suicidal thoughts arising from the hopelessness of the situation, have identified repeated near accidents due to lack of sleep, and have expressed vocally to their elected officials “this is destroying lives” and is “hopeless.”

II. Does the situation pose a danger of major proportions to life or property? Over 20 families have identified adverse health effects. Sworn testimony of a Professional Engineer with training and experience in public risk assessment before the legislative assembly Select Committee hearings into the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, to the Environmental Registry related to regulations from the Renewable Energy Approvals and before an Environmental Review Tribunal has stated that individuals living at approved sites, traveling on pubic roadways, and working on their own property face public safety risk from wind turbine accidents orders of magnitude greater than accepted by other energy generation systems. Incidence of cardiac arrest of citizens living with wind turbines near their homes has shown increases above the norm, noting for example only known incidents from public records, but there may well be more:

a. A gentleman in his 50’s who stood at a public meeting to declare he was suffering no adverse health effects from wind turbines near his home suffered a cardiac arrest and died within one week of his declaration.

b. A young lady in her 30’s who had the nearest wind turbine 463 metres from her home suffered a sudden cardiac arrest and died.

c. A gentlemen in his 60’s who lived with a wind turbine near his home suffered a sudden cardiac arrest while driving and died.

III. Is the situation a threat to the provision of essential services (e.g. energy, potable water …) Presentations by professionals with experience in the electricity supply sector (including previous experience with the IESO, Ontario Hydro, and Ontario Power Generation) have identified how the proliferation of wind turbines to the target penetration identified by the Ontario Power Authority threatens the stability of the electricity generating sector in Ontario. Water wells in the surroundings of the Enbridge array have suffered adverse changes since the driving of piles associated with the erection of wind turbines. Work related to the wind turbine erection created unsealed breaches in the integrity of the separation of deep ground water resources from surface contamination.

IV. Does the situation threaten social order …? One needs look no further than the pages of the local area daily newspaper, the Owen Sound Sun Times to read of calls for social disobedience, or to read of allegations of individuals being threatened with firearms over wind turbines to realize that social order is significantly adversely impacted. The community has been severely and adversely impacted by the divisiveness caused by the wind turbine erections. Public demonstrations are a regular occurrence. Social order has been severely impacted.

V. Is the event attracting significant media and or public interest? A simple “google” search for ALL the words “Owen Sound Sun Times wind turbine” returns 188,000 finds … The Sun Times described wind turbines as THE number one news story in the last year.

VI. Has there been a declaration of emergency by another level of government? Sadly, no government has responded to the urgent nature of this issue, although the Government of Canada has initiated a health effects study, and both the local Huron Bruce Member of Parliament (Ben Lobb) and the Member of Provincial Parliament (Lisa Thompson) have publicly identified their concerns related to wind turbines.
.

Legal

I. Might legal action be taken against municipal employees or councilors related to their action during the current crisis? One only has to look at the example of the lawsuit raised against the Ontario Ministry of Labor, the City of Elliot Lake, Eastwood Mall president Robert Nazarian, Eastwood Mall, Inc., and engineering firm M.R. Wright and Associates related to the Algo Mall collapse in Elliott Lake, to realize that if legal action is raised due to the inaction to address identified concerns related to the Enbridge wind power development in the Municipality of Kincardine, the suit would name the Ministry of the Environment, the Municipality of Kincardine, potentially individual members of council, the President and Managers of the Enbridge Ontario wind project, the Grey Bruce Medical Officer of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario, all of whom have been apprised in formal submissions from citizens without taking actions to resolve the concerns.

II. Are volunteers assisting? Numerous volunteers are trying to assist the impacted citizens. These volunteers care about their neighbours.
.

Operational

I. Does the situation require a response that exceeds, or threatens to exceed the capabilities of the municipality? Over 20 families have identified adverse health impacts. Documentation in the Environmental Noise Assessment submitted by Enbridge in support of the Certificate of Approval issued by the Ministry of the Environment shows that 53 homes are located at distances of under 550 metres from wind turbines – the current setback called for by regulation. 14 homes met the criteria identified at the time of the approval only because the assessment was conducted in the Environmental Noise Assessment in a manner that was not consistent with the regulations in place then, by reducing the contribution of some wind turbines, a proposal suggested by MoE staff, as stated in sworn testimony by the President of the firm which conducted the assessment. Citizens in some of these homes and others, are those who have identified adverse health impacts. Although the citizens individually and the citizens group associated with the citizens have formally requested Enbridge to provide a “safe house” so individuals may escape from the environment of their homes, or to buy their property so they can get on with their lives, Enbridge confirmed at the meeting yesterday that they decline to take this action, based on review with senior officers. If the Municipality of Kincardine which approved the wind power development (in fact at even smaller setbacks) took action to buy out the citizens at fair market value, or even to provide safe houses for those identifying adverse health effects, it would far exceed the financial capabilities of the municipality.

II. Does the situation create sufficient strain on the municipal response capability that areas within the municipality may be impacted by a lack of services?The strain caused by continually attempting to deal with concerns from citizens has already adversely impacted the capability of the municipality as municipal councillors spend an disproportionate amount of time dealing with this issue, leaving other issues unserviced. If many of the over 300 homes within the wind turbine power development petition the Municipal Property Assessment Commission (MPAC) to reduce their property tax assessment because of the impact of wind turbines which are adversely affecting their enjoyment of their property or the salability of their property, the impact on the residual tax base of the rest of the municipality will require a significant increase in taxes just to maintain existing services. Potentially a huge strain on capability is forecast.

III. Is it a consideration that the municipal response may be of such duration that additional personnel and resources may be required to maintain the continuity of operation? At the meeting yesterday, members of council were unaware of the details and impact of the complaint resolution procedure issued by Enbridge as a condition of the Ontario Municipal Board. Requirements that the Municipality might need to enforce the complaint resolution procedure, such as acoustic monitoring, are not resourced.

IV. Does, or might, the situation require provincial support or resources? Clearly, this situation requires provision of provincial support. Through the Green Energy and Economy Act, the province took away any municipal authority to protect its citizens related to wind turbines. Provincial support is essential.

.
Mr. Premier, I write to you to urge urgent action consistent with the criteria identified here to declare an emergency in the Municipality of Kincardine. Both at the meeting yesterday evening, and at the previous meeting in June, citizens identified extreme distress, and identified threats to their life posed by the placement of wind turbines, even though concerns have been formally identified through all the appropriate channels.

This is indeed an urgent matter, impacting life and death. Your compassion, and responsible action is called for, urgently.

With respect,

William K.G. Palmer P. Eng.
Paisley, ON N0G 2N0
trileaem@bmts.com

Wind turbines blow down property value, says expert

admin — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:04:25 +0000

Editor’s note: In an article unsubtly titled “Wind Industry Big Lies,” British journalist James Delingpole zeroes in on Big Wind’s biggest lie of all:

And there’s no direct evidence that they affect house prices, in fact the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors says they don’t.”

—RenewableUK (aka British Wind Energy Association)

“This,” indignantly responds Delingpole, going for the jugular, “is a quote—a genuine quote: not one devised by his enemies to satirise the outrageous absurdity of the wind industry’s specious claims—from Maf Smith, Deputy Chief of the wind industry propaganda arm RenewableUK [formerly called the British Wind Energy Association]. I suppose how far it qualifies as a lie depends on how you construe that weasel phrase ‘direct evidence.’ Evidence of one kind or another there certainly is aplenty.” There is indeed, and Delingpole goes on to provide it. Click here to read Delingpole’s article.

In the article, below, veteran Chicago property appraiser, Michael McCann, adds his own rebuttal to RenewableUK’s deceit.

“Direct Evidence of Value Impact: An Appraiser’s Perspective on Living with Wind Turbines”

—Michael S. McCann, CRA, McCann Appraisal, LLC (Chicago, Illinois, USA)

I can understand why some people have no clue as to what constitutes “direct evidence of value loss” when they have zero training or education as a professional appraiser. Further, when self-interest is placed above objective analysis by anyone, wildly different opinions are the result.

However, different does not mean equal. Being duly licensed, and with over 30 years experience in professionally evaluating the impacts of one land use on the value of another, please permit me to clarify.

There is a hierarchy of evidentiary value, or how reliable certain information is construed, vis-à-vis other forms of potential evidence.

Case Study Data: The most reliable method for determining property value

The most reliable evidence is represented by Case Studies, or individual examples of value loss, directly linked to the cause of value loss. This can be true for a contaminated property, a loss of parking from a shopping center, or indeed from a wind energy project of one or numerous turbines.

A good example of a Case Study is represented by a recent appraisal assignment in Michigan. I appraised this home (see above) prior to the approval or construction of the Consumers Energy Lake Winds project in Mason County, Michigan. All pre-turbine comparable sales considered, this property was worth $190,000. Nice home on a small acreage lot, remodeled and updated, great view of apple orchards and a rural countryside.

I appraised this property in June 2011, and the market increased about 9% since then, indicating it should have increased in value to about $207,000. With a typical Sale:List price ratio of 95%, under pre-project conditions, this adjusted value should have resulted in a recommended list price of $217,900, to allow for the negotiation to bring the selling price to the $207,000, June 2012 “market value.”

However, since then the wind turbine project was constructed and industrial-scale turbines have been built within about 1/4 mile of this residence (and many others). This family decided to move away from the turbines (which, incidentally, establishes the direct link) and local realtors told them that being located in the turbine project, they would not list the property based upon the appraised value, and would not list it unless it was discounted to a $169,000 asking price.

Thus, the realtor community acknowleged the loss of marketability, and enforced a beginning discount that was contrary to the pre-turbine project market value, much less the increase since then. With the nearest turbine quite obvious and present, the final sale price was $159,000, or 23% lower than market value (as adjusted for market appreciation during the intervening year).

In this Case Study example, the nearest turbine had been only “tested,” and there was no direct experience for the seller in their own home with any noise, audible or LFN, or flicker, although clearly within range of both noise and visual impacts. One of the owners did spend one night in a residence similarly situated near a turbine in the same turbine project that was running that night, and reportedly was disturbed to the point of being convinced he would not be able to endure living under such conditions.

This case study illustrates a 23% value reduction, clearly, and with no innappropriate considerations, from an appraisal perspective.

Absurdly, the wind energy industry has attempted, with some success, to cast this direct type of evidence as being “merely anecdotal,” and in their (non-expert) judgment, unreliable.

On balance, the Appraisal Institute is a far more reliable and authoritative source on valuation matters, methodology and techniques. It is, as well, the leading education provider for appraisers in the USA, and is the oldest appraisal association. Their published text on valuation of detrimental conditions clearly states that “Case Studies” are the most reliable data upon which to base a professional valuation conclusion in situations of detrimental conditions—like this one.

In addition, courts of law will typically consider a very recent sale of a property to be the “best” evidence of its value—not merely “anecdotal.” The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which is a regulation applicable to the entire community of licensed appraisers, has a specific regulation (SR 1-5) which mandates an appraiser “must consider and analyze any sale of a subject property within the prior 3-year period.”

With regard to Case Study data, what the wind industry calls anecdotal or unreliable is exactly the type of information that the appraisal profession and the courts typically rely upon as being the best evidence.

Bottom line: Case Study data is factual and empirical, and is therefore the most reliable.

.
Editor’s note: WTS stands for “Wind Turbine Syndrome”

As a side note, I am aware that many homeowners bought out by wind developers or compensated for nuisance or value loss, have done so with required confidentiality agreements—in other words, “gag orders.” This, of course, makes Case Study data hard to come by.

Paired Sales: The second most reliable method for determining property value

With that said, the second most reliable basis for demonstrating a “detrimental conditions” valuation opinion, when one does not have enough factual background on Case Studies, is the use of “paired sales.” That is, one sale near turbines and one far away, in order to isolate the impact of the turbines on value. Of course, there still will be other disimilar features—say, a fireplace, for which the appraiser can make a reasoned judgment as to the contributory value of a fireplace to a home’s sale price, and make an adjustment for this or any other relevant differences. Since it requires a certain amount of judgment, use of Paired Sales is not immune from critique. One person may assume that the cost to install a fireplace (say, $10,000) is the appropriate basis for adjustment, and another may be able to demonstrate that the local “market” only pays 50% of cost, or $5,000 for a good quality fireplace. These types of assumptions can skew the results of analysis. (More on this, below.)

Regression Analysis: The least reliable method for determining property value. (This is the method used by the wind industry.)

Regression Analysis is the technique that was used by the now well-circulated Hoen/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report. The Appraisal Institute recognizes this technique as the third and least reliable method, which should only be used in the absence of data, such as the type of Case Study data that is most reliable and preferable, or absent the data to perform a Paired Sales analysis.

The problems with Regression Analysis are numerous. As in the “fireplace” example, above, the “researcher” has considerable latitude in setting the value of many of the variables, ostensibly to solve “ceteris paribus” (“everything else being equal”) for the dependent variable, or value impact from turbines. Poor choices by a researcher can greatly doom the analysis results, rendering it a case of “garbage in, garbage out.”

Statistical significance can be manipulated, as well, by “pooling” data from disimilar locations. (Google the phrase, “Final nail in Hoen’s coffin.”) Preceding an excellent analysis of the Sunak regression study from Germany in 2012, with isolated markets studied separately, Dr. Alec Salt wrote a succinct analysis of why wind developers use a 10 km study radius! Basically, it allows statistical significance of unhelpful data to be weakened.

Beyond the Regression Analysis technique itself, one must also consider the objectivity of the analyst. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) report (2009) authored mainly by Ben Hoen is highly suspect in this regard. Hoen was under contract (along with the Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley) to prepare the report for the US Dept. of Energy (USDOE), both of which (UC Berkeley and US DOE) are vigorouly and publicly “pro-wind turbine.” This creates a potential for “advocacy,” rather than an independent, objective study—hardly the objective standards required of professional appraisers.

Moreover, not being a licensed appraiser, Mr. Hoen was not bound by any enforceable code of ethics or standards of practice. Although his report “looked” (to the untrained eye) to be compelling, in fact it failed to follow the property appraisal industry’s “best practices” standards. Al Wilson, an appraiser eminently qualified in both Regression Analysis for mass appraisal and in assessing the impact on value from contamination, points out that Hoen’s Regression model fails to conform to any of the accepted and tested (verified) Regression models used by assessor’s for valuing properties for either ad valorem assessment or “mass appraisal” projects. It was idiosyncratic—custom made—for this project. Leading Wilson to conclude that the LBNL report is unreliable for any public policy purposes.

As an invited “peer reviewer” of the 2009 LBNL report, I think it is fair of me to to point out that the authors elected to omit significantly important data, i.e., about 3 dozen sales within 3 miles of turbines that “deviated too far from the mean,” and a few developer buyouts, with only 2 re-sold from the developer in private transactions at 36% and 80% discounts from the prices just paid. Thus, the sales which were most likely to affect any objective determination of value impact from turbines—that is, those “nearby”—were omitted. (See LBNL report, Dec. 2009, pp. 13-14, footnote 27.)

The Regression technique does not always yield unreliable or biased results. The Clarkson University study (2011) and the recent report out of Germany by Sunak (2012) both used Regression methodology and, without “pooling” the data, statistically significant findings were developed as high as 40% value loss (1/10 mile from turbines: Clarkson study), 20% value loss (3 miles from turbines: Clarkson), and 25% value loss (lot values within 2 km: Sunak).

Both the Clarkson and Sunak studies focused on nearby property values, which Hoen says they “know little about.” I submit that the nearby property values are exactly the issue, when considering zoning, siting or otherwise permitting of wind farms.

Finally, Hoen did not write that turbines cause “no impact on value.” He in fact acknowleged that there are cases “nearby” where values are likely impacted. However, he then fell back to the pooled data to claim that such impacts are neither uniform, widespread or statistically significant. His claim is reasoning is absurd; one would not expect impacts to be “widespread” in a 10-mile radius, nor “uniform” from one value loss example to another.

.
Ben Hoen

In conclusion, it’s evident that wind developers are not relying on studies that utilize accepted appraisal methodolgy or techniques, since there is indeed data available to demonstrate what the impacts are (or are not) using Case Studies and Paired Sales—or even by using more reliable, independent and objective Regression studies. It’s worth pointing out that wind developers often misquote Hoen, and claim the report states “no value impact from turbines.”

Hoen and I agree on one thing: Property Value Guarantees (PVG’s) should be used with any wind project. This would cause all wind developers to be more careful in the siting location of any turbines, and also provide the basis for compensating or buying out owners who cannot live near turbines due to health or nuisance impacts, or who have had their home equity diminished by shoehorning turbines into populated areas, with no regard for compatibility with the neighborhood.

As a professional appraiser, I am not permitted to be biased for or against any client or issue. But I can advocate my professional opinions. Based on my review of wind turbine development and value impact trends, I can state confidently that there are indeed impacts on value near industrial-scale turbines. The data tends to support a range of 25% to 40% devaluation, although with so many homes abandoned after the development and operation of nearby turbines, the loss of equity is sometimes total.

When wind energy developers propose setbacks in terms of feet and meters, instead of miles and kilometers, they are essentially insuring that there will be negative impacts on property values, together with safety and welfare impacts. I leave the health and noise impact issue for physicians and credible acoustical engineers to address, except to point out the obvious: these impacts are what cause many people to move away from wind projects. Value loss is merely a means of partially quantifying the health effects of wind turbines.

.
Editor’s note: Mr. McCann can be reached at mikesmccann@comcast.net

Medical officer acknowledges wind turbines cause direct health effects (Ontario)

admin — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:48:25 +0000

.
“Turbine opponents plead for health unit’s help”

.
—Tracey Richardson, Owen Sound Sun Times (9/21/12)

Wind turbine opponents pleaded with Grey-Bruce’s public board of health Friday to do something to help them.

Frustration was evident in presentations from two groups — one from the municipality of Kincardine and one from Grey Highlands. It’s the first time a delegation opposing wind turbines has shown up on the doorstep of the health unit, although the matter has been addressed at previous public meetings.

At one point, an emotional plea came from Norma Schmidt — one of about a dozen people in the audience. “We’re suffering terribly. It’s a disaster,” she told them. “We just can’t live our everyday, ordinary lives.”

She told the board it was their responsibility to help them because it’s a health issue.

Board chair Arlene Wright told the group she sympathized with them and that the board “has been dealing with this for three years.”

The group also had a sympathetic ear in medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn, who said after the meeting that she feels their frustration. She also believes their concerns are absolutely legitimate.

“I’ve been concerned about wind turbines for a long time, and I do know people who have been affected by them,” she said. “I think it is a direct effect and not an indirect effect.”

Lynn has been asked repeatedly over the years by local municipalities and residents to do a health study, but the health unit declined because of a lack of money and resources. But even if she had the money and resources, Lynn said she couldn’t do it.

“I’ve said look, I’m not the person to do it. I’m already biased. I think these people are affected directly by this technology and I feel somewhat annoyed, to put it mildly, that the energy and infrastructure act does not allow people to have that choice of having a turbine in their back yard or not.”

The health board heard stories from Virginia Stewart Love about people suffering from severe headaches, heart palpitations, sleeplessness and tinnitus. Some are not able to work and cannot have guests come to their home, she said.

Love was representing people in the Maxwell area living near 11 turbines of the Plateau Wind Project that came online last February.

“We are looking to you, the experts and professionals charged with the protection of our health to determine what the cause or causes are of the symptoms we are presenting, and to eliminate and prevent any further harm,” she told the board.

The board heard about plans to more than double the existing 120 Enbridge turbines in Kincardine. Rachel Thompson, chair of Health Affected Residents Meeting (HARM), told the board the planned turbines are 100 feet taller than the current ones, and that some people are living as close as 450 metres to turbines.

She said she knows of dozens of people wanting out of their leases with Enbridge for the turbines on their property, which were signed in 2004.

“It’s ruining real peoples’ lives here,” she told the board.

Many people suffering from the turbines can’t move for financial reasons, she added. “They feel trapped.”

Health Canada and the University of Waterloo are both conducting health studies, but they’re still two to four years from completion. Both Love and Thompson said that’s too long because people are suffering now.

The health board passed a motion asking Lynn to review the current literature and report back to the board on what it might do.

Lynn said public health is handcuffed under current legislation when it comes to acting on environmental issues. Lynn said health hazard legislation was set up for infectious disease, “so it’s really specific for me to write orders on a health hazard that has to do with sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, those kinds of things. And that’s what it was set up for. So to put that into environmental terms is very difficult.”

Lynn can force someone to be tested for an infectious disease and take the medication for it, “but it’s very difficult to do that with wind turbines.”

She expects to report back to the board in a couple of months.

After the meeting, Schmidt, who lives near Underwood, said she has been forced from her home because of the wind turbines.

“I’m very ill because of it and I’m asking them (the board) to help me and people like me, because it’s a very serious health problem. Our area has been inundated with wind turbines.”

Thompson said she was encouraged by the board’s response.

“I feel very positive. I was really impressed with the intelligent questions that came from everyone on the board, and I feel like very positive actions will come forward from today’s delegation.”

She said she wouldn’t be surprised if the health unit ends up spending some time researching and “talking to people on the ground. I think they would be able to do a fantastic job of what we’ve started with the case studies. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they follow up on that.”

“I just came in from sitting in my rocking chair”: Wind turbines as inhumaneness

admin — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:51:00 +0000

Editor’s note: This arrived in response to the posting, “Aldo Leopold, vanished ‘soundscape,’ and wind turbines.” I have no idea who wrote it, or even what country it came from—these being details of insignificance. It is enough to know it speaks from the heart, to the heart—of all humanity.

I just came in from sitting in my red rocking chair, outside on my stone porch. I like to sit there every night in the dark.

I heard this year’s family of coyotes, calling to the moon. I saw the bright moon behind the 150-year-old apple tree. My horse “Hobo” whinnied and snorted—he knew I was there.

It is a bit chilly, so I quietly walked over and piled some straw on top of Bulldozer, my little black pig. He gave a sleepy thank you and yawned.

Then I needed a velvet kiss from Hobo. So, even though my knee is sore, I padded through the grass to his fence—of his big valley. The moon lit up the white pattern on his chestnut face. He leaned over and nuzzled me.

“God, he smells so good and he feels so warm.” I got my velvet kisses; he got my voice, low in the darkness, almost a whisper calling him my favorite mighty steed.

Sometimes, when I say goodnight to my furry friends, I say “night night baby duck!” And when asked why I would call a pig or horse, dog or cat a “baby duck,” I explain that they are all so pure and innocent. To me they are like a baby duck.

Damn the wind industry! Damn damn damn them all!

With thanks to Matthew Seed

“Wind industry big lies, No. 2: Your property values will not be affected…”

admin — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:50:40 +0000

It’s only when you dig beneath the surface of the official lies and cover ups that you realise just how filthy and all-pervasive the wind farm scam is. Why are so few journalists investigating it? Why isn’t it on the front pages every day? Are we really so cynical and decadent that we no longer expect our trade bodies, our institutions, our government departments to behave with a shred of decency?

—James Delingpole

Editor’s note: We would like to dedicate the article, below, to Derek (“I tell the truth”) Maitland—an Australian journalist who seems impervious to evidence.

.
—James Delingpole, The Telegraph (UK), 9/19/12

And there’s no direct evidence that they affect house prices, in fact the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors says they don’t.”

This is a quote—a genuine quote: not one devised by his enemies to satirise the outrageous absurdity of the wind industry’s specious claims—from Maf Smith, Deputy Chief of the wind industry propaganda arm RenewableUK.

I suppose how far it qualifies as a lie depends on how you construe that weasel phrase “direct evidence.” Evidence of one kind or another there certainly is aplenty. Here, for example, is a sad letter I received from a gentleman in Northamptonshire. (I’ve redacted some details because he doesn’t want his case jeopardised.)

The Farmer that owns the land adjacent to my property decided about four years ago to host a wind-farm. Despite the support of the local planning officer, the District Council turned down the application unanimously, with one abstention. The Parish Council had also voted against it. Inevitably, the developer launched an Appeal, which was heard last October/November by The Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspector, of course, supported the developer and granted his consent to the application.

This is, as you will well know, the usual pattern. Around 85% of appeal hearings are granted consent by PINS. The turbines are very near (within 500 metres of) six dwellings, two of which are owned by the farmer and his son. My home is one of those within the 500 metre range.

Following the Inspector’s decision, I contacted a local firm of Estate Agents to obtain a valuation of my house before the development took place, plus a surveyor’s estimate of what the value would be once the wind-farm was built. The difference between the two estimates was £100,000 (about 25% of their estimated value of the property).

Armed with this information, I embarked on a correspondence with both The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The purpose of my correspondence was to enquire to whom I should apply for compensation for this loss in value to my home. This was a somewhat acrimonious correspondence, in the course of which DECC claimed that a report issued by the Institute of Chartered Surveyors in 2007 clearly stated that there was no evidence of any devaluation in the value of properties adjoining wind-farms.

There’s not an estate agent dealing with rural properties anywhere in the land that isn’t aware of the issue. “The majority of homebuyers don’t want to live anywhere near a wind farm—it’s as simple as that,” one tells me. And if they don’t broadcast the fact too loudly, he says, it’s for two reasons: first they want to get the highest possible price for their sellers; second because often these same rural agents represent landowners who are making money out of wind farms and they don’t want to upset their clients.

Then of course there was this recent report by the Valuation Office Agency:

The decisions by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to move certain houses close to wind farms into lower council tax bands are the first official recognition that the turbines can lower the value of nearby homes.

Although property experts have long acknowledged the harmful effect of wind farms on property prices, the association has until now been dismissed by the wind industry as conjecture.

In one recent case a couple saw the value of their home 650 yards from the Fullabrook wind farm near Braunton, Devon, fall from £400,000 to £300,000 according to a local agent’s estimate.

The couple, who were not attempting to sell their house, told the VOA that the persistent whooshing noise caused by the turbines and the visual intrusion—including a flickering shadow when the sun is directly behind the blades—made their property less valuable.

The VOA accepted their argument and agreed to move the property from council tax band F to band E, amounting to a saving of about £400 a year, the Sunday Times reported.

But this was hardly news to anyone in touch with reality. The blighting effect of wind farms on property prices has been known in Britain since at least 2008 thanks the well-publicised Jane Davis case.

In a landmark case, Jane Davis was told she will get a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away.

The ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar, have a negative effect on house prices.

In some countries—Denmark, for example—this blighting effect is officially acknowledged, with victims receiving compensation for loss of value caused to their properties by adjacent wind farms.

For copious further evidence that wind farms damage property values, look here.

You might have hoped that this glaringly obvious, frankly indisputable fact would have been acknowledged by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the body which represents and regulates British estate agents. Instead, in 2007, the RICS commissioned the report which has been cited by both RenewableUK and the Department of Energy and Climate Change as “evidence” that wind farms do not damage property prices.

In fact the report says no such thing. But then it probably wasn’t designed that way. What it is, in fact, is a cowardly and disingenuous exercise in fence-sitting. It was commissioned from two researchers at Oxford Brookes University (that’ll be Oxford Poly in old money), one of them an expert in “sustainable development.” About half the short study is mysteriously dedicated to explaining why wind energy is popular and necessary (“the activities of man are responsible for the changes in climate that we are seeing” runs one, pull-out quote). When finally it gets round to trying to answer the question it was set, the report is inconclusive. Yes, there is evidence that the “threat” of a wind farm may have a “significant” impact on property prices. But perhaps, it suggests—though without any evidence—the opposite may also sometimes be true “if the community are actively involved in the process and enjoy some of the benefits through lower, greener, fuel costs.”

However, buried in this slippery and evasive report—in my view a disgrace to the integrity of the RICS—was one killer detail which makes an absolute nonsense of RenewableUK’s claim at the beginning of this post.

Terraced houses sited within 1 mile of a wind farm were observed to be 54 per cent lower in value and semi detached houses within 1 mile of the nearest turbine were 35 per cent lower than similar houses at a distance of four miles.”

Does that sound to you like “no direct evidence” that wind farms “affect property prices”? Thought not.

When I rang the RICS to point out how Maf Smith was representing their 2007 report, a spokesman said: “Well he’s talking nonsense.” However, when I asked whether they were then going to complain about his mispresentation of their position, they said that this was an issue for RenewableUK not for the RICS.

Well can I understand why the RICS might be uncomfortable with this issue. Though not as culpable as RenewableUK on this score their official position on the effect of wind farms on property values is at best misleading, at worst outright dishonest. Wind farms DO deleteriously affect property prices. Full stop. It’s a grotesque cop-out to say, as they do on their website, that “There is no definitive answer to this question.” It’s a lawyerly evasion worth of “Slick Willy” Clinton—not a fair representation of the facts on the ground.

What’s even more despicable, though, is the way that RICS’s jelly-like non-position on this vital issue has been cynically and ruthlessly exploited by the wind lobby. We’ve seen above, how RenewableUK have twisted that cop-out RICS report. Here’s how it has been similarly exploited by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which claims on its website:

There can be concerns from homeowners that the value of their property might be affected by the presence of a wind farm. A report published in March 2007 by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and Oxford Brookes University found that house price fluctuations were more likely to be caused by factors other than wind farms despite initial evidence there was an effect. More information is available on a Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: Frequently Asked Questions.

This the real scandal of the wind farm scam: the way apparently respectable, official bodies are effectively colluding to hide the true facts from a trusting public. In Britain, by tradition, we are used to taking the various branches of the Establishment at their word. If something called the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors tells us that wind farms do not necessarily affect property prices then we may well believe them; if a government department like DECC doctors this claim on its official website, then we’re probably mainly inclined to trust them too; if a trade body like RenewableUK twists that claim by a further degree well, God help us, we’re probably inclined to take them at their word too—because, hey, isn’t there some kind of law requiring these people to tell the truth?

It’s only when you dig beneath the surface of the official lies and cover ups that you realise just how filthy and all-pervasive the wind farm scam is. Why are so few journalists investigating it? Why isn’t it on the front pages every day? Are we really so cynical and decadent that we no longer expect our trade bodies, our institutions, our government departments to behave with a shred of decency?

Aldo Leopold, vanished “soundscape,” and wind turbines

admin — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:00:01 +0000

Editor’s note: In a short list of environmental philosophers, Aldo Leopold’s name would rank near the top. I refer to true environmental philosophy, not the Green hysteria machine of corporate wind energy. It was Leopold who coined the phrase, “land ethic,” and Leopold who exhorted us to “think like a mountain!”

I see no evidence of either land ethic or thinking like a mountain when I scan the ridgelines of Maine and Vermont, where gigantic machines entombed in cement beat the thin, delicate air once inhaled by living, breathing forests.

The entire ancient earth thinks prodigiously,
and the murmur of its great trees grows”

—Rainer Maria Rilke

It was Leopold who spoke reverently of watching the green fire go out of the eyes of a wolf he shot in his callous youth—vowing never to do so again. If you have never read his Sand County Almanac—you must. It’s a life changer.

He died in 1948, the year I was born, overcome by smoke while fighting a brush fire near his beloved Wisconsin wilderness camp.

The article, below, was sent to me by Boyce Sherwin, a friend and neighbor in my neck of the woods. The article says nothing about wind turbines—not explicitly, that is. Implicitly, it says volumes. For those of you living in rural Ontario, rural France or Italy or England or Australia, rural Maine, or wherever turbines and their headache-pounding infrasound and banshee roar have commandeered your soundscape, you will grieve for the lost symphony of quietness, where “peace comes dropping slow.”

I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made;
Nine bean rows will I have there, a hive for the honeybee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight’s all a-glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet’s wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear the water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements gray,
I hear it in the deep heart’s core

—Wm. Butler Yeats, “The Lake Isle of Innisfree” (1892)

.
“Aldo Leopold’s Field Notes Score a Lost ‘Soundscape’”

—Terry Devitt, reprinted in ScienceDaily (9/18/12)

Among his many qualities, the pioneering wildlife ecologist Aldo Leopold was a meticulous taker of field notes. Rising before daylight and perched on a bench at his Sauk County shack in Depression-era Wisconsin, Leopold routinely took notes on the dawn chorus of birds. Beginning with the first pre-dawn calls of the indigo bunting or robin, Leopold would jot down in tidy script the bird songs he heard, when he heard them, and details such as the light level when they first sang. He also mapped the territories of the birds near his shack, so he knew where the songs originated.

Lacking a tape recorder, the detailed written record was the best the iconic naturalist could do.

“Leopold took amazing field notes,” says Stan Temple, a University of Wisconsin-Madison emeritus professor of wildlife ecology and now a senior fellow of the Aldo Leopold Foundation. “He recorded his observations of nature in great detail.”

Using those notes, Temple and Christopher Bocast, a University of Wisconsin-Madison Nelson Institute graduate student and acoustic ecologist, have recreated a “soundscape” from Leopold’s 70 year-old notes. But the dawn chorus that Leopold heard in1940 no longer exists at the shack, Temple explains. The mix of species today is different due to changes in the landscape and changes in the bird community around the shack.

More noticeable is the thrum of the nearby interstate highway, audible at every hour from Leopold’s storied sanctuary, and the other constant and varied noises of the human animal. Since Leopold’s time, for example, the internal combustion engine has roared to soundscape dominance, whether as an airplane overhead, a rumbling motorcycle, a whining chain saw or an outboard churning on the nearby Wisconsin River.

“The difference between 1940 and 2012 is overwhelmingly the anthrophony — human-generated noise,” explains Temple. “That’s the big change. In Leopold’s day there was much less of that.”

The resurrected soundscape of 1940s Sauk County is the first to be recreated from actual data rather than someone’s imagination of what the past sounded like, says Temple. The work fits into an emerging field of science known as soundscape ecology, which seeks to explain the role of sound within a landscape and how it influences the animals — birds, insects, amphibians, even fish — that live there.

Recently, a rarefied group of scholars who work in the new field met at the Leopold Center, just a few hundred yards from Leopold’s humble shack. The National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop drew not only scientists but philosophers, musicians and others with an interest in natural sounds. Temple gave the opening keynote, which featured the reconstructed dawn chorus.

“Aldo Leopold recognized that you can get a pretty good sense of land health by listening to the soundscape,” Temple says. “If sounds are missing and things are there that shouldn’t be, it often indicates underlying ecological problems.”

The soundscape produced by Temple and Bocast is a compressed version of the chorus described by Leopold, taking 30 minutes of notes and compressing them into five minutes of recording. Bird songs and calls were obtained from the extensive collection housed at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Macaulay Library.

The background sound on which they superimposed the bird songs is all Wisconsin, but Temple and Bocast struggled to find a place where human noise was as it would have been in Leopold’s time: “There are combustion engines on the edge of hearing all the time,” says Bocast, whose dissertation work includes a bioacoustic study low frequency sounds made by spawning sturgeon.

Citing a recent study, Temple points out that in the lower 48 states, there is no place more than 35 kilometers from the nearest road, making it nearly impossible to tune out the hum of human activity, even in places designated as wilderness. “It is increasingly difficult to study natural soundscapes that represent normality,” says Temple, noting that its not just mechanical human noise that’s encroaching. The rain forests of Hawaii, for example, no longer sound like the rain forests of Hawaii. “They sound more like the rain forests of Puerto Rico because the calls of an introduced, invasive tree frog are becoming pervasive.”

Preserving the natural sounds of a place, avers Temple, may be just as challenging as conserving the mosaic of plants and animals that help keep an ecosystem intact. Like smell and sight, “sound can be what you associate with a particular landscape,” something Leopold appreciated and wrote about in several of his well known essays.

By noting and studying the role of sound in the natural world, Leopold proved again to be ahead of his time. Science is only now coming to grips with the totality of the sounds of nature (much like the sound of an entire orchestra) rather than the individual components of the soundscape, according to Temple.

Understanding how nature’s “music” is changing and how much attention we need to pay to the sounds introduced by people, he says, are challenges for soundscape ecologists. And we have much to learn about what the noise people make does to the environment.

Wind developer accused of phony survey (Australia)

admin — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:28:57 +0000

Consider the following article from the Canberra Times, July 27, 2012. ”Wind farm claims local supporters.” RATCH-Australia is a wind energy company (headquartered in Thailand) which aims to build a large wind plant near the town of Collector, Australia. (Click here for the entire article.)

Now, read what a local group, Friends of Collector, has to say about RATCH’s assertion that “our surveys of local Collector residents confirm there is strong support for renewable energy.” Stop right here: Pay close attention to the wording. No doubt local Collector residents are indeed firm believers in renewable energy; everyone on the face of the earth supports renewable energy! But that’s not the same as saying they support RATCH’s windfarm in their backyard, or, for that matter, that they support wind energy as a viable and realistic form of renewable energy.

Steve Loxton, CEO, RATCH

Let’s consider the first paragraph in the above newspaper story: ”Proponents [RATCH] . . . say most of the village residents support the project.”

Really, Steve? Consider this survey done by Friends of Collector.

Independent market research into the proposed Collector Windfarm released today has found significantly conflicting community views to research commissioned in 2010 by the windfarm developers RATCH and Transfield.

Commissioned by the Friends of Collector last month, the StollzNow Market Research report surveyed the local people living in all 238 households within a 10km radius of the proposed windfarm.

The regional study by the developer drew on a sample from up to 50km away—with almost all of the people surveyed living outside Collector in Canberra, Goulburn, Yass, Murrumbateman, Crookwell and other regional centres.

In fact, 79 per cent of respondents to the StollzNow research live within 5km of the proposed windfarm and are likely to see one of the 68 turbines from their properties.

Applying robust methodology and focussing on all households within 10 km of the proposed development, StollzNow found:

» 81 per cent of residents do not wish for the wind farm to proceed

» 53 per cent see no benefits for the Collector area citing negative impacts to property values, landscape (visual), noise as well as health and environmental concerns.

» 21 percent likely to relocate away from collector and a further 29 per cent unsure whether they will remain or leave the area

» 52 per cent had been involved in the community consultation process run by the windfarm developer—yet 76 per cent dissatisfied with the process.

Tony Hogdson, president of the Friends of Collector described the StollzNow survey as ‘the genuine article’ and heartening for local people.

“The RATCH/ Transfield survey is deliberately misleading—particularly as the developer is telling the Government that this represents the views of the ‘local community’ he said.

“A RATCH executive has claimed that was why they were coming to Collector—that a majority of the ‘local’ community supported them and wanted them here. Well they are very wrong and this research proves it. . . ..

Click here to read the remainder of the survey.

By the way, wind developers use the same “sleaze” when they do their “property value” studies: They typically survey an area vastly larger than the affected community.

What do you call people who do business like this?

Doctors promote public awareness of Wind Turbine Syndrome (Germany)

admin — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:38:48 +0000

Editor’s note: An organization of German physicians and scientists is currently being formed in Bad Orb, Germany, at the instigation of an oral surgeon named Dr. Eckhard Kuck. The group intends to increase public awareness of Wind Turbine Syndrome. Drs. Laurie (Australia), Watts (Australia), Johansson (Denmark), and Pierpont (USA) sent congratulatory letters to the newly formed group (see below).

Dr. Sarah Laurie (Australia)

Sept 11, 2012

Dear Dr. Kuck,

I am delighted to learn that you and some of your colleagues are meeting together to discuss the serious health problems associated with exposure to operating wind turbines.

There are a growing number of independent, ethical and courageous health professionals and engineers who are investigating and then speaking out about what is going on around the world. In doing so, we are choosing to abide by our professional codes of ethics to “first do no harm” and to place the health and safety of the public paramount.

This is a global problem, and an entrenched and powerful global industry, which has every reason to oppose what we are doing. There are clear indications that the wind industry and some of their hired health and engineering professionals do indeed know exactly what is going on and why. Public health authorities universally are refusing to investigate further.

A global collaborative approach between such concerned ethical professionals is therefore urgently required. I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues, to share information, progress the necessary research, and to support you in your efforts in whatever way I can.

With kindest regards and best wishes to you all,

Dr. Sarah Laurie, Chief Executive Officer

The Waubra Foundation

(Click here for a copy of the letter)

»»»»»»»»

Dr. Alan Watts (Australia)

Sept 11, 2012

Dear Dr. Kuck,

I am aware that you have joined with a small group of Physicians in Germany who are courageously committed to our profession and your Patients. A group of Doctors prepared to stand up and say what is right, not what is just safe or popular. You do not stand alone. There are others who likewise refuse to allow wind industry greed or Government ignorance or indifference to damage our global citizenry.

The advent of massive industrial wind factories into rural Australia precipitates increasing national incivility. They pit neighbour against neighbour and rent the very fabric of our once strong rural families, thereby destroying our social harmony and well-being.

They plunder our environment while enriching foreigners all under the guise of some mythical societal benefit. They take our health, our land, our peace of mind and our taxes. We surrender our precious mountains to this most gross industry. And in return they give us social chaos, environmental destruction, lies, deceit, scorn, and ill-health.

What price we pay.

The intractable health problems that have developed with the proliferation of industrial wind turbines have become a worldwide problem. The wind energy companies that are profiting are often international companies or consortiums and it has therefore become apparent that the battle to stop the insidious march of the wind turbines across our treasured landscapes must also be of worldwide proportions.

You and your group have our unbounded support. It is obvious that more doctors must accept the responsibility of their profession and to listen, understand, study and ultimately to speak out with authority and conviction. To anyone who has researched this topic there is much evidence to support it. We in Australia are actively seeking additional research and we are very critical of the various Environmental Assessments that are accompanying any applications to build wind farms largely (but not exclusively) because there is a refusal to monitor infrasound and to accept there are health implications.

A major duty of government via its planning instrumentalities and ministerial control is to anticipate, eliminate or mitigate this kind of societal disruption.

Those who endorse or profit from placing such industrial complexes near the homes of others have no inclination to safeguard or foster a civil and healthy society.

There is immense contradiction in supporting the concept of minimizing the human footprint on the earth while endorsing the destructive intrusiveness of physically massive, feckless energy wind projects.

The wind industry is based on greed, ignorance, subsidy and institutional deceit. Its propaganda rewards the greedy, flatters the gullible, exploits the well-intentioned.

Industrial wind is a fraud of enormous consequence. And people who value intellectual honesty should not allow themselves to be cruelly deceived by such industrial treachery or even by their government’s callous indifference.

I commend you and your colleagues for your efforts and wish you God speed.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Alan C. Watts OAM

(Click here for a copy of the letter)

»»»»»»»»

Mauri Johansson, MD, MHH (Denmark)

Sept 12, 2012

Dear Dr. Kuck,

[We wish] our medical colleagues in the Hessen region the best wishes for the founding meeting September 12th 2012 of a regional medical group to strengthen the efforts to stop further erection of giant wind turbines close to human dwellings, to avoid further illness caused by these damaging interventions. We hope your new organization will soon cover all parts of Germany and then Europe and the whole world, in cooperation with all physicians of the same opinion.

In Denmark we are for the moment 6 physicians active in the necessary work to stop more onshore wind turbines, to prevent and avoid more annoyance and illness among the neighbors, and also initiate serious and independent research to define safe noise limits and distances, risk groups, a better understanding of the mechanisms of illness and much else that so far has been only in the hands of engineers and the turbine industry, working for profits but ignoring human health.

Perhaps you could ask the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW) to establish an information base for physicians on their home page for further contacts?

On behalf of my colleagues and myself: all our best wishes,

Mauri Johansson, MD, MHH

Specialist in Community and Occupational Medicine

»»»»»»»»

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD (USA)

Sept 13, 2012

Dear Dr. Kuck,

Today you join a small band of physicians around the world who do what clinicians are supposed to do: they take their patients seriously. Today you have announced the creation of a group of German physicians who no longer will be silent about Wind Turbine Syndrome—a global industrial plague for which there is no end in sight.

I salute you and your colleagues for refusing to allow medicine to be subordinated to the will of industry and government, or to the frenzied multitude and media who make no effort to understand that Wind Turbine Syndrome is genuine and horrible.

Even more shocking are those who mock and dismiss victims of this industrial plague—and there are thousands of victims. I refer to scientists and clinicians who have never, ever, interviewed a single sufferer. I refer to government agencies and research institutes that write ponderous reports concluding there is no merit to this illness—declaring it is nothing more than hysteria. Where their conclusions are drawn from amateur or discredited principles of epidemiology, acoustics and neuro-physiology. Where conclusions are derived from turbine noise measurements that deliberately exclude infrasound—the rapidly pulsed infrasound with alarmingly high sound pressures which noise engineers with ultra-sophisticated equipment have been documenting for years.

These engineers, who risk their health and reputations, are heroes.

Infrasound is without doubt the chief cause of Wind Turbine Syndrome—yet every acoustician and physicist employed by the wind industry denies its presence and its insidiously modulated behavior. Or, if they grudgingly acknowledge it, they declare that infrasound has no impact on the auditory and vestibular organs of the inner ear—a subject about which these people know next to nothing.

On a larger front, wind energy has anointed itself the savior of the world against the Apocalypse of Global Warming. Emboldened by this sleight of hand, the wind industry has embraced the rhetoric and fervor of a messianic movement—one with a dangerously fascist mentality. Which explains why many of our colleagues are afraid to oppose dangerously sited wind turbines. Opposition can cost them their research grants, their reputations, their jobs—and, I fear, even their lives. (There have been death threats to some of us.)

I salute you this day for refusing to allow clinical medicine to be corrupted by this delusional, jack-booted, out-of-control industry. The risk you take is high—though not so high, of course, as the risk of losing your conscience and integrity by remaining silent.

Sincerely,

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

(Click here for a copy of the letter)

Wind Turbine Syndrome victim appeals to the federal government (Canada)

admin — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:29:09 +0000

Editor’s note: The following was written to David Michaud, PhD, Principal Investigator and Project Manager for Canada’s federal inquiry into Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). (Except, no one in Canada seems to call it Wind Turbine Syndrome. Go figure.) Barbara Ashbee and her husband are among the numerous Canadians who were forced to leave their home owing to WTS. They got lucky; they managed to persuade the wind company to buy them out—complete, of course, with a gag clause (non-disclosure agreement) forbidding them to discuss the terms of sale or, I believe, reveal that the reason for the purchase was WTS. Except, Barb has seemingly broken that gag agreement—and God bless her for doing so! (I love courageous people!)

“The numbers became shocking and the harm irrefutable”

—Barbara Ashbee (8/30/12)

In 2009, my husband and I had our lives turned upside down due to a wind project that started up around our home. We begged for help from every level of government and public agency, and not one would assist us.

We suffered severe sleep deprivation (from audible and inaudible turbine noise), among other things, and eventually had to hire legal help to get out to save our health.

During and since this time, I attended ministry-sponsored workshops, presented before and submitted comments to the standing committee and the EBR registry on the Green Energy Act, attended meetings at government level, submitted information to provincial and federal health officials, to the senate, to the Premier to the Prime Minister, and so on. We followed every formal complaint protocol and sent numerous messages, personally and via email, through our Member of Parliament and Member of Provincial Parliament.

You can multiply the above comments by the actions of other families in this province who have done the same. The federal government had the power to intervene and did not.

During our time through this and after we moved, with limited knowledge I researched and inquired as much as I could, trying to understand why so many people were being affected and why no one was helping them. Though a senior provincial ministry employee was claiming my husband and I were the only “complaint” in our project—and we hear the repetitive public message from provincial leaders that there were few if any problems in Ontario—we soon found out that not only had there been already hundreds of complaints, but many homes had been purchased [by the wind developers] and there were families in Huron County who, unable to live in their homes, were being housed in a motel by wind developer, Suncor–Acciona.

It did not take long for other families to come forward and get connected, including those in Clear Creek and Kincardine, Goderich, and so on. The numbers became shocking and the harm irrefutable.

It wasn’t just a case of an odd “unlucky receptor,” as we were called. We also learned of the proliferation of confidentiality agreements, gag clauses, non-disclosures—call them what you will—that are rampant in this industry, from the initial signing of an option to lease, to the final abandonment of a home.

How can people speak when they are under legal constraints not to?

How will you ever be able to grasp the scope of harm when people have been silenced?

How will you know what families have left their homes because of the turbine project, who simply gave up because they received no help?

How will you contact them?

Since at least 2006, families of 1st generation wind projects have been pleading for help. Many, as I say, have had to leave their homes.

How is it that Health Canada is only just now, in the summer of 2012, investigating what has been happening to citizens across the country for at least 6 years?

If I am reading correctly, you are going to decide to whom you talk in order not to create a situation of bias. Let’s consider bias for a moment.

You have been in the background for 6 years while multiple families reported serious degradation of their home environment and adverse health issues after the wind projects started operating. Some of them have had to permanently leave their home, some without any compensation whatsoever.

You, as the federal level of government, repeatedly deferred issues back to the province as it was their policy, all the while knowing they were not assisting families or mitigating complaints.

Your panel has 2 NRCan (Natural Resources Canada) representatives on it.

» Antoine Lacroix, Eng., M.Sc.,  Wind Energy Engineer, Renewable Energy Technologies, Natural Resources Canada

» Paul Dockrill, M.Sc.,  Acting Program Manager, Wind Energy Technology Group, Natural Resources Canada

NRCan is a federal government body which, I discovered, has granted at least $250 million in repayable and non-repayable loans to prominent wind corporations, lobbyists and other proponents of wind, some of whom have actually used this money to buy-out aforementioned homes.

How can all of this not be a case for bias?

In fact, one NRCan employee made an anonymous derogatory comment in a public online site about my home’s property value. This was a home we loved and had invested much of our personal finances into.

Please let me know when the property comes up for sale. Since everyone claims that property values will decrease, I will expect a bargain basement price!”

How can this not be a case for bias?

How can this possibly be a sincere and genuine effort when you continue to let wind projects operate, knowing there are families who are suffering ill health and families who have had to abandon their homes?

How can you continue without imposing a moratorium on new projects until the investigation is done?

You have ignored information, overwhelming evidence and offers of help from the most peer-reviewed and published independent researcher in Canada. Why was Carmen Krogh not included on your panel?

Would you agree overall that the health of Canadian citizens holds lower rank than the financial interests of prominent corporations, or is this simply a bias for the wind energy industry?

Would you agree that policy triumphs over the health and welfare of Canadian families, or is this simply a bias toward the wind energy industry?

Public trust in all levels of government has been severely eroded. We require and we deserve an independent review. A formal inquiry is necessary so everyone can be heard, not just those whom you choose to hear.

To retain any sense of integrity, ethics and duty to “do no harm,” you must impose a moratorium and mitigate the existing problems, first. How can you not? Canadians deserve to live in a healthy environment in their own homes. That fundamental right has been taken away and has been pulverized.

.
Editor’s note: Send comments regarding the Health Canada study to David Michaud, PhD, iwind.turbine.health.study@hc-sc.gc.ca.

Wind Turbine Syndrome

Vestas the wind turbine giant fights back (Denmark)

. Vestas struggles against windmill headwind

Wind turbines threaten paradise (Hawaii)

Wind energy companies bully, threaten, and intimidate those who oppose this monumental fraud

. How Big Wind blows away its opponents

Wind energy is “a crime against the people” (Australia)

Top … [government] business adviser wants renewables target scrapped

Journalist slams NextEra for suing Esther Wrightman, Canada’s Joan of Arc (National Review)

“Big Wind SLAPPs Critic”

Wind developers hire thugs to intimidate residents (Taiwan)

Dr. Sarah Laurie formally cleared of trumped-up charges (Australia)

Allegations concerning Dr Sarah Laurie

Member of Parliament reams Simon Chapman another a**hole (Australia)

This is a “must see”: Journalist pounds NextEra for suing Esther Wrightman (Canada)

Part one . . .

Part two . . .

What’s the best way to fight wind turbines? Get sued!

The persecution of a medical heroine, Dr. Sarah Laurie (Australia)

Memorandum of a personal catastrophe (Mass.)

Memorandum to the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection

Wind Turbine Syndrome victims plead for Congressional inquiry (Maine)

Donna’s journal (Ontario)

Chef Big Wind: “If you chop an eagle to pieces in a wind turbine, that’s okay” (USA)

. “Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies”

Doctor describes classic Wind Turbine Syndrome in patient (Vermont)

We shall prevail (Australia)

Horses get Wind Turbine Syndrome (Portugal)

The face & voice of Wind Turbine Syndrome in Vermont

Israel trashes wind energy

Behavioral pediatrician warns of Wind Turbine Syndrome in children (Ontario)

Brian and Joanne (Australia)

Expert flushes Chapman’s “Pissed Off” Thesis down the drain

Wind energy a failure, reports Economics think tank (Ontario)

“Huge wedge cut through the heart of the forest” (Russia)

“The pressure in my head is unbearable. My ears are killing me” (Australia)

“Wind farms aren’t noisy—are they?” (Australia)

Wind Turbine Syndrome triggers (doomed) lawsuit by 17 families (Michigan)

Esther the Giant Slayer (Ontario, Canada)

Quebec bans wind turbines within 2 km of homes and 1 km of public roads (Canada)

Wind energy: Medieval torture as public policy (Canada)

Receptor #62 addresses protest rally in Toronto, Ontario, 4/3/13

Grandmother abandons home (Ontario, Canada)

Residents across Ireland up in arms over turbines

Protest groups say talk of jobs and profits are a joke

“Clean wind is clean only until it enters the blades. After that it is dirty wind.”

Can’t sleep at night because of Wind Turbine Syndrome?

“Truly, I was dying” (Arizona)

Wind Turbine Syndrome continues to decimate rural Australia

Wind turbine “hosts” get Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia)

“Wind power works great, if . . .”

Wind Turbine Syndrome is forcing elderly woman to abandon her home (Australia)

“Wanted: Five acres to bury dead birds” (Michigan)

Do you really believe corporate claims of getting “all” their energy from “renewables”?

“Apple’s 100% Renewable Claim Fails the Sunlight Test”

Wind energy’s stupendously false claims (United Kingdom)

· “Call for Full Facts on Wind Turbines”

Wind Turbine Syndrome: Physician tells couple to leave their home (Ireland)

Stamp out wind turbines (Scotland)

“Ten ways to kill Big Wind” (Hawaii)

Doctors blow the whistle on wind turbines (Global)

Marine wind turbine construction harms porpoises’ hearing & survival (Germany)

“Wind park building noise ‘can kill porpoises’”

Why the wind industry’s turbine noise measurements are worthless

The “Waterloo Wind Farm Refugees” (Australia)

Wind turbines at sea get Wave Resonance Syndrome (Norway)

“Windmills at sea can break like matches”

Medium-sized waves can destroy wind turbines at sea, causing them to break like matches. Mathematicians are trying to explain why.

Video: Suffering from windfarms (Australia)

Hard data on why wind energy is bullshit (New York)

“Lessons from New York”

Wind turbines coming down! “Timber!” (Falmouth, MA)

“Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise”

“Acoustic trauma produced by large wind turbines is real and significant,” Sandy Reider, MD (Vermont)

Pierpont comments on “Effects of Industrial Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep & Health” (Jour. of Noise Health)

Nurse experiences wind turbines as “absolute, living hell” (Ontario)

James Lovelock on wind energy as “vandalism” (UK)

The Wisconsin Towns Assoc. calls for immediate wind turbine moratorium

Falmouth Town Meeting asks Selectmen to “Take Down the Turbines!” (Mass.)

“Falmouth residents: ’Take the turbines down!’”

.
Vestas struggles against windmill headwind

.
How Big Wind blows away its opponents

.
“Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies”

·
“Call for Full Facts on Wind Turbines”

.
“Speak out, Stand up, Be Heard!”

.
“TWP requested to suspend Miaoli wind turbine project”

.
“Wind turbine causing headaches, nausea, Scituate family says”

.
“Declaration of Emergency in Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario (Canada)”

.
“Turbine opponents plead for health unit’s help”