All posts by mum4kids

Lake Erie faces threat of offshore wind turbines

global flywaysWind turbines are proposed to be installed on Lake Erie as LEEDCO project developers re-submit documents previously deemed incomplete.  Environmentalists continue to raise alarms of serious harmful impacts to marine and avian species. If construction goes ahead well over 2 000 industrial wind turbines could crowd the waters of Lake Erie.  The Great Lakes are an important ecosystem and host location for globally significant flyways used by large numbers of migrating birds, bats and insects (such as monarch butterflies) from the far reaches of the world.

23109988-mmmain
A crane and drilling barge was anchored in Lake Erie about 8 to 10 miles northwest of Cleveland in 2015 at the site where LEEDCo hopes to build a six-turbine wind farm. Technicians were taking core samples and conducting other soil tests of the lake bottom for engineering studies.(John Funk/Plain Dealer file photo)

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The developers seeking to build North America’s first freshwater offshore wind project in Lake Erie moved a step closer to obtaining an essential state certification this week.

The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. submitted two key environmental applications detailing its plans for monitoring and analyzing the impact of the six-turbine wind farm on birds, bats and fish.

Approval of the plans by the Ohio Power Siting Board is required before LEEDCo can proceed with construction of the $126 million Icebreaker Wind project planned for a site about eight to 10 miles northwest of Cleveland.

LEEDCo originally filed the two documents in April, but the applications were determined to be out of compliance, and were returned for an endorsement by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

“We’ve been working with ODNR for the past few months,” said LEEDCo’s Beth Nagusky. “These are the documents the siting board required. Once they are approved, the board will issue a public notice and continue the permitting process.”

Each of the so-called memorandums of understanding lays out plans to evaluate the environmental conditions at the lake site prior to the start of construction, during construction, and after the wind farm is built and operational….

The wind farm’s impact of greatest concern to birders and environmentalists involves the potential for high mortality rates due to collisions by birds and bats into the spinning fan blades.

LEEDCo acknowledges this fear in its document, but warns that monitoring and documenting casualties from collisions are difficult and pose unique hurdles not found at land-based wind farms.

READ REST OF ARTICLE

WI070625_151.tif

Tillsonburg Wind Turbine Blade Plant Closes

Workers locked out of a wind turbine blade plant in Tillsonburg Ontario were called to a community hall a few days later and given their dismissal notices.  The plant is shutting  down as not being economically viable.  The plant’s opening protested by those who oppose the harms of wind power installations and its closing came a very short 6 years later.  Hundred of workers in a small community now without work as wind industry jobs proved to be temporary.  The turbine blade plant in Windsor now placed on a watch list for a similar and predicted demise.  Ontario’s green energy economy an illusion that has been running on rate payer generated subsidies.

Kelly McParland: Another wheel flies off Ontario’s green energy bus, and lands on 340 workers

Despite overwhelming evidence that governments do badly when they try to remove the freedom from free enterprise, Wynne and McGuinty ploughed ahead with their green energy vision

When former premier Dalton McGuinty visited the new Siemens Canada plant in Tillsonburg in 2011, he brushed aside protesters and boasted that the plant was part of the Liberal alternative energy plan that would “put us at the forefront in North America.”

The plant made windmill blades. Windmills were the future. Clean energy was what McGuinty’s two-year-old Green Energy Act was all about. It would free the province of old, dirty manufacturing and introduce new, cutting-edge jobs that would make Ontario the envy of the world.

Just six years later the plant is closing. Management says big changes in the wind industry make it no longer viable. The cutting edge plant that was to help lead Ontario into the Valhalla of a clean energy future can’t survive in a market that wants bigger blades.

McGuinty has long since faded into retirement. He chose to step down rather than endure further questioning about an earlier energy fiasco. There was no sign of his successor, Kathleen Wynne, outside the factory, Tuesday, as newly-jobless workers sought an explanation for the closure. “There was quite a bit of anger in there because they shut the place down the other night and never really told anybody about it,” one complained to The London Free Press. “It was bang, everything was locked down.”

READ REST OF National Post ARTICLE

Extensive Noise Survey of Wind Projects Wexford County 2016

Friday, 14th July 2017  Wexford County, Ireland

Map of windfarms

In-depth, extensive noise survey

On foot of a number of complaints from the public of noise nuisance from wind farms in north Wexford, Wexford Co Co commissioned RPS Engineering in early 2016 to carry out an in-depth, extensive noise survey of the sound emitting from adjacent wind farms and their wind turbines.

The wind farms included in the noise survey were;

1.    Gibbet Hill, planning ref: 2009 0266 – view Gibbet report (PDF,  8.84MB)
2.    Knocknalour, planning ref 2011 0504 – view Knocknalour report (PDF,  24.7MB)
3.    Ballycadden, planning ref 2009 1730 – view Ballycadden report (PDF,  12.8MB)
4.    Ballynancoran, planning ref 2003 3444 – view Ballynancoran report (PDF,  24.6MB)

Map of the four wind turbines and the position of the individual turbines

The Survey

The scope of noise survey carried out, exceeded the requirements of the DEHLG noise guidance for wind farms and the requirements of most countries with well developed wind legislation. It involved inter-alia the continuous simultaneous acoustic monitoring at 4 wind farm sites, and eventually involved 13 noise meters being simultaneously deployed. In addition to noise meters a number of rain gauges and 10 metre high wind speed masts were also utilised to gather weather data.

The extended duration of this noise survey, 8 weeks at 8 sites and over 6 months at 3 sites, and the wide extent of noise parameter measurements and meteorological parameters carried out, ensured that account was made of practically all environmental and meteorological conditions experienced at the sites during the noise survey, such as differing wind speeds, directions, air temperature and particular meteorological conditions as experienced at the sites. This included the measurement of noise during periods of winter time cold temperatures with little or no wind (temperature inversions) so as to measure the noise impact during possible worst case scenarios.

Noise Survey Parameters

The survey required the following measurements to be carried out at the 13 measurement sites,

  1. L(A)Eq, L(A)Min, L(A)Max, L(A)Peak, L(C)Eq, L(C)Min, L(C)Max, L(C)Peak, L(Z)Eq, L(Z)Min, L(Z)Max, L(Z)Peak.
  2. L1, L5, L10, L50, L90, L95 and L99,
  3. All of 1 and 2 above to be carried out at Fast time weighing,
  4. 1/3 Octave measurements from 6 Hz to 20 KHz,
  5. Narrow Band Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis extending from 0 Hz to 200 Hz,
  6. Analysis for amplitude modulation,
  7. Both 5 and 6 analysis above are to be carried out at one or two measurement sites at each wind farm for a minimum period of 2 hours, during the noise survey with environmental conditions suspected to result in tonal elements or amplitude modulation,
  8. Wind speed and direction at 10 metres is to be recorded during the survey,
  9. Rainfall occurrences, time and date and amounts and at each wind farm are to be recorded,

Audio was also recorded at each site at a number of occasions at a sufficient sampling and bit rate to allow further analysis, eg FFT and amplitude modulation.

This study also includes an assessment report for each wind farm addressing their compliance regarding noise emissions under the following headings:

  1. Compliance with planning conditions on the Wind Farms being tested and or predicted sound levels at noise sensitive locations as per the planning application submitted EIS,
  2. Compliance with the Dept of Environment, Community and Local Government, Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006, in so far as they relate to noise standards,
  3. Comment on the sound with regard to noise standards in
    – UK and other countries with well developed wind energy infrastructure and regulations
    – WHO noise limits for night-time noise
    – Presence of tones, low frequencies, amplitude modulation
    – On the likelihood of noise nuisance as per Section 108 of the EPA Act No 7 of 1992.

The survey was carried out in accordance with best international practice and in accordance with the most up to date Institute of Acoustics guidance for noise measurements of wind turbines/wind farms. This also included the anticipated recommendations of the Institute of Acoustics guidance document on Amplitude Modulation (IOA Noise Working Group (Wind Turbine Noise) Amplitude Modulation Working Group, Final Report, A Method for Rating Amplitude Modulation in Wind Turbine Noise), which was published in August 2016, during the noise survey, and included reference measurement methodologies, instrument placement, signal analysis, etc.

Public access to raw data

All of the raw the acoustic and audio data utilised in the analysis of these reports is available to the public on request.  Due to the attendant problems the public may encounter with downloading online, very large data files associated with the raw data, Wexford County Council will be making the data available via portable hard drives. So as to protect both Wexford County Council and the end user from computer viruses etc, ensure IT security and to prevent corruption of the data, Wexford Co Co will copy the raw data from the Wexford County Councils master copy on to a new portable 250 GB hard drive, which will be supplied at the purchase cost of the hard drive.

The Software to access the raw data files is available to download from the following websites:

Raw Noise Data Files
Bruel & Kjaer Measurement Partner Suite 

Raw Weather Data
NRG Systems Symphonie Data Retriever Software

Re-Use of Public Sector Information

Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 (SI 279 of 2005)

All of the information featured on this website and the raw data is copyright of Wexford County Council unless otherwise indicated. Wexford County Council complies with the regulations on the Re-use of Public Sector Information, and we encourage the re-use of the information that we produce.

You may re-use the information on this website and the raw data free of charge in any format. Re-use includes copying, issuing copies to the public, publishing, broadcasting and translating into other languages. It also covers non-commercial research and study.

Re-use is subject to the following conditions:
•    the source and copyright must be acknowledged in cases where the information is supplied to others
•    the information must be reproduced accurately and fully
•    the information must not be used in a misleading way
•    the information must not be used for the principal purpose of advertising or promoting a particular product or service
•    the information must not be used for, or in support of, illegal, immoral, fraudulent, or dishonest purposes
•    the information must not be used in a manner that would imply endorsement by Wexford County Council or in a manner likely to mislead others
•    any Wexford County Council crest, logo or mark must not be reproduced except where such crest, logo or mark forms an integral part of the document being re-used
•    Wexford County Council is not liable for any loss or liability associated with the re-use of information and does not certify that the information is up-to-date or error free
•    Wexford County Council does not authorise any user to have exclusive rights to the re-use of its information
For more details on information held on our website, please contact out FOI officer.

Next Step

Copies of the reports have been sent to the complainants and the wind farm operators. Wexford County Council is currently assessing the contents of the reports and following evaluation of the results Wexford County Council will issue further updates in due course.

Further Information

For further information please contact brendan.cooney@wexfordcoco.ie , Senior Executive Scientist.

Source: Wexford County Council

Grey Highlands 2012 Wind Turbine Noise Study

Author: Kouwen, Nicholas Kouwen, Nicholas

These are the results of nearly six months of continuous sound measurements away from and near industrial wind turbines (IWT’s) at five locations in Grey Highlands, ON, Canada. The measurement protocol was designed to allow for corrections to account for wind induced noise resulting in findings that are directly comparable to the MOE tables. The results indicate that for three IWT sites studied, the recorded sound pressure levels (SPL’s) exceeded MOE’s noise limits a majority of the time for non‐participating receptors outside the minimum distance of 550 m and outside the 40 dBA SPL contours calculated by consultants engaged by the wind developers. The other two sites were used to measure background noise levels.

Download original document: “Grey Highlands 2012 Wind Turbine Noise Survey

Grey-Highlands-fig1

 

Source: National Wind Watch

Wind Turbine Testing Creating A Stir

unifor-WIND-TURBINE-570
The saga continues for some residents over acoustic testing of the UNIFOR wind turbine in Port Elgin.

Port Elgin | by John Divinski

Saugeen Shores Deputy Mayor Luke Charbonneau says if a province-set deadline date has been missed then the turbine should be shut down by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

But that hasn’t happened suggesting the “Ministry isn’t super keen on sorting it out.”

Charbonneau says many residents have complained multiple times but acoustic testing isn’t being done from where complaints have been filed.

He says one resident complained some 20-times during the period when testing was taking place but no testing was done in that affected area.

Charbonneau says residents are being left in “limbo.”

He says, “People are being bothered by the noise and yet we can’t ever get an ccoustic audit that meets the criteria to determine whether their complaints are justified.”

Charbonneau says the current testing has been going on for the past 6 to 8 weeks but apparently they don’t have enough data to do a proper acoustic audit.

He says, “It’s been plenty windy enough to be annoying people in the neighbourhood around the turbine.”

The deputy mayor says most of the testing has been done on the south side of County Road 25 where there haven’t been a lot of complaints.

unifor wind turbine a
Unifor’s Enercon industrial wind turbine generating noise complaints

Noise from wind turbines may cancel a Sale

good neigboursParis – The noise of new wind turbines may justify the cancellation of the purchase of a house if the buyer claims it.

The purchaser, faced with this nuisance, may in fact invoke his own misjudgment which has vitiated his consent, especially if he has been preoccupied with the environment before buying, judges the Court of Cassation.

Although no one is at fault, the error of one of the parties leads to a defect in his consent which justifies the handing over of things to their former state, that is to say the reciprocal restitution of the house and its price, Admit the judges.

Since the construction of wind turbines is not a question of town planning, it may not be reported as such to the future purchaser, To inform the city council on urbanism projects, observes the judges.

This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences.

In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisance. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. 

(Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337)

This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences. In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

Installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences. In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

While knowing the project, no one could imagine the extent of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

Google translate Original text in French:

Link to Court Decision

Le bruit des éoliennes peut annuler une vente  

french wind project
Installation of wind turbines in France

Multiple Wind Turbine Lawsuits Remain Up In The Air

By DERRICK PERKINS  Falmouth News

As Falmouth selectmen consider challenging a cease-and-desist order that left the community’s second wind turbine inoperable, they are taking into account all legal action surrounding the town-owned machines near Blacksmith Shop Road.

Since construction, Wind 1 and Wind 2 have drawn the ire of neighbors. Complaints include excess noise, harmful health effects, drops in property values and officials failing to follow proper rules as they allowed the projects to move forward.

A Barnstable County Superior Court judge’s decision agreeing with the zoning board of appeals in deeming Wind 2 a nuisance—and ordering it shut down—is the most recent development to garner headlines. Wind 1 powered down in 2015 after officials failed to earn a special permit from the town appeals board following another round of litigation brought on by abutters.

In a statement released after a lengthy June 26 executive session on the issue, selectmen asked all litigants to renew efforts to resolve the various legal actions involving the wind turbines outside of court.

The most pressing is the suit recently weighed in on by Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II. Selectmen have until July 20 to decide whether to appeal, according to Town Counsel Frank K. Duffy Jr.

They likely will continue deliberating the issue in executive session—closed to the public—before their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, July 10, Town Manager Julian M. Suso said. The next time selectmen are expected to meet is during a joint session with the planning board set for July 24—four days after the deadline.

Were selectmen to fight the ruling, the case would be heard in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

A similar case is pending in Barnstable Superior Court. The town is appealing a decision by the zoning board of appeals to grant relief to neighbor Neil P. Andersen, who successfully argued the two turbines constituted a nuisance. A scheduling conference for that case is set for September, Mr. Duffy said.

A case pending in the Massachusetts Land Court revolves around the zoning board of appeals’ aforementioned decision to reject a special permit for operation of Wind 1. The town is appealing that ruling, and a trial assignment conference is scheduled for September, Mr. Duffy said.

Three common law cases also are pending in Barnstable Superior Court. Funfar v. Town of Falmouth, Ohkagawa v. Town of Falmouth and Elder et al v. Town of Falmouth all seek financial damages because of the nuisance caused by one or both of the turbines. None have been scheduled yet, Mr. Duffy said.

Decisions that went in town hall’s favor include one in a case arguing Wind 2 also needed a special permit to operate. A Barnstable Superior Court judge ruled in June that the effort had come too late in the process.

Still, Barry and Diane Funfar, the plaintiffs, could appeal, Mr. Duffy said.

In Laird v. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals, the plaintiff argued officials needed to apply regulations approved since the construction of the turbines on a request for a special permit to operate. The court sided with the appeals board.

In April, a Barnstable County Superior Court jury rejected a common law nuisance case brought forward by Mr. Andersen, who sought financial compensation for physical injury, lost property value and income.

Falmouth stands to lose a significant amount of money if litigation keeps the turbines powered down. Wind 1 largely was funded through a $5 million loan, which the town pays about $400,000 toward annually, whether or not it operates.

To erect Wind 2, the town sought a $4.85 million loan through the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust. Although the loan initially offered interest-free by the trust, officials there have threatened to charge Falmouth principal and interest if the turbine ceases operating.

Additionally, the town has an agreement with the Mass Clean Energy Center, which helped defray some of the costs associated with Wind 1, to generate renewable energy over the course of several years.

falmouth wind turbines 3
Selectmen To Study Turbine Issue Further Before Appealing

Falmouth Wind Turbines- What is Really Going on in This Town ?

barry funfarThis letter is in regards to the Wind Turbines in Falmouth, MA & is meant to reach those of you who perhaps do not know what the Town of Falmouth is currently, and for the past 7 years, putting some of our Falmouth residents & their families through. My Dad, Barry Funfar, is one of those residents. His entire family, is one of those families.

Perhaps not everyone realizes that there are many people in our town that are seriously, both physically & mentally, affected by the adverse effects of the wind turbines that were erected in Falmouth WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS in 2010 & 2011….two 1.65MWatt turbines that are of a size proven to cause serious harmful effects in some humans if placed & operated too close to residential areas.

So far, these machines & their harmful effects have resulted in some Falmouth residents having to close their businesses or move out of their homes, or both. Some had businesses at their homes, so there was no escaping…except to do just that…escape by having to leave their homes. There are residents in our town who would still be fighting for their rights to shut down & remove the wind turbines & live peacefully again in their own homes, however financially, they could not continue to afford the legal fees to do so. Some people in Falmouth continue the legal battle yet have to leave their homes during the hours of turbine operation because it is too unbearable otherwise. Some resort to sleeping in their basements to attempt to get away from the overwhelming vibrations of these machines. Symptoms experienced from the turbines vary amongst individuals but examples include: anxiety, panic, dizziness, headaches, sleep disturbance, blood pressure elevation, nausea, vertigo, stress, ear pressure or pain, memory & concentration deficits, irritability & anger….just to name a few.

I believe it is very important that people know that the tactics the Town of Falmouth is using to break down those trying to stand up for their rights, in my opinion, are sickening, demeaning, and outright wrong. Although even the Barnstable Superior Court ruled the turbines were a nuisance to some people whose homes were nearby, the town is attempting to overturn my Dad’s nuisance claim that he filed, and won, by saying that “because of Mr. Funfar’s pre-existing condition of PTSD, he is not a normal person with normal sensitivities.” Furthermore, he has been referred to by the town, as “not an ordinary citizen.”

My Dad…not an ordinary citizen??! And trying to overturn his nuisance ruling because he has PTSD??! This is absurd, illogical & again flat out wrong.

What exactly is an “ordinary citizen?” My Dad, Barry A. Funfar, voluntarily signed up with the United States Marine Corp in 1966 to serve our country as a proud citizen of the United States of America. In 1968-69, he completed 2 tours, 19 months, in Vietnam, volunteering again, for the 2nd tour. My Dad was a helicopter door gunner. Door gunners do not have a long life span.. My Dad is my Dad because he somehow survived 127 missions as a Marine Door Gunner. A miracle, really, if you read the statistics.

PTSD…my Dad did not know he suffered from this until 2003 when he first learned that help was available through the VA. Although at the time he had never heard of PTSD, he knew something was not right. He was diagnosed with PTSD & 100% disabled because of it. Wow. He had done a great job until that time enduring & succeeding in his life while underneath he was suffering. Finally he had found some relief through the VA….individual and group counseling, at first 5 days a week, in Providence. It helped him so much & to this day he will tell anyone who wants to know, how thankful he is to the VA for giving him his life back, as he puts it. He continues to visit the VA in Providence weekly for his group counseling meeting.

Gardening… this was a huge part of his therapy. Working in his yard, creating his own oasis. He was even invited to have his yard as part of the West Falmouth Garden Tour, and people visited…not just during the tour, but at all different times, just because it was so different & so beautiful. Gardening & his yard was his passion. A special place indeed for my parents, as this has been there home since 1979 after my Dad built it from the ground up himself, intending to live there forever. His first grandchild, Brendan, born in 2003 spent his first years gardening with his Grandpa in the beautiful grounds my Dad had created that surrounded my parents’ home. Life was good.

In 2010, this all abruptly halted, with the start of Wind 1, which has been determined, in court, as not being constructed with the proper permits. It was immediate hell for my Dad to even be outside while the machine was operating. It severely triggered his PTSD…feeling the vibrations in his chest of the spinning blades was as if he was back in the helicopter in Vietnam. The anxiety & panic attacks, according to his doctors, were and are, potentially life threatening. To say the least, he could no longer work in his own yard, on his own property…& at times, even inside my Dad & Mom’s house, the turbines powerful effects reached them both. The amazing leaps & bounds of progress my Dad had made in regards to managing his PTSD, were rapidly reversing.

Today, it is upsetting to me to even be in their yard as it is now a jungle. It is no longer beautiful. I’m grateful that my older son Brendan now has a passion for gardening himself, but my younger & only other child, Kody, who was born in 2007, only remembers from photos, the short opportunity he had to experience this kind of time with Grandpa in Grandpa’s once safe haven. Brendan will never be 7 years younger. Kody will never be 7 years younger. This time can never be replaced. Not only has my Dad been stripped of this time with his grandchildren, of which you can not put a price tag on, but he has had to spend, so far, the past 7 years fighting for not just his & my Mom’s rights, but for all of those Falmouth citizens whose lives have been turned inside out because of turbines being wrongfully placed. Daily, my parents continue fighting for the right to be able to stay in their home, peacefully, without the severely intrusive and harmful distress of the gigantic machines in their backyard, just 1660 and 1550 feet away.

“Do what is right, not what is easy.” In all regards of his life, I know that from the bottom of his heart, this is what my Dad stands for. He has told me that giving up, as the town is so desperately trying to get him to do, goes against everything he believes in and would undoubtedly send the wrong message to everyone involved including his own grandchildren. My Dad served his country, has PTSD because of it and now the Town of Falmouth dares to use this against him. Barry Funfar is a successfully retired Falmouth business owner, a past & current town meeting member and more than anything, he is devoted to his family. My Mom, by his side since the day they met upon my Dad’s return from Vietnam, has dedicated most of her career to the Town of Falmouth as a math teacher & was also a Falmouth town meeting member. They worked hard and saved well, however as the amount of legal fees continues to grow, their savings, not to mention their precious and well deserved retirement years, are depleting far faster than they ever anticipated.

Again, it is beyond my comprehension to fathom how it is the town continues to not just witness people’s physical, mental & emotional well being crumble, but to ruthlessly support and encourage the cause of it, especially knowing the proper permits were not attained. I can’t help but ask myself over and over, particularly when trying to answer my children’s questions, “Why is this seemingly endless battle going on AT ALL?” THE TURBINES SHOULD NOT BE WHERE THEY ARE. PERIOD. How can human beings justify doing this to other human beings? How do those of you who fight this issue for the Town of Falmouth, explain this to your children? It is not just “wrong”. It is not just “unfortunate”. It is INHUMANE.

No resident of Falmouth should be suffering in any way, EVER, for any reason, because of a mistake made by the town…and on top if it, the Town of Falmouth is punishing the victims for it by demeaning their rights and degrading who they are as humans. Threatening to take their properties and homes by eminent domain has been yet another tactic in some of the Falmouth turbine cases in this town, including my parents’. Simply undignified. It is well beyond time to let people know what is really going on. My hope is that this letter will open some eyes & help with that. And perhaps the many many people who have asked me, “Why don’t your parents just move?” will have a better understanding of my response, “Because they’re doing what is right, not what is easy.”

Sincerely,
Kristi D. Funfar
5/2/2017

Falmouth Patch

falmouth wind turbines 3

It is finally time

indiana
Sunset horizon in Indiana dominant landscape feature being industrial wind turbines

Dear Editor,

After being awakened for the ump-teenth time by these grinding, screeching, humming, squealing, house vibrating, jet sounding, phone interrupting, television disturbing, internet interfering, shadow flickering, environmental impacting, property value lowering, aesthetic degrading, red-light blaring obtrusive monsters known as Industrial wind turbines, (IWT), thrust upon us without our permission – It is finally time to thank the uninformed, seemingly uncaring, self-serving, publicly elected officials, for having the audacity to vote in favor of a project that they knew so little about that would forever change the lives of so many people that they are supposed to work to protect, all because a smooth tongued, representative from a less than ethical company was able to pull the wool over their eyes by making promises of untold booty with undoubtedly, falsified studies of sound, resident acceptance and environmental impact.

I would hope that these publicly elected officials are realizing how their actions have affected the residents of northeastern Tipton County. Thanks to them, our lives have changed forever, not for the better, but for a lifetime of interruptions and inconveniences, not only in the daytime, but 24-hours a day. This is not an issue that you can spend an hour or two or a day in the area and comprehend the negative impact it is having upon our lives.

You have to be here for extended periods of time because there will be instances that the wind doesn’t blow, yet the humming and screeching will continue as the IWTs search for wind. It was stated that residents would adjust, getting used to these monsters, but alas, this is not happening when you are awakened at two or three a.m. by something that sounds as if it is in your house and upon investigating you find that it is an IWT. It has been suggested that we move, however, finding anyone to purchase our property for the true value it had before the IWTs were present is impossible.

As I realize this letter will serve no purpose to alleviate the situation in Tipton County, I would hope it could inform others of the irritating intrusions of IWTs. These monsters have absolutely no place in a community as populated as Tipton County. Also, I am hoping this will lead elected officials to better investigative procedures before signing on the dotted line.

Although I have not read nor have I seen it, I understand that one of those responsible officials has written some form of apology or regret about their actions. This would show the great character and respect of that person to the citizenry, however, it does nothing to alleviate the intrusions.

Respectfully,

Fred McCorkle

Windfall, Indiana 

Published April 20, 2016 The Courier-Times