The courage & necessity of “We, the People” (Denmark)


Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

I have long argued that Big Wind must be stopped by civil disobedience.  Not lawsuits (they don’t work), not public hearings (they’re a farce), not invoking empirical scientific, clinical, or economic evidence (it’s routinely ignored and trivialized).

By civil disobedience I don’t mean violence.  Violence is never acceptable.  Violence is absurd (I speak as a professional historian).

The two keys to success are civil disobedience and voting—voting the bums out who vote for Big Wind projects.  And when one can’t go to the polls—then civil disobedience, alone.

This past month, the Danes have resorted to civil disobedience.  Very effectively.  In an effort to stop Vestas from building a test center for large turbines—building it in a protected, wildlife area.

That outrage transgressed a line which many Danes refused to allow.

They turned out by the hundreds to say “no!”

They camped out, round the clock.

And when the police (cops) tried to remove them (gently, I am pleased to report), “We, the People” (I am calling them) simply lined up to be arrested.

A never-ending line of people willing to be arrested.

The same thing needs to happen on Cape Cod (Mass.), Ontario (Canada), Quebec (Canada), New York Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Indiana Minnesota Oregon California (USA), New Zealand, and throughout rural Australia.

These photos are provided, courtesy of Aleksaner Sønder.


“Wind turbine infrasound makes people sick” (Mass.)

Editor’s note:  The following document was submitted by Dr. Helen Parker to the State of Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection and the Department of Public Health.

Fact #1 Industrial-Scale Turbines Produce Infrasound

Fact #2  Infrasound Makes People Sick

Fact #3  End of Story

—Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, Guest Editor (7/20/11)
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
Chilmark, MA 02535

Can you put yourself in the backyards of folks living in Brewster, Massachusetts, listening to the platitudes passing for policy while the threat of the turbines looms larger by the day?

Consider that it is indisputable (but roundly ignored) that turbines produce infrasound. Seismologists in Italy have recently measured airborne infrasound emanating from nearby turbines as well as ground-borne vibration up to 6.8 miles away. I’m not implying that the health impacts extend 6.8 miles from the turbines. How far they need to be placed from human activity to obviate their impact is a critical question and is known to vary with many factors.

Around the world, however, minimum 1.25 mile setbacks from residences are being codified after the health impacts have been all-too-amply made clear.

Consider that infrasound has been used as high-tech crowd control by the Israeli army for some years now:

  • The Toronto Star (Canada), “The Cutting Edge: Military Use of Sound,” 6 June 2005: “Military weaponry exists that relies on low-frequency sound to disperse crowds or control crowd behavior. The effect of low-frequency noise at high intensities creates discrepancies in the brain, producing disorientation in the body: ‘The knees buckle, the brain aches, the stomach turns. And suddenly, nobody feels like protesting anymore. . . . The latest weapon in the Israeli army’s high-tech tool kit.’ ‘The intention is to disperse crowds with sound pulses that create nausea and dizziness. It has no adverse effects, unless someone is exposed to the sound for hours and hours.’”

Where does that leave people in those little cottages facing Craigsville Beach on Cape Cod when Cape Wind goes online?

Industrial-Scale Turbines Make People Sick

Nearby turbine noise = sleep deprivation [unhealthy in itself] which leads to other significant health problems. Beyond that: Measurable sub-audible sound waves sent out as the blades spin past the shaft set up vibration and resonance in our homes as well as our body cavities—ears, ocular orbs, skull, our lungs and bellies. Of course they do. They are the ultimate, inescapable boombox moved in next door.

High doses of infrasound can only be exacerbated by the quality of the audible noise—rhythmic, repetitive, throbbing, thumping, percussive—or roaring and grinding . . . unnatural. People say that the noise gets into their head and that they can’t get it out.

Thousands of industrial wind turbine neighbors worldwide have reported the same symptoms, including headaches, fluctuating pressure and ringing in the ears, increased blood pressure, anxiety, nausea, difficulty with memory and concentration, depression, and panic attacks arising when awake or asleep.

*And as for those who decry these personal reports as ‘purely anecdotal,’ these know-betters are simply exhibiting their ignorance of statistical design. Pierpont’s “case crossover design” is as strong as you can get. Same people, different circumstances: near the turbines, they get sick. People distance themselves from the turbines and their symptoms abate or disappear (until they’ve become ingrained over time, unfortunately).

Back to the turbine area and the symptoms return. Turbines are the only changing variable. Results allow for easy interpretation without the participation of thousands.

This is the Wind Turbine Syndrome

Turbine infrasound has a direct physical impact on ~10% of those living within 1.25 miles or more. More often the young, the old, those who are especially sensitive to stimuli (the autistic, those with a prior PTSD, those of us who for whatever reasons have retreated to rural areas).

Again, around the world, minimum 1.25 mile setbacks from residences are being codified after the health impacts have been all-too-amply made clear.

Let’s look at this from one more direction: Consider the announcement which showed up in the Watertown (NY) Daily Times: Sunday, May 16, 2010:

Hospital Shows Off Balance Center:  Lewis County General introduces new $100,000 facility

LOWVILLE, NY—Kicking off Community Health Awareness Day on Saturday, Lewis County General Hospital introduced the first balance center north of Syracuse.

The $100,000 center has equipment to diagnose issues stemming from vertigo, imbalance and traumatic brain injury. The new equipment can perform comprehensive patient evaluations by checking inner ear functions to test balance.

It also can test patients’ abilities to walk on stairs or step off a curb correctly. . . .

‘We expect to be busy fairly quickly,’ said Eric R. Burch, chief executive officer of the hospital.

Mr. Burch said the idea of a balance center came about when various ear, nose and throat specialists in the Syracuse and Utica areas mentioned they were getting a lot of patients from the north country. He said specialists in Utica plan to refer up to seven patients a week to the new center. . . .

Randy L. Lehman, director of rehabilitation services, said he expects the equipment to improve the quality of life for those in the north country who may suffer from balance problems.

Why open a clinical center to diagnose vertigo, dizziness, and related inner ear (vestibular) disorders in Lowville, pop. 3500, some 90 miles NE of Syracuse?

Maybe because Lowville is some five miles from the outskirts of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm whose 140, 1.65MW turbines make up the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi.

Maybe there’s another altogether different explanation for the vestibular (balance) problems—aka Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence.

Please address the very serious questions surrounding the health impacts of industrial scale wind turbines objectively and fairly.

Big Wind “Swindle”

—Preston McClanahan, Guest Editor
Professor of Graphic Design (retired)
Rhode Island School of Design)

The SWINDLE Genesis

The word swindle was used in my letters to the local editor early on from 2006.

A need arose (2007) for anti-wind propaganda in our small hill town of Savoy in North Berkshire County, Massachusetts. The word swindle transformed into the word-image fit the bill.

SWINDLE:  The bumper sticker

National Wind Watch ran the image which was picked up and used by Bob Graham, Scotland:  June 9, 2008 Scotland Bob’s wind farm battle bus takes to the road.

The Big Swindle bus has hit the road in Moray. Anti-wind farm campaigner Bob Graham has taken his opposition to a new level by buying a battle bus.


“Your bumper sticker is truly inspired!! Thank you!  I hope it gets posted on every available web site” (Glenn Schleede, Virginia).

“I’ve used Preston’s “Swindle” idea on bumper stickers, hats and T-shirts which we’ve been distributing across Western NY for the past few years now. Most recently, all of the contractors working on our new home left fully educated, and completely outfitted with their new “Swindle” gear” (Mary Kay Barton, NY State).

“Splendid, Preston. Thanks so much for this creative enterprise! Hope it generates a lot of blowback. And sWINDle stickers should everywhere, for Preston’s idea is just-so, with pitch perfect pith” (Jon Boone, Maryland).

SWINDLE billboard says it all, by S. C. Smith updated 7/11/11, Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley, between Oregon and Washington State.

SWINDLE billboard brings attention to what is really happening further down the road heading east on I 84 in the Columbia Gorge between Oregon and Washington.

Thanks to National Wind Watch’s graphic page, we found the idea for this SWINDLE billboard that originated from another individual fighting wind turbines. (Guess who?)


To show your colors. For rallies & Planning Board meetings.  To alert the unknowing.

It spins.  It says that energy from wind is just a swindle.


If you want to make your own SWINDLE stick or have it made, I will send you the plans and the material list. Its fairly easy and not time consuming.

If you or your group need a protest sign or a bumper sticker for a public demonstration, here is the information:

Cost is @1.60 per sticker. Send a check or money order to Preston McClanahan at 74 Blue Gentian Road, Cranston, RI 02921

Note:  3 swindle bumper stickers minimum are needed, or 6 for front and back.




“Turbines murder Denmark”

The drawing is the shortest path between two brains” (Jens Hage)

Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

We’re often told by wind developers and the US government how much the Danes love their wind turbines.

Denmark.  The home of Vestas.

Copenhagen’s “Little Mermaid”

And yet, if political cartoons are an accurate reflection of popular sentiment, the Danes’ love of wind energy may well be exaggerated.

Consider the satire of prominent Danish cartoonist, Jens Hage.

“Turbines murder Denmark.”  I borrowed my title, above, from the caption of one of Hage’s more troubling cartoons, “Mord Danmark” (“Murder Denmark”).  (Caution:  The imagery is disturbingly graphic, depicting rape, and to many will be offensive.  You may prefer not to view it.)  Hage captioned it, “Når bare det er grønt, gør det ikke ondt!” (Translated to English: “As long as it’s green, it doesn’t hurt!”)

(Danish political cartoonists have a talent for getting our attention.)

On the other hand—and this is why I address it—“Murder Denmark” tells us that a front-rank Danish cartoonist felt compelled to express an apparently widespread outrage and disgust over the violence that wind developers have inflicted on the land of the Little Mermaid.


Click anywhere above to watch a Danish television video of the outrage translated into civil disobedience

As Hage reminds us, “The drawing is indeed the shortest path between two brains.” 

Image © by Hage

Translation of sign:  “No thanks to oil, coal & gas.”  Image © Hage.

Meanwhile, as Danes by the hundreds protest against a Vestas “large turbine test” project in a wilderness area, they are turning to Jens Hage’s cartoons for their voice.

From “Finally, civil disobedience over wind turbines!

… a voice (a cri de coeur ) that contrasts starkly—and tragically—to the bombast of Vestas.

(From the Vestas website)

Finally, civil disobedience over wind turbines! (Denmark)

“Blockade against Danish test centre for giant wind turbines

Peter Skeel Hjorth, reporter (reporting from Sweden)

Thursday morning, 15 July 2011, the local Danish police gave up removing the activists who since Friday, 15 July 2011, have prevented the cutting down of forest to make room for the planned National Test Centre for 250 metres high windmills in Thy, Northern Jutland [Denmark].

Ten police officers turned up to end the blockade, but withdrew when it turned out that there were more activists than expected.

The protestors are camping in the forest area where the authorities intend to cut down the trees to create the right wind conditions in the Test Centre. “We shall be back in greater numbers,” the police said.

The Test Centre will be situated between a protected bird sanctuary, a so-called Ramsar area, and a Natura 2000 area. The Danish Society for Nature Conservation finds that the law regarding the Test Centre violates the European Union (EU) Habitat Directive, and has brought the case before the EU Commission who has requested a detailed statement from the Danish government. Furthermore, a local association has filed a case against the Danish State.

Friday, 15 July, the bird breeding season ended and by midnight the Danish authorities intended to start cutting down the forest. Throughout the day, the local population protested against the demolition of one of Denmark’s last wilderness area.

The activists simply laid down in front of the authorities’ machines to prevent the cutting down to start. They are staying in the area in tents, day and night.

The ruling of the EU Commission is expected within a couple of weeks. The activists demand that the cutting be postponed until the ruling of the EU Commission and the verdict of a Danish court have been made public.

The Danish press is following the case every hour.

An open letter from the Danish Association for Improved Environment to the Minister for the Environment was published today, requesting the Minister to stop the work.

We find it very problematic that you, as the government’s representative, want to force through a very controversial Test Centre for windmills, when the most basic investigation of the negative impact on the surroundings have not yet been made.

The demonstration in Thy has no central organization, but arose spontaneously. A spokesman for the activists appealed for support and assistance from both Europe and the rest of the world—support as soon as possible.

Contact Peter Skeel Hjorth, spokesman of EPAW in Scandinavia and the Baltic States. Email: Phone: +46 708 166521

Or Aleksander Sønder. Email: Phone: +45 26160630

Click here for more photos.

Special issue of peer-reviewed journal devoted to Wind Turbines & Health

Editor’s note
:  Click
here for a Special Issue of the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society (a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal) devoted to industrial wind turbines and health.  

The image, below, shows just a portion of the articles; there are many more, including by Dr. Alec Salt (otolaryngology) and Dr. Carl Phillips (epidemiology) and Dr. Robert McMurtry (public health).  


Health policy expert hammers wind energy junk science

Editor’s note:  Epidemiologist, Dr. Carl V. Phillips, has weighed in on Big Wind’s junk science approach to Wind Turbine Syndrome, shattering the credibility of the AWEA/CanWEA report, the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council’s “Rapid Review” of Wind Turbine Syndrome—and a host of other (palpably absurd) rebuttals by wind industry hirelings and shills.

The passages, below, written by Dr. Phillips and taken from his website, EP-ology, give you a sense of his argument and evidence.

For a much fuller analysis of the validity of the epidemiologic evidence for Wind Turbine Syndrome, we urge you to read a draft of his forthcoming, peer-reviewed article,

Carl V. Phillips, “Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents,” Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (August 2011), pp. 303-315.

Dr. Phillips holds a PhD degree in Public Policy from Harvard University (1995).  (Not just public policy, but public health policy.)  He did a two-year post-doctoral fellowship in Health Policy Research as a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Scholar at the University of Michigan (1995-97), he has been a professor of Environmental & Occupational Health at the University of Minnesota (1997-2000), then Director for the Center for Philosophy, Health, and Policy Sciences, Inc. (2003-05), a professor at the Center for Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center (Houston, Texas), 2001-05, and Associate Professor in the Dept. of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada (2005-09).  Currently he is Director and Chief Scientist for

His publications are voluminous and his academic honors both numerous and of the highest distinction. Click here for his full curriculum vitae.

Carl V. Phillips, PhD

A final note. Dr. Phillips has been an expert witness in a number of court cases and government hearings on the epidemiological evidence for Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). urges you to contact him, or have your attorney contact him, if you are suffering from WTS and you’re ready to sue the pants off Big Wind.  Or if your community needs an expert epidemiologist to testify before a government agency.  (Tell your attorney that courts recognize Dr. Phillips as an “expert in epidemiology and evidence-based policy making.”)

Dr. Carl V. Phillips
(651) 503-6746 cell


Interpreting health science evidence:  The case of wind turbines

—Carl V. Phillips, PhD (5/22/11)

Trying to draw scientific conclusions requires reviewing all of the evidence, whatever form it might take. This is true of health science, though you might never know it if you just observed the way many ostensible scientists behave in that area. There are activists and paid hacks who pretend to be doing science, but are just looking for sciency-sounding claims to support their goals.

But even apart from that, the majority of those writing in the field are basically lab technicians, not scientists: They know how to carry out some specific tasks and interpret the results, but really have no idea what constitutes good scientific inference.

The big picture is that there is remarkably little supply of or demand for (among those who control the market) good health science. One specific implication is the problem for those trying to communicate the health effects of wind turbines on nearby residents and have that considered in policy making.

There is quite a remarkable collection of information, but most of those commenting on it simply do not understand it (to say nothing of those who are paid to intentionally denigrate the evidence) (emphasis added).

Quite a good story by Don Butler on the topic ran in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday—probably the best I have seen on the topic. It covered points that are usually not talked about in a useful and intelligent manner. Still, it had the obligatory statement,

… the health impact of turbines has yet to be conclusively demonstrated. In a May 2010 report, Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Arlene King, found that scientific evidence to date “does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.”

That King report was pretty much a joke, ignoring most of the evidence. It provides a great example of how medics are typically not very good a evaluating scientific evidence (“medical officers of health” are an odd Canadian institution that puts physicians rather than public health science experts in charge of the science side public health policy—not much different from what happens to public health policy-making elsewhere, frankly, but completely institutionalized). Of course, being a physician does not prevent someone from understanding health science, it just does not promise it. Butler’s article followed immediately with another MOH (my only fault with Butler was not finding some scientists to quote rather than just government medics, but at least he found one who got the right answer):

But Dr. Hazel Lynn, medical officer of health for the Grey Bruce Health Unit, reached a different conclusion in a report in January. It’s clear, she found, that many people have been “dramatically impacted by the noise and proximity of wind farms. To dismiss all these people as eccentric, unusual or hyper-sensitive social outliers does a disservice to constructive public discourse.”

She is quite right. It also does a disservice to science. I will take this opportunity to post my paper, “Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents” (PDF). Anyone interested in the topic or sufficiently interested in my analysis of health science might find the whole thing interesting. (Note: It is not as long as it looks from the page count. There is a long appendix.) I mentioned a few days ago, when I criticized one lame dismissal of the wind turbine evidence, that I would write more on this topic. This paper offers some observations that are generalizable to interpreting health science that I will draw out on near-future slow health news days.

If you want a shorter read, I posted the abstract and final paragraph of an earlier version (which is almost the same) a few months ago (March 11, 2011):

I just finished up a paper about the epistemology and ethics of interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of wind turbines. (Wow, that is a mouthful.) Here are the abstract and the final paragraph. The most Unhealthful-News-relevant of my points for the day can be found in the latter. (Anyone who wants to offer comments on the working paper version of this, please drop me a note. I am not going to post this version, and would like to limit circulation to those who might want to offer comments, but if you are one of them, please ask for a copy.)

Abstract: There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.

The bulk of the evidence takes the form of what are probably thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically-gathered data.

The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data.

Proponents of turbines have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims, including that the evidence does not “count,” the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’ own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the problems must not exist.

These claims appear to have swayed many non-expert observers, though they are easily debunked. Moreover, the last of them, coupled with other information, means that we do not know what, other than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects.

There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias (emphasis added).

This is not a case where dispassionate analysis and charitable interpretations of people’s actions are appropriate. The attempts to deny the evidence of health problems cannot be seen as honest disagreements about the weight of the evidence. Honest disagreements about scientific points are always possible. But when proponents of one side of the argument consistently try to deny the very existence of contrary evidence, make contradictory claims, appeal to nonsensical and non-existent rules, treat mistaken predictions as if they were evidence of actual outcomes, play semantic games to denigrate the reported outcomes, and blame the victims, then they are not being honest, scientific, or moral. They are preventing the creation of optimal public policy and damaging the credibility of science as a tool for informing policy.

Moreover, assuming their lack of plausible arguments really does mean that there are no defensible arguments to be made on that side of the issue, then their persistence in making implausible arguments is directly responsible for hurting lots of people.

“We, the People” demand proper health studies! (Australia)


The “clean, green, renewable” madness of wind turbines (Ontario)


“I won’t back down!” (Cape Cod, Mass.)


“Won’t Back Down” Barry Funfar, Sergeant, US Marine Corps

My wife Diane and I attended the victory party thrown by the fine folks of Prospect, Connecticut, who are extremely fortunate to have kept the turbines out of their town and community.

It was hosted at the home of Tim Reilly and was a really first class event.

They are extremely grateful to the people of Falmouth who took the time and character to tell them our first-hand experience with living too close to wind turbines. Some of their residents would have been as close as 800 feet.

One huge difference I see in their battle vs. ours, besides the obvious that ours are already constructed and theirs were but proposed, is that they had 20% of the population of Prospect in their “Save Prospect” group. They spent approximately $150,000 to win their fight. The town of Holbrook, near them, evidently is getting wind turbines that actually could fall on abutter’s property. They did not fight the wind turbine proponents.  (Editor’s note:  See the comment, below, by Annette Smith that corrects this information about “Holbrook.”)

It was a super fun party. Despite it being their celebration, I felt good for them. I promised them that when Falmouth’s turbines come down, I will host a similar event and they will all be invited.

The attached song was their theme song.

Barry Funfar
Falmouth, Mass.

Editorial note:  We dedicate the following song to Heather Harper, Town Manager, Falmouth, Mass.  Be sure to turn up your speakers real loud!  This should become the theme song for Wind Warriors worldwide.

Before you play the fabulous song, below, click on the “Heather Harper” hotlink in the paragraph, above.  Read that article and look at those photos while you’re listening to “I won’t back down”—real loud!



Performed by Tom Petty, written by Petty and Jeff Lynne

Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down
You could stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down

Gonna stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down

Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down

Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down

Hey baby there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down

Wind energy’s “trail of broken promises” (USA)

Lisa Linowes

Lisa Linowes, Executive Director, Industrial Wind Action

Congressional lawmakers arguing over how best to rein in spending, have set their sights on eliminating ethanol subsidies and oil and gas tax breaks while leaving renewable policies in place for now.

Our recommendation to Congress: Eliminate all of the energy subsidies. Let the economics of a free(er) market prevail. In particular, pay close attention to wind energy which has consistently failed to deliver on any of its promises.

Fourteen years ago, energy expert Robert Bradley wrote, “Wind power has proven itself to be a perpetual ‘infant industry,’ with its competitive viability always somewhere on the horizon.”

This week General Electric’s eco-magination VP, Mark Vachon, said this: “Without clean-energy mandates or tax subsidies, wind struggles to compete with cheap natural gas. And there’s uncertainty about those subsidies, particularly in the USA, where Congress is looking to manage budget deficits.”

The American Wind Energy Association insists wind is now a mainstream energy resource, but blames the 50 percent drop in USA installations between 2009 and 2010 on a lack of long-term, predictable federal policies.

Billions in public dollars have poured into the wind industry since the Carter Administration, and more is obligated every year for the next decade. Yet for all the promises made, we have little to show for the money spent.

Promise #1: Meeting USA Electricity Needs. A 1976 study by the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that wind power could supply nearly 20% of all US electricity by 1995. By the end of 1995, wind represented only one-tenth of 1% of the US market. Today, wind delivers about 2% of the US electricity market. DOE now claims we will reach 20% wind power by 2030. Moving the goal post does not address the logistical and cost barriers to reaching the 20% goal. These barriers are significant; it’s unlikely the scenario will ever be realized.

Promise #2: Reducing Cost. In the mid-1980’s, wind power sold at around 25 cents per kilowatt hour. By 1995 prices dropped dramatically but were still double the cost of gas-fired generation, even after allowing for the production tax credit (1.5 cents per kwh in 1995). Today, wind pricing is even higher, despite continued federal support (figure 22, 2010 Annual Wind Market Report). Promises of technology improvements that could drive down costs have not translated into price improvements.

Wind’s intermittency still means that high upfront capital costs are spread over fewer hours of operation, which places upward pressure on the price of the energy sold. Cost pressures are also tied to policies on renewables. Aggressive renewable policies have placed developers in strong negotiating positions relative to energy buyers. They know full well that state regulators will approve their demands and pass through the higher costs to ratepayers (footnote 50, 2010 Annual Wind Market Report). And with power purchase agreements now a requirement in order to attract investor financing, above-market energy prices are locked in for extended terms ranging between 10-20 years.

Promise #3: Improved Performance. In 1994, ninety percent of the US wind energy capacity was located in the State of California and operated at a 24% annual average capacity factor. In 2010, the capacity-weighted average capacity factor for California projects in 2010 was only 27.2%. In most regions of the US, wind operated at under 30% capacity factor. New York State wind performed at 22.7% last year. While newer technology has resulted in modest production improvements, US wind has failed to meet the promised 35% capacity factor

Promise #4: Job creation. Over 85% of the nearly $6 billion in Section 1603 grants paid out in 2009 and 2010 went to wind energy projects. Yet by the end of 2010, the American Wind Energy Association reported jobs declined from 85,000 to 75,000. When installations dropped in 2010, it was no surprise that jobs dropped as well. And since growing the manufacturing base is predicated on installing more wind turbines, it’s hard to see where job growth is sustainable.

Has anything changed?

After 30 years of paying the way for this infant industry, apparently American taxpayers have still not done enough to create a market for its product.

Call Congress. Remind your representatives that wind energy has yet to deliver on any of its promises. And history has shown we have no reason to believe things will change.

Eliminate all wind energy subsidies and let’s finally move on to solutions that can deliver.

“We, the People” insist on proper health studies (Mass.)

Editor’s note:  The State of Massachusetts recently announced a study of the health effects of wind turbines.  Toward that end, WindWise ~ Massachusetts sent the following documents to the state Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP), calling for health studies untainted by Big Wind influence.

The first document, below, is the more comprehensive of the two.  The second one, below that, is the cover letter sent to the Commissioner of the DPH and Commissioner of the DEP.

Both documents are well worth reading.

Document #1

We are acutely aware that “there is ample scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines cause serious health problems for some people living nearby”1 and thereby of the emergence—and growing potential—for serious public health and safety impacts of wind turbines in Massachusetts, exacerbated by the “rush to wind” and siting wind turbines too close to people.

The right action to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Massachusetts is to invoke the precautionary principle in your final report and to mandate a moratorium on the construction of industrial wind turbines until more research and independent studies have been completed.

When the results of such independent studies are available, there needs to be an appropriate consultative and fair solution developed to solve the problems which have been caused by the currently constructed but unsafely sited turbine developments, which are making people sick.

According to the report from the highly political review of “The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms”—which included a review of the adverse health impacts as well—recently held by the [Federal] Senate in Australia, the following recommendation was made:

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.”2

In fact, on June 29, 2011 the Umatilla County commissioners in the State of Oregon approved changes to the county’s wind turbine siting rules which require a minimum of a two-mile distance between a home and a wind turbine. . . .

here to read the remainder

Document #2

Dear Commissioners Kimmell and Auerbach:

A group of health professionals and representatives of citizen groups last year wrote a letter to Commissioner Auerbach and subsequently attended a meeting with the Commissioner along with two State Representatives. We formally requested a review of public health and safety standards near wind turbines. We expected to be contacted concerning a study and expected to have a seat at the table when study convened. We recently met with Suzanne Condon, Associate Commissioner/Director and Daniel Delaney, Legislative Director at the Department of Public Health.

As health professionals, citizens, representatives of citizen groups and members of a state-wide organization WindWise ~ Massachusetts, we submit this request for your immediate action.

Commissioners of the DEP and DPH are entrusted with the responsibility to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Massachusetts. We are therefore confident that you will enter into evidence the information we have collected, for review by the expert panel.

The additional information found attached to this email includes:

  • A catalog listing of over 200 documents containing studies, journal articles, scientific papers, reports, presentations, news articles, personal stories and a listing of videotapes available on the web to watch.
  • Additional supporting information which contains an overview and background information.

You will also receive in the mail the above items as well as the following, of which we formally request you make copies available to all members of your expert panel:

  • A CD-ROM with all of the materials submitted via email as well as the source documents that have been cataloged.
  • Several DVDs with videotaped footage of those living with wind turbines.
  • The book: Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment written by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD.

We were assured by highly regarded administrators of DPH that the experts chosen for the panel will be totally independent and unbiased, and that no member of the expert panel has ever been paid, or is currently being paid, by the wind energy industry, pro-wind advocacy organizations, wind developers, or any related industries. . . .

here to read the remainder

“We experienced nausea, headache, vertigo, inability to concentrate,” testifies acoustician (Maine)

Editor’s note
:  The following was submitted as testimony to the State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 7/7/11, by  acoustician Robert Rand.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today as a Maine resident.

My name is Robert Rand.  I am a resident of Brunswick (Maine), and a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE). I have over thirty years of experience in general and applied acoustics, including ten years’ work on power plant noise control engineering in the Noise Control Group at Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation in Boston.

The story I relate today really happened.

I have conducted a number of independent wind turbine noise surveys in the last eighteen months in Maine and elsewhere, without ill effects. However in April 2011 I was unpleasantly surprised while on a wind turbine noise survey with my long-time colleague Stephen Ambrose, also a Member of INCE, where, indoors, variously we experienced nausea, loss of appetite, headache, vertigo, dizziness, inability to concentrate, an overwhelming desire to get outside, and anxiety, over a two-night period from Sunday April 17 to Tuesday April 19. It was a miserable and unnerving experience.

During the most adverse effects, the A-weighted sound level outdoors was at or above 42 dBA, and indoors at 18 to 20 dBA, due to the home’s solid construction. The dBA levels indoors were found to be completely unrelated to the adverse effects.

Adverse effects occurred indoors and outdoors when the infrasonic noise level was over 60 dBG, and the adverse health effects were absent when the wind turbine was idle and the infrasonic noise level was under 60 dBG.

It is worth noting that Dr. Alec Salt identified 60 dBG as the inner ear infrasonic sensitivity threshold in 2010. Thus this experience in April was consistent with Dr. Salt’s findings that the inner ear responds to infrasonic noise above 60 dBG.

The distance was approximately 1700 feet from a single 1.65 MW industrial wind turbine.

The owners who built this home for retirement are reluctantly preparing to abandon the home.

We obtained some relief during the survey, repeatedly, by going several miles away.

It took me a week or more to recover. I experienced recurring eye strain, nausea, sensitivity to low frequency noises, and reduced ability to work on the computer for several weeks.

The adverse health effects I experienced are similar to those reported by neighbors living near wind turbines in Maine and elsewhere. They are not addressed by the regulatory framework in place. I have not seen any consideration by wind facility applicants of potential adverse health effects or community reactions.

I now know personally and viscerally what people have been complaining about. Adverse health effects from wind turbines are real and can be debilitating. The field work points directly to wind turbine low-frequency noise pulsations, especially indoors, as a causative factor. I want all Mainers to be protected from these serious and debilitating health effects.

I welcome and urge your support of the Proposed Amendments to the Dept. of Environmental Protection Noise Rule for wind turbine projects.

Robert W. Rand, INCE
65 Mere Point Road
Brunswick, Maine 04011

Tel: 207-632-1215


“Blessed are they that mourn …” (Ontario)

“ … for they shall be comforted”

Size matters! Yikes!

Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

Just when you thought you’d seen everything …

The new Vestas164-7.0 MW blade (courtesy of

Don’t bother getting out your calculator:  80 meters = 262 feet.  But remember, that’s only 1 of 3 blades.

Here’s all the statistics on the V164 7MW:

  • swept area  21,124 square meters (227,319 square feet = 5.2 acres = 4 National Football League football fields with both 30-foot end zones included)
  • blade length  80 meters (262 feet)
  • minimum hub height  105 meters (344 feet to nacelle from the ground)
  • rotor diameter  164 meters (538 feet)
  • tip height  187 meters (614 feet)
  • weight  800 tons

What does 800 tons look like?  It looks like this.

Now, read “
The bigger they are, the more low frequency noise.”


Vestas says these monsters are for offshore use.  Maybe.

Problem is, if you look at the history of industrial wind turbine installation, you soon discover that what we all thought were monsters “back then” were designed either for remote places (i.e., not in your backyard) or out at sea or giant lakes.

Guess what?  They wound up in someone’s backyard.  Lots of backyards.

The take-home message being:  If Big Wind can finagle putting these “goliaths” in your backyard, chances are very good they’ll do it.

How do they finagle that?  By continuing to deny infrasound/low frequency noise, by continuing to claim these machines are as quiet as a babbling brook or refrigerator, and by continuing to bombard government at all levels with the Chicken Little message that planet earth needs these structures, everywhere (read:  “your backyard”), to save us from Global Warming.  And, of course, by merely moving them back a bit further (setback), to, say, 2000 or 3000 feet.

So it goes.  (And if you insist on believing Big Wind—that these suckers ain’t gonna wind up in people’s backyards—I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. . . .)

Or your backyard, where your neighbor (often an absent property owner) has signed a “sweet” turbine deal for 20 years, renewable up to 50.  (By the way, your town supervisor or a close relative of his has also signed a lease, which is why the supervisor thinks these wind machines are just the ticket for your township.)


My friends, you’re looking at the new Big Idol.  The new Golden Calf (of Hebrew tradition).  The new Sphinx.  From ancient mythology—a mythology which has not died, by the way.  It never died.

“History” is not over; the past is not dead.  It never was.  This kind of mentality—colossal, planet-saving machines—is deeply woven into the fabric of western history.

For the more scholarly among you, I strongly recommend reading Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith (New Haven & London: Yale Univ. Press, 1993)—a peer-reviewed book, incidentally.  I also recommend my own, In the Spirit of the Earth:  Rethinking History & Time (Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992)—likewise peer-reviewed prior to publication.  (Credentials check:  I was a tenured professor of history at Rutgers University for decades.  I wrote the “best book in American history” in 1978, as judged by the American Historical Association.  I have been a National Endowment for the Humanities Senior Fellow and a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow.  I know what I’m talking about, here.)

William Butler Yeats

The Irish poet W.B. Yeats captured the message in “The Second Coming.”

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?


Prelude to suicide (Falmouth, Mass.)

Three photos . . .



Barry Funfar, Sergeant, USMC

Finally, a realistic wind turbine poster! (Italy)

Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

Does this picture look familiar?  Happy cow + happy kid + happy turbine = Happy wind energy advertisement! You’ve seen them everywhere.  In all the media.  Visit any wind company website:  bingo, there you have it!

Problem is, it’s bullshit.  Actually, worse than bullshit:  it’s criminal.  And that’s what this website is all about:  the crime of inflicting Wind Turbine Syndrome on hapless victims around the world.  One means of doing so is through sleazy advertising by Big Wind.

A group in Italy has come up with an antidote.  A counter poster.  Counter image.  More closely resembling the truth of the matter.

Here is a digital (i.e., lousy) translation of the text accompanying their poster.  I have edited the text somewhat, to make it (hopefully) clearer.

We have seen too many images of pale white on blue skies and green meadows with grazing animals and smiling children. Do we still want to believe this?  This was the message of a poster prepared by Rocco Vitali and Luca Lombardi (Montaonda Editions), above.

All opponents of industrial wind farms:

Now we have a poster and a postcard with a strong impact against the wind industry.  Download it now!

Because a picture is worth a thousand words—as our enemies in Big Wind know—Rocco Lombardi and I have designed a postcard and a poster offering an instant snapshot of the tragic reality that lurks behind wind plants. It is strong, not easily forgotten by those who see it even once.

It is freely available to all (see below).

Suggest uses:

» Putting up posters in the streets of countries to raise awareness on the issue and to publicize the meetings of committees: just pay the council tax and paste them on a white band, with date and place, like the circus or musical groups on tour.

» Hang in the rooms where the meeting takes place.

» Use it as a poster on message boards, etc.

» In front of the gazebo and banquet facilities for collecting signatures and the like.

» The thousands of channels that exist on the Internet.

The postcard version, which has writing on the back, comes in two versions, one from the other ship to be deployed. Whoever wants to can add stamps, and similar written text. It lends itself to being distributed on the street, in letter boxes, etc., in the demonstrations.

For those who cannot print, or prefer having them printed in high quality printing at the printers, I proceeded to print a number that will be sent by mail to those who ask for them. I am a publisher, it’s my job.

Copyright notice:  I reserve the right to enforce the copyright for commercial printing.  It can be used freely by the media and associations that support the battle against the wind industry and the like.


Luca Vitali
Montaonda Editions

Download the poster in PDF format

Download the postcard in PDF format



Jutta Reichardt: Wind Turbine Syndrome victim (Germany)

“Against the Wind”

Editor’s note
:  The following is a feature article in Germany’s premier newspaper and magazine, Der Spiegel.  Titled “Against the Wind,” it is the story of two women.  Two women who are environmentalists and who oppose nuclear energy.

One, Hildegard Muller, is a powerful government and industry figure, a confidante of the German chancellor, and an urbanite.  Hildegard Muller is a big promoter of wind energy.

The other, Jutta Reichardt, is a prominent environmentalist who took her beliefs about environmentalism back to the land.  Jutta and her husband, Marco Bernardi, live rurally.  Between them they have restored a failing farm.  Unlike Hildegard Muller, Jutta Reichardt is profoundly opposed to wind energy—because of what it has done to her health and her community.  Jutta is a poster child for Wind Turbine Syndrome.

The article is fascinating and well written.  The problem is the English translation, below.  It sucks!  It sucks because I did it using Google Translate.  Still, it’s worth reading, even though it’s a bit surreal owing to the digital translation.  Worth reading because you get the overall picture.  Mainly, you come to appreciate the travail of Jutta Reichardt.

The article (alas, only in German) is available here.

Jutta Reichardt & Marco Bernardi in front of their barn

—Von Dialika Krahe, Der Spiegel 27/2011 (7/5/11), pp. 54-58

The energy revolution blurs ideological boundaries: Hildegard Müller, power lobbyist, and Jutta Reichardt, wind opponent, both want the nuclear phase-out, but they are now female opponents in the argument about the sacrifices one must expect the Germans. Dialika From Krahe

The woman who wants to make Germany nuclear free, “quickly and completely,” sits in a leather chair in her office, above the government district, through the glass front is Berlin the morning sky, she shrugs and says: “Granted is beautiful now something else.”

“Wow,” was Hildegard Müller, until recently, the northern German countryside “beautiful,” she found the trip to the North Sea on holiday, always up the A31, two hours length, fields, meadows. Mueller is a lobbyist, a confidante of the Chancellor, 44 years old, the face of energy is called. She wears a dark blue suit, a thick silver rings on the wrist band. You must be a woman who can understand the fears of the Germans, fears of ugly wind farms, concerns about price increases, power lines in lovingly landscaped gardens. She says: “The landscape of pleasure with my vacation started earlier, I admit, is already counting of windmills weighting.” But would that be if Germany wanted the energy transition: “The country will change its face.”

Mueller is chief executive of the Federal Association of Energy and Water, a powerful merger of 1800, catering to companies, including public utilities and grid operators, but also the four large nuclear power plant operators, RWE, E. ON, Vattenfall and EnBW. She is in her 16th since the CDU Age, she recalls how she sat as a teenager in Dusseldorf in the Catholic girls’ school with their classmates and teachers and ’68 discussed nuclear power. It was the time of Chernobyl, the time of anti-nuclear button, the time to do this or-contrast-being, and Muller was at that time to those who considered the nuclear energy “despite the risks” for a good cause. For 40 years, defended the Union, nuclear energy as a clean, safe form of energy – across Harrisburg, across Chernobyl – and with it the long and did Hildegard Müller. Even in autumn it has lobbied the government for the term extension.

And now, not nine months later, she says things like, “I do not want this energy revolution will fail,” or Miller. “Renewables, the control system of the future are” wants the nuclear phase-out no later than 2022 – which is usually around, as the German Farmers’ Association would engage against factory farming.

Something in her world has shifted. For this time of the parent or other hand-being-has given way to something new: Nuclear power advocates are skeptical about nuclear power, nuclear skeptics are afraid of renewable energies for the scenery, because of the noise, because of the porpoises. Last week the Bundestag voted in a broad majority in favor of the nuclear phase. The energy revolution, you can feel Miller, is also a change of beliefs.

“When I look out the window here now,” she says, pointing towards the road, “then I see nothing that has to do with energy. So far we have been key sites, power plants, only to see those who live around it. “Most would have no sense of where the power come from for their fridge. Now we need networks, gas-fired power plants, storage. “The new power supply will be more visible.”

Visible. Probably there is hardly anyone who can get a better idea what this means, as Jutta Reichardt. With her energy revolution has started long before Fukushima.

Jutta Reichardt is on her pond, a bucket of food in hand for the animals, Canada geese, it’s a warm afternoon in Neuendorf, Saxony-gang, not 13 kilometers from the nuclear power plant Brunsbüttel away. Calves running behind the house singing, birds, and wind turbines that surround Reichardt plot make this a sound as if you were standing on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

Reichardt is an athletic woman, choreographer and presenter, mid-50s, the sun has dyed her skin golden brown. “Wind turbines 122 in a radius of few kilometers,” she says, turns around and points his finger into the distance. “That one,” she says, nodding his head toward wind turbine, “that’s because just 320 meters from our house.” She reaches into the bucket, scatters, she wears a red tunic, a pair of glasses with red frames, she looks young, but she was sick, she says, her husband was ill, “ill wind power.”

Tinnitus, insomnia, high blood pressure, heart rhythm disorders, ulcers in the mucous membranes – several hospital stays. Reichardt 17 years ago moved with her husband, an engineer from Hamburg here in the country. They bought a Farmstead, put their money into it, 400 000 €, a beautiful house, red brick. From their site you can admire the lowest land point in Germany, 3.54 meters below the sea surface, the North Sea is only about half an hour. “We wanted peace and nature,” says Reichardt, which was her dream.

In the beginning there were only three wind turbines, “what could have been 1994 to wind power?” She says. But there were more, from year to year to year. The Renewable Energy Law of the Red-Green government intervened. The local farmers could plant one after the other up on their fields, because of the lease, they reaped it, perhaps, because they thought doing something for the climate. Even with Jutta Reichardt they stood before the door that the wind power company representatives and the mayor. And when she locked herself and later founded a citizens’ initiative, they became the enemy of many in the community. They had been threatened, says Reichardt, strange things happen estates, scratched cars, night calls. “Stands for the farmers so much money at stake,” she says, “the cash 18000-20000 € per turbine.”

It is this noise, a “Whack-Whack-Whack”, it describes Reichardt man who draws up beside his wife, “this monotonous, always when the wing passes the mast.” In wind power one it sounds like a freeway, says Jutta Reichardt. In wind power as a two-throwing machine. And from three wind strengths equal to the noise of a baling. “A striking, pounding sound.” Then there was the infrasound, frequencies are not audible, but noticeable nonetheless. Vibrations that they can not sleep. Bird species that fail. Shadows that dart through the room, as if the world a loose connection. “This is not a home anymore,” she says.

Jutta Reichardt empties the bucket and sit on the terrace outside her house, there’s rhubarb cake and tea, located next to a book, about which they can always touch her hand: “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, a research study of an American doctor. A collection of cases, people who are doing similar Jutta Reichardt. Who suffer from tinnitus, high blood pressure. It is one of many documents that have accumulated Jutta Reichardt and her husband over the years. There are Australian studies, studies from Portugal and experiences of people from all over northern Germany, who see a connection between their health complaints and the wind power plants around them. Some people only express fears that others already see evidence.

Reichardt’s spokeswoman EPAW, the European Platform against wind turbines, activists from 22 countries are involved. She speaks of decibel, of the “vibration-acoustic disease,” the fact that some of the symptoms disappear when she and her husband go to France on holiday, and that they come back once they are back on their property. In Germany it was taboo to say anything against wind power. Because then as a climate killer applies or friend as an atom. But “long term it comes to public health,” she says.

Jutta Reichardt’s not like you imagine a wind opponent: it is not for nuclear power, does not vote CDU, before they had even been for the Greens, “which was, as it was in the party or conservationists.” She was a member of the Conservation Federation, the Bund, as a young woman she demonstrated in Brokdorf, her husband at Biblis. X times they had been hit by water cannons, her car stuck on an anti-nuclear sticker.

Reichardt would be for wind power, for this “green and clean alternative” as they say. And that it is not, shows how old ideological opinions reshuffle: An atomic force his opponent does not necessarily have to wind energy, a nuclear-lobbyist is no longer for nuclear energy.

Miller can tell when her view changed radically in the nuclear energy. It was the 11th March, Friday. Hildegard Mueller turned on the morning show on television, she tells it, she saw that the earth had quaked in Japan, magnitude 9.0, that a tsunami had rolled the Japanese coast, across Japanese nuclear power plants. On the tsunami of 2004, she thought, she says, more pictures and messages came rushing, every hour, every minute, emergency power aggregates fell from the reactor cooling system, the same day Mueller and her colleagues taught a crisis team one.

And now, she says it was these questions because they, the politics, the whole of Germany now, not four months after Fukushima, employ more: “What conclusions do we draw from this disaster? What does this mean for Germany? For the economy and society?”

A month later, Mueller was sitting at Maybrit Illner and discussed in the show for now and not against the nuclear phase. Since then much has happened in the German energy policy.

The federal government has imposed a moratorium, 7 of 17 power plants from the grid immediately taken an ethics committee has met, a reactor safety commission examined. And in late May, the federal government, in great haste, the new energy plan agreed a package of laws on energy transition.

“We are here to make open-heart surgery,” says Mueller, Minister of State from 2005 to 2008 by Angela Merkel, the mother of a four-year-olds. She speaks of risk assessment and accountability. She is good at talking. “It’s not even the case that we intend anything in this country,” she says, “the energy revolution, together with the CO 2 targets the most ambitious project, which has a manufacturing country in the world. “A national project, 80 million people have since participate.

Mueller did not hesitate: “It is certainly the case that more interventions in the areas of life are needed by people.” Under current energy law have always existed here and there expropriations. It could not tell everyone: energy policy, yes, but not in my front yard. “This is not a threat, but an objective look at the situation.”

Jutta Reichardt, the wind force opponent knows the situation. For 17 years she has lived in her house, the property, the pond, the meadow belong to her. Expropriated it feels anyway.”? Surrounded by 122 wind turbines,” “Who would buy such a property yet,” she asks, this house is their retirement, and “. My husband was here his office, his clients,” Reichardt would like to go away, perhaps into abroad, but at present is the almost impossible, she says.

Reichardt thinks for a moment. “I’ve always been against nuclear power,” she says, “but not easy to be against it.” It was not then the fear was before the disaster, they have driven on the street, “for me was the real scandal is that you did not know how to get rid of the stuff again, that one does not know to this day.”

She exhales audibly. “And now, with the wind, repeats everything,” she says, “we think today just as much about the consequences of this new form of energy after such time when nuclear power.” Germany would be plastered with wind turbines without having to know the health risks .

There is an aerial view of the landscape that is home Jutta Reichardt. It shows the full extent: Hundreds of windmills that rise from the flat landscape. At night they are flashing red, the day they cast shadows, around the clock they send their sound. Reichardt and her husband have put the photo on their website where there are headings such as “eco-dictatorship,” “disease” or “conservation”.

The picture is a view of the presence of Jutta Reichardt and her associates from the dozens of citizens’ initiatives, which exist now in Northern Germany. But it’s also a glimpse into the future, it might look if the energy revolution will succeed: not only the north but also in Bavaria, the Black Forest, along the scenic route of the Romanesque in Saxony-Anhalt. Of the currently installed wind turbines provide care to an average of 1.3 megawatts each, that’s enough for 600 households. More than 21,000 wind turbines currently in Germany – the equivalent of about seven percent of electricity generation.

By 2020 the share of wind power increased to 20 percent. The share of renewable energies in total from 17 to 35 percent. First, many of the old plants will be replaced by more powerful. “Repowering” is called the: larger machines, longer blades, higher towers. The new wind turbines are on average only 1.3 instead of 5.5 megawatts afford. The Fraunhofer Institute for Energy and Wind Energy Systems Technology has determined that two percent of the Republic come as locations for wind turbines in question. On these surfaces could be 62 839 wind turbines.

Not everyone will think you are sick, not everyone finds the noise of wind turbines as an impressive live prejudicial, and not everyone has a problem with the sight of power lines, new gas power plants and pumped storage plants. But everyone will perceive a change, they will see, hear and feel the energy change.

Hildegard Müller and driving it forward, the energy revolution is underway, “to steer the process in the right direction,” she calls it, if she wants to make a significant difference in terms of their policy of energy companies. She also appeared once on the German Parliament, speaking in a meeting room in Berlin, Unter den Linden, on “EEG – quo vadis”. She wears a lime green costume, black and brown leopard shoes. On the chair next to her sits Bareiß Thomas, coordinator for energy policy of the CDU / CSU faction in the Bundestag, the managing director of the Federal Association for Renewable Energy is here. Representatives of wind power company, EnBW, E. ON, but mainly it’s the day federal seconded, listen to what Mueller has to say.

Mueller has already said the same things many times in recent weeks. For example, she likes to talk about the fact that the federal government presenting a breathtaking pace, and the legislation would still technically be clean. That “at the end of the day” the consumer would have to live with this transformation. Also, she speaks of the new trade-offs: from environmentalists who have concern for the porpoise, because the vibration during the construction of offshore installations disturb the orientation. And opponents of nuclear power, which had suddenly against wind power. The audience will laugh. People like Jutta Reichardt are meant.

Hildegard Mueller told you by Jutta Reichardt and her situation, she smiles, then says that one must take these concerns as seriously as the concerns of opponents of nuclear power. “We urgently need a consistent distance control for wind turbines – in some provinces there are only 300 meters, in others, they want 1500, “she says. You understand that you also says that many people into such increase in anxiety.

Mueller and Reichardt are located, without knowing it, almost ever met. At a trade show, the Husum Wind Energy. Muller was there as a spokesperson for the energy industry, Reichardt came as a protester. Mueller said that day: “The wind energy has become a major pillar in the renewable energy generation. Their share in electricity production has risen to seven percent and still offers great expansion potential. “Reichardt said a wind power advocate, how many nuclear power plants because they have already shut down, thanks to the wind. The man replied: “Biblis A, for two years.”

Reichardt says, she wanted the honesty of politicians. “That does not do so, as if one could replace all German nuclear power plants by wind turbines.” Many people in Germany believe in it. Reichardt is a ridiculous, hypocritical and even undemocratic.

Reichardt wants the nuclear phase. But slower. Decentralized, as it wants the federal government: “That was good, as was planned, a gradual withdrawal. A period in which one would think about what you can really do as an alternative. “She and her husband think that an expansion of geothermal energy would be good that turbulent water power plants are an option. And also research into nuclear fusion as a possible energy source, but one needs no radioactive material. “And there are not sufficient, decentralized solutions, one needs of course, coal and gas.” Reichardt and her husband have long been a solar system on the roof, with ten fields. They should make it sometime to get away, they dream of a land with a small stream where you can connect a turbulent water power plant.

Just as Reichardt, the wind force opponent, is also Hildegard Mueller, the lobbyist that more than “the uncomfortable side” must be spoken and honest. For example “the fact that we will need to use more conventional power plants, coal and gas. Furthermore, we can not simply replace what is missing from photovoltaic or wind. ” Mueller says, “The photovoltaic system on every house roof, which makes the individual citizen in his private independent power supply is still no guarantee of a developed country, which needs around the clock so its power. We have no storage for renewables, not the networks, “she says, a shortfall of around 3000 kilometers. “There is no good if you have 1000 hours of sunshine a year, but 8700 hours a year, at which citizens are to be supplied.”

Mueller and Reichardt, two women who want the same, an end to nuclear power. But Mueller thinks that the citizens need to see the big idea behind the whole society and that great ideas sometimes mean sacrifice. Reichardt is that the great idea just ruined the country.

She stands at the ferry landing on Foehr and looks at how the cars drive from the mainland to the island. In the cab of a truck, a driver has set up three miniature wind turbines, which turn frantically behind the windshield. Says, “Well, that’s nice again,” Reichardt and twisted her eyes. Reichardt is in a hospital. In addition to the complaints, which she attributes to the wind turbines, she is suffering from lymphatic cancer. There were specialists in America and Australia, maintain a link between wind turbines and for possible cancer. Reichardt is in contact with them is not convinced, but looking at their position after every grain of truth, even if it can be found at the end of anything.

Every day she wears her blood pressure in a list, collect their medical findings and sends the data to foreign countries. She sits down at the beach, a pair of binoculars around his neck, which she can see the oyster fishermen, but also the wind turbines on the coast. The coast is not just coast, but a huge wind field. A power plant next to the other towers there in the air.

Reichardt says that in recent weeks, many citizens’ groups from all over Germany in their report, for example, “our colleagues from Brandenburg and Hesse.” Many people feel threatened by this energy revolution, they agree to professionalize themselves, send messages around: “Urgent action Hesse” or “the new people’s disease”. In many places, forming new civil initiatives against power lines and underground cables for, with pumped storage or biomass – always where the dream of a nuclear-free Germany in the lives of the people does.

So far, nuclear power phase-change and energy are just abstract concepts. Now, after the decisions of the Bundestag, is show whether the parliamentary consensus and a social consensus. Or whether many people insist that is not allowed to change their lives. Technological progress has always demanded sacrifice. Industrialization brought jobs, but also cost lives. The car brought mobility, but also emissions and traffic deaths. With the computer came the Internet, but also streamline and data misuse. A society without nuclear power is no green and no democratic idyll idyll: Some people will pay a higher price for the radiation-free republic.

Reichardt is sitting on a bench on the beach, looking through the milky light of the coastline. She says: “Over there, between the wind power bars, is now only a single gap-free.” You have heard that the well will now be closed yet. “Maybe we will see the variety of birds there for the last time”

Without the consent of such people as Jutta Reichardt is the energy transition for Miller and her company, tedious for the chancellor and her government. Reichardt knows she is not the expansion of wind power can prevent. But they also know that they can slow down progress.

Hildegard Mueller would say, “This is not a threat, but rather a sober consideration of the facts.”



Wind turbines hammer property & health (USA)

“People will be either trapped within or flee (abandon or sell at huge discounts) their family homes”

Editor’s note
:  The following was written by Michael McCann, a seasoned Chicago real estate appraiser who for several years has been examining the property value impacts of wind turbines.  Mr. McCann has made numerous, peer-reviewed reports to town boards faced with wind energy projects.

His letter is addressed to Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner of the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection, and John Auerbach, Commissioner of Mass. Dept. of Public Health, in response to the State of Massachusetts holding an inquiry into Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, DEP
John Auerbach, Commissioner, DPH
MassDEP Wind Turbine Docket
1 Winter Street 4th Floor Mailroom
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Commissioners,

I am responding to your inquiry into health effects from industrial wind turbines. Since there is a noticeable correlation between reported health impacts and significant impacts on real estate values, as well as the real estate rights issue of peaceful use and enjoyment of one’s home, I believe the documented diminution of property values caused by improper turbine siting is an objective measure of this secondary impact.

I do not write as a medical expert; however, in 6 years of reviewing industry funded and independent reports, inspecting project locations, researching empirical prima facie sale price evidence and interviewing residents, I have found that there is a tremendous market aversion of the “market” to buying homes within visible and audible (or sub-audible) proximity to industrial scale turbines.

My value studies have included submissions to Massachusetts Towns of Wareham and Brewster, and have been written to address zoning compliance evaluation of proposed projects in those locales. (I am sure either Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals would be able to provide a copy of my submitted report or presentation, but if interested in reviewing these documents, feel free to contact me directly for a copy.)

I would note for your consideration that wind project developers in Massachusetts typically seek to obtain setback permissions that have proven to be unhealthy and so disturbing to some existing residents near other wind energy projects worldwide, that dozens of people have abandoned their family homes rather than continue to try to cope with an untenable level of impact. Impacts from noise, shadow flicker and the unhealthy physical and/or physiological reactions to same.

Industry prefers to couch their applications for approval with their self defined limits of how many hours of shadow flicker are acceptable, or with “modeled” rather than measured noise studies. They also prefer to discuss setbacks in terms of feet and meters, when projects broadcast their impacts on a scale measured in miles and kilometers. I have personally seen more official scrutiny of public officials hearing zoning requests for fast-food drive through lanes or lighted parking lots than what is often rubber stamped approval of wind applications, with no serious consideration of the multitude of actual impacts from wind turbines.

It is my belief that peaceful use and enjoyment of a residential property is simply a measure of the other side of the same coin; namely, health impacts. If both ways of describing people’s rights are to be adequately protected, then it is my recommendation that Massachusetts develop rules that require:

1. Setbacks be scaled to the size of turbines, i.e., 2+ miles for the 400-500 foot turbines typically proposed, reduced to perhaps ½ mile for turbines of 125 feet in height.

2. Mandatory shutdown of turbines during nightime sleeping hours.

3. Mandatory shutdown of turbines that generate noise complaints, until such time that actual noise levels can be MEASURED and demonstrated that background levels are not exceeded by independently determined health/acoustic study levels, including low frequency and infrasound levels.

4. Mandatory homeowner option to sell to developers at market value, if and when inadequate (i.e., 1,000 feet – 1,500 feet) setbacks are approved by any unit of government.

5. A moratorium on any further turbine construction within 2 miles of any residence, until such time that there are reliable studies addressing low frequency and infrasound impacts from turbines on human health. Claims made by industry put the burden of proof on homeowners, and it is the appropriate role of government to end this trend and rely on credible evidence to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and, indeed, their property values.

Any homeowners that lived at ground zero of Boston’s Big Dig project were certainly bought out for the greater public good. I suggest that enforcing this concept is an appropriate use of governmental authority with the claimed public good of wind energy projects, as well. Until then, the completely lopsided scale of turbine developments will surely continue to create health impacts, and people will be either trapped within, or flee (abandon or sell at huge discounts) their family homes.

Thank you for your attention to my response to your inquiry. I remain available to discuss the related real estate issues that correlate with health effects.


Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite # 300
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting
cell (312) 961-1601

Michael S. McCann
(whom we can forgive for living in Chicago)


Germany: 28,000 sign petition against wind turbines

Editor’s note:  The following is an email sent to Mr. Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Mr. John Auerbach, Commissioner of Mass. Department of Public Health, in response to the State of Massachusetts holding an inquiry into Wind Turbine Syndrome.

( did some light editing to the author’s English, since English is clearly not his first language.)

From The People’s Initiative against Wind Turbines

July 6, 2011

Dear Misters Kimmell & Auerbach,

We live in eastern Germany, near Berlin. Over the last 3 years we have been forced to suffer the noise of wind turbines.

Within a year of the first turbines being built, local residents began experiencing health problems. From tinnitus to sleep disturbance, etc.

You can read about the distress of citizens from wind turbines by visiting The People’s Initiative against Wind Turbines.  [If you are using Google as your browser, you can get Google to translate The People’s Initiative against Wind Turbines by clicking here.  Type this web address into the Google Translate box, select “German to English,” and hit your Return button—Editor.]

In the federal State of Brandenburg, 28,000 people signed a petition against wind turbines as being built too close to their homes.  [This figure of 28,000 has been confirmed by the author—Editor.]

Yours sincerely,

Wolfgang Neumann
. . . on behalf of many citizens of Brandenburg, Germany, and as Representative and Chairperson of the Construction Committee Golzow.

Click here and here to read Wolfgang Neumann’s impressive credentials

Massachusetts needs your help!

Lilli GreenWindwise~Cape Cod (7/5/11)

Wherever you live in the world, we need you to write a letter to the State of Massachusetts.

We now have an opportunity to communicate concerns about adverse health risks from wind turbines to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). There is a short timeline; all comments must be received by Friday, July 22, 2011.

Send an email with any information you think is important to: WindTurbineDocket.MassDEP@MassMail.State.MA.US, or by regular mail to: MassDEP Wind Turbine Docket, 1 Winter Street 4th Floor Mailroom, Boston, MA 02108.

Please address your letters to:  Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner of MA Department of Environmental Protection and John Auerbach, Commissioner of MA Department of Public Health

Please write even one or two sentences expressing a concern:

  • It is so important to hear from as many people as possible.
  • Letters and information from experts would be much appreciated.
  • Anyone who has unfortunately already been adversely impacted:  It would be so helpful if you write a letter about your experiences.

Please inform every person you know who you think will take action:

  • Please ask the people you know to write letters.
  • Please ask to let anyone else they know, that action is needed by Friday, July 22nd.

Mass DEP, “in collaboration with [Mass DPH] is in the process of convening an expert scientific panel on potential health impacts associated with exposure to wind turbines. The product of this Expert Panel will be a written report which includes the results of the panel’s review of available scientific peer review literature, as well as other reports and articles on the nature and extent of potential human health impacts, and will specifically include:

  • The identification and characterization of specific attributes of concern (e.g., noise, vibration and light flicker) and documented or potential human health impacts;
  • The magnitude and frequency of potential human health risks associated with the design, construction and operation of existing wind turbines;
  • Documented best practices that could reduce documented or potential human health risks.”

I repeat, time is of the essence!  Please email or mail your comments and all attached documents before the July 22, 2011 deadline.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help all citizens of Massachusetts which, with your comments and information, will hopefully have a wide reach across the globe.

Background information:

For over a year, a group of people have been urging the Massachusetts DPH to step up to the plate and protect the health of the citizens of the State of Massachusetts from adverse health impacts from wind turbines. We submitted a 6” binder full of materials substantiating the need to take action.

DPH and DEP have asked to hear from you. If you just express your concerns, there will be a reduced chance that the report will be a whitewash of the realities of the situation. Wind turbines make people sick!

A larger group of people from throughout the State of Massachusetts will submit materials, including peer-reviewed scientific studies, journal articles, reports, presentations, study findings, court evidence, thesis papers, personal stories from those in Massachusetts living too close to wind turbines, and personal stories from around the globe, newspaper articles, videos, and pending legislation from around the world.

We will urge the Commissioners and the DEP and DPH to:

1. Indeed select an expert scientific panel on health impacts associated with exposure to wind turbines that is completely impartial, where no member of the panel has been paid by the wind energy industry, pro-wind advocacy organization, wind developer, or any related industry.

2. Hold the meetings of the panel as public meetings and hold public hearings so the public is able to speak to the panel and to appropriately express concerns in a timely manner but without a three minute time limit.

3. Provide to the panel all the materials submitted and not a selected sub-set that has been sanitized so that the panel does not see the full scope of the adverse health impacts from around the globe.

4. Provide opportunities for the panel to talk with people who have been adversely impacted from a health standpoint.

5. Submit the evidence from people around the globe who are concerned about the adverse health impacts to people who are in close proximity to wind turbines because they live, work, are in nursing homes or hospitals, attend school and are incarcerated within 6.3 miles of wind turbines.

6. Submit the ample scientific information from around the globe that concludes there are adverse health impacts for people living and working too close to wind turbines.

7. Urge the panel to err on the side of caution and to recommend invoking the precautionary principle, and institute at least a one-year moratorium on the construction of wind turbines in the State of Massachusetts (as has been done in Connecticut), until further research is completed in order to conclusively determine what is a safe setback of turbines from people and to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Massachusetts.

The World Health Organization defines the precautionary principle as follows:

In all cases noise should be reduced to the lowest level achievable in a particular situation. When there is a reasonable possibility that the public health will be endangered, even though scientific proof may be lacking, action should be take to protect the public health, without awaiting the full scientific proof” World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise (1999).

Tough questions from a homeowner (Washington State)

—Roger Whitten, Oakesdale, Washington (6/17/11)

My case against Whitman County, State of Washington, is a property rights case.

Does surrounding a residential property with an industrial wind turbine development decrease the value of the residential property?

Does placing one (or in my case, eight) industrial wind turbines within 3,500 feet of a residential property create a health threat? (At First Wind’s Mars Hill, Maine project, of the people who live within 3,500 feet of the turbines “82% of exposed subjects reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, versus 4% in the non-exposed group.”)

Considering one must disclose possible health threats before selling a property, does residential property that is entirely surrounded by an industrial wind turbine development become completely unmarketable?

Is it wrong to dump 70 decibels of noise pollution onto a home all day and all night for days on end?

Is it wrong to place the “Danger Zone” of an industrial wind turbine over residential property? The “Danger Zone” is the turbine manufacturer’s term for an area of danger that extends thousands of feet.

Is it wrong to place the “Danger Zone” of an industrial wind turbine over the only public road that provides access to a residential property?

Does blocking safe access to a residential property with a “Danger Zone” decrease the property value?

Has the Whitman County government gone too far when it allowed an industrial wind turbine development to completely surround a residential property?

Has Whitman County’s land use decision concerning industrial wind turbines placed an undue hardship on the owners of residential property that is completely surrounded by the turbine development?

How you answer these questions and how our government answers them are two different things.

There is something seriously wrong with government when it responds to facts in a manner that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people.

Consider the possibility that government is not for the people, but, rather, government is for itself.

The time to change government is when you see government taking away your neighbor’s rights. If you wait until government steals your rights, it might be too late.

“Explicit cautionary notice to those responsible for Wind Turbine Siting decisions” (Waubra Foundation)

This notice is intended for “Directors of Wind Developments, Publicly Elected Officials from Federal, State and Local Government, and Bureaucrats in Relevant Departments

The Waubra Foundation, Australia (6/29/11)

Be advised that, as a result of information gathered from the Waubra Foundation’s own field research, and from the clinical and acoustic research available internationally, the following serious medical conditions have been identified in people living, working, or visiting within 10km of operating wind turbine developments.

The onset of these conditions corresponds directly with the operation of wind turbines:

» chronic severe sleep deprivation;

» acute hypertensive crises;

» new onset hypertension;

» heart attacks (including Tako Tsubo episodes);

» worsening control of preexisting and previously stable medical problems such as angina, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, migraines, tinnitus, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder;

» severe depression, with suicidal ideation;

» development of irreversible memory dysfunction, tinnitus, and hyperacusis.

Other symptoms include those described by medical practitioners such as Dr Amanda Harry, and Dr Nina Pierpont in her landmark Case Series Crossover Peer Reviewed Study (submission No 13 to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms) and published in Dr Pierpont’s book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment,” 2009, published by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe.

These serious health problems were also identified by Australian General Practitioner Dr David Iser in 2004. Dr Iser formally notified the Victorian Government of the time after his patients became unwell following the start up of the Toora wind project. His warnings were ignored without being properly investigated by the authorities and politicians.

All this and supportive material has been made available to the boards of the major developers, State Ministers for Health and Planning and senior health bureaucrats. The time for denial, and of using the Clean Energy Council to shoulder the increasingly difficult task of denying the link between adverse health and operating wind turbines, is over.

At the Toora and Waubra wind projects, some seriously ill affected residents have been bought out by the developers, but only after they signed confidentiality agreements specifically prohibiting them from speaking about their health problems. This buy-out activity would support a conclusion that developers are aware of the health problems.

Meanwhile, wind developments have continued, with developers asserting that their projects meet acceptable standards, and thereby implying that they cannot be causing health problems.

The Foundation is also concerned that Vibro-acoustic Disease (VAD), as recorded and described by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira’s team from Portugal, will develop in people chronically exposed to wind turbines. The disease has already been identified in the occupants of a house with levels of infrasound and low frequency noise identical to levels the Foundation is recording in the homes of affected residents in Australia.

The Foundation is aware of over 20 families in Australia who have abandoned their homes because of serious ill health experienced since the turbines commenced operating near their homes. Most recently, five households from Waterloo in South Australia have relocated, where the larger 3 MW turbines have had a devastating impact on the health of these residents. Some of these people have walked away from their only financial asset, to live in a shed or a caravan on someone else’s land.

The Foundation notes the mid-2010 advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council that a “precautionary approach” be followed. We are not aware that either industry or planning authorities have adopted this exceedingly valuable and important advice.

The Foundation’s position, as the most technically informed entity in Australia upon the effects of wind turbines on human health, is this: Until the recommended studies are completed, developers and planning authorities will be negligent if human health is damaged as a result of their proceeding with, or allowing to proceed, further construction and approvals of turbines within 10km of homes. It is our advice that proceeding otherwise will result in serious harm to human health.

We remind those in positions of responsibility for the engineering, investment and planning decisions about project and turbine siting that their primary responsibility is to ensure that developments cause no harm to adjacent residents.  And, if there is possibility of any such harm, then the project should be re-engineered or cancelled. To ignore existing evidence by continuing the current practice of siting turbines close to homes is to run the dangerous risk of breaching a fundamental duty of care, thus attracting grave liability.

Enquiries: Dr Sarah Laurie, Medical Director, 0439 865 914

Email address:

Editor’s note:  Click here for a PDF of the above notice.