U.S. government has known about Wind Turbine Syndrome since 1987 (U.S. Dept. of Energy)

Jul 6, 2013



Editor’s note:  October 1987.  The Windpower ’87 Conference & Exposition in San Francisco.  A paper read by a physicist named N.D. Kelley from the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado.  A research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093.

Dr. Kelley titled his paper “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions.”  “Emissions” means “noise & vibration.”  And the “low frequency” includes infrasound.  And the sterile phrase, “community annoyance,” is code for Wind Turbine Syndrome–except, Dr. Pierpont had not coined the name in 1987.

Here’s Kelley’s paper.  Rob Rand sent the paper to Rick James (Rand and James are America’s premier experts in measuring and assessing wind turbine noise/vibration), and James then sent it to Dr. Sarah Laurie in Australia.  Dr. Laurie forwarded the paper to us.

Now, it’s yours.  Notice the parts highlighted in yellow.  Notice that the U.S. Dept. of Energy knew about Wind Turbine Syndrome as long ago as this conference.  It was so aware of WTS that it funded a study on it—the study that is the subject of Kelley’s paper.  Notice how Kelley’s paper focuses on infrasound & low frequency noise & vibration inside homes, that is, ILFN caused by wind turbines inside nearby homes.

Yeah, the government and industry knew all about this shit in the 1980s.  It’s now 2013, and the government and industry are still pretending they don’t know about this shit.

Are you angry, yet?





  1. Comment by Melodie Burkett on 07/07/2013 at 7:11 am

    Amazing! Run with this! How do you spell cover up? Will send to MPP’s. Heads should roll!

  2. Comment by Sarah Laurie, CEO Waubra Foundation on 07/07/2013 at 11:01 am

    Dear Calvin,

    Since sending you the original paper from Rick James, I have been forwarded the link to another large paper detailing an extensive research program over a number of years, by Neil Kelley and a number of co-researchers, with a long list of universities and other research institutions in the USA who were clearly well aware of these very interesting, detailed research results. Click here.

    No wonder no one is keen to measure the full acoustic spectrum inside the homes of the residents who are developing the hallmarks of wind turbine syndrome, long imprecisely and conveniently labelled as “annoyance” by the engineers…

    I suggest the wind industry knows exactly what it is going to find, based on these 25-year-old research findings …

    So, who is it who developed the wind turbine noise regulatory authority guidelines in each jurisdiction, which specifically do NOT measure the full acoustic spectrum inside and outside homes?

    Who helped them develop these guidelines?

    Who is their professional indemnity insurer?

    Why has this research been buried for so long?

  3. Comment by Shellie Correia on 07/08/2013 at 7:45 pm

    This is the type of information that could financially destroy the wind industry. Once we have enough evidence to prove in court, that there has been willful blindness, on the part of gov’t and industry, the lawsuits will come flooding in, and they know it.

    That is why they hire so-called, “experts,” who will promote their corrupt agenda. The tobacco industry used doctors to promote cigarettes. Money will entice people to say and do things they otherwise would not do. Sad, but true.

    Me, I cannot wait to see justice served to the windpushers!

  4. Comment by Anonymous on 07/08/2013 at 11:17 pm

    Received March 04, 1982 –

    Comparisons of the acoustic performance and an estimate of the annoyance potential of several large wind turbine designs using this technique is also discussed.


    A Methodology for Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise Generation
    N. D. Kelley, R. R. Hemphill and H. E. McKenna
    [+] Author Affiliations
    J. Sol. Energy Eng. 104(2), 112-120 (May 01, 1982) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3266282 History: Received March 04, 1982; Online November 11, 2009


    The detailed analysis of a series of acoustic measurements taken near several large wind turbines (100 kW and above) has identified the maximum acoustic energy as being concentrated in the low-frequency audible and subaudible ranges, usually less than 100 Hz. These measurements have also shown any reported community annoyance associated with turbine operations has often been related to the degree of coherent impulsiveness present and the subsequent harmonic coupling of acoustic energy to residential structures. Thus, one technique to assess the annoyance potential of a given wind turbine design is to develop a method which quantifies this degree of impulsiveness or coherency in the radiated acoustic energy spectrum under a wide range of operating conditions. Experience has also shown the presence of annoying conditions is highly time dependent and nonstationary, and, therefore, any attempts to quantify or at least classify wind turbine designs in terms of their noise annoyance potential must be handled within the proper probabilistic framework. A technique is described which employs multidimensional, joint probability analysis to establish the expected coincidence of acoustic energy levels in a contiguous sequence of octave frequency bands which have been chosen because of their relationship to common structural resonant frequencies in residential buildings. Evidence is presented to justify the choice of these particular bands. Comparisons of the acoustic performance and an estimate of the annoyance potential of several large wind turbine designs using this technique is also discussed.

  5. Comment by Vent de Folie on 07/09/2013 at 3:39 am

    We can appreciate the ironic level. Just take a time to read the notice:

    This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.”

    They just know the reality of WT emissions, but they add that they have no responsibility and this would interract with pivate (commercial?) right…

    This is what we can call an adult attitude…


  6. Comment by bob mencel on 07/09/2013 at 8:34 am

    Surely by now people realize that this whole scam is also an experiment to show how long it takes for people to realize a threat to their own existence. It is a worldwide edict to collect a new form of tax for the wealthy. It also exemplifies the fact that corporations have stolen our democracy, and that we allowed them to do just that due to our own lack of vigilance.

    I can only hope the urban masses will wake up before it is too late.

  7. Comment by Mary Kay Barton on 07/10/2013 at 8:15 pm

    Thank you to all the patriots that have continued to stay after this obvious scam — especially Dr. Nina Pierpont and Dr. Sarah Laurie.

The comments are closed.