Niagara Wind’s Enercon Industrial wind turbines & others from adjacent complexes disturbing human, plant and animal life in Lowbanks, Ontario.
Protesters blocked the entrances to three wind turbine construction sites near Chatham Thursday morning. Five families are now reporting dirty water in their wells after pile driving for the construction of industrial wind turbines began.
Source: Fight to save water wells
“At the press conference were the people whose wells have been affected in the North Kent Wind 1 project area – Theresa Pumphrey, Paul and Jessica Brooks, Valerie and Wayne Brooksbank, and a representative for Mark Moir (Countryview Line).
Visibly upset, the property owners talked about the impact on their families’ health and fear about the black shale that is visible in the water that is known to carry arsenic, mercury and other harmful chemicals in it.”
 As described in greater detail below, the Approval Holder has proposed an amendment to the REA to include additional curtailment measures designed to reduce little brown myotis mortalities. The Tribunal finds that these additional measures, provided they are amended to require that they be implemented from sunset to sunrise, is likely to significantly reduce little brown myotis mortality over the life of the Project. However, as neither the Approval Holder nor the Director has proposed effective means to mitigate the serious harm to human health, as found by the Tribunal in its October 2016 Order, the Tribunal concludes that the decision of the Director should be revoked. As such, an amendment to the REA to address harm to little brown myotis via an amended mitigation plan is rendered unnecessary.
READ FULL DECISION & ORDERS HERE : 16-036 WIGGINS V. ONTARIO (MOECC)
Words and their meanings have powers that can impact our very well- being. Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II, of the Justice of the Superior Court ordered the cessation of the operations of the wind turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts. In giving his judgement he discusses findings and reasons while interpreting and applying the meanings of the words injurious and nuisance.
“Despite the Town’s insistence that Barry Funfar is hypersensitive to sound, it is clear that he is no lone voice crying in the wilderness. Other residents of the neighbouring area have registered similar complaints which was the very reason the Town commissioned the HMMH study in the first place.”
The Falmouth Enterprise August 11, 2017
A neighbor of the town’s turbines e-mailed us last week to say that we have been misleading the public by stating in recent stories that Judge Moriarty ruled that the turbines were a nuisance to the Funfar property. A nuisance, he wrote, is generally thought of as a neighbor mowing the lawn on a Sunday morning, whereas Judge Moriarty defined nuisance not only as an inconvenience but also a danger. He attached a copy of the judge’s decision for our reference.
In fact, Judge Moriarty went into a good deal of detail in a five-page discussion of his findings and decision.
First, he pointed out that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision that the turbines constituted a nuisance could not be overturned, as the board would have had to have been unreasonable or on legally untenable grounds. The appeals board found that the turbines were a nuisance to the Funfars’ property because, based on a DEP sound study, they directly affected the health and well-being of the Funfars. “The decision here was hardly arbitraray and capricious,” Judge Moriarty wrote.
But the issue here, of course, is the definition of nuisance. Judge Moriarty pointed out that nuisance is difficult to define and, as much testimony as there was about sound levels, none of it applies to the definition because there are no numerical standards. “The issue is,” he wrote, “whether, on the facts found, the operation of the wind turbines was offensive because of injurious or obnoxious noise or vibration, a nuisance in violation of the by-law.”
He pointed out that, while the town argued that Mr. Funfar was hypersensitive to sound, “it is clear that he is no lone voice crying in the wilderness. Other residents of the neighboring area have registered similar complaints…”
The judge discussed the definition of “injurious,” at some length and concluded that “the physical effects of the turbine-generated sound upon Mr. Funfar have been certainly harmful and have tended to injure him.”
There should be no mistake among the residents of Falmouth; when the appeals board and Judge Moriarty called the town turbines a “nuisance,” they did not mean it in the way of ants at a picnic or a dog barking in the night.
Judgement Town of Falmouth vs Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals et al
Wind Project Manager Calls Water ‘Visually Clear’
A North Kent Wind Project manager referred to a family’s water as “visually clear” in a press release, despite tests and photos that show otherwise.
Aecom, the engineering consultant behind the wind project, scheduled a site visit to sample the family’s water on Wednesday. According to Law, the tests show no issues.Senior Manager of Development Jody Law says the Ministry of Environment (MOE) notified him of Paul and Jessica Brooks’ complaint on Monday. Paul and Jessica Brooks live on Brook Line in North Kent and say they have been experiencing a plugged water pump from nearby wind tower pile driving.
“The sample was visually clear and colorless with no visible sediment. We have requested expedited analysis from the lab but, at this point, there is no empirical evidence of an issue,” says Law.
However, Water Wells First spokesperson Kevin Jakubec points out that a Ministry of Environment provincial officer made a visit to the home on Tuesday and found drastically different results.
According to Jakubec, the test results from the MOE show extremely high turbidity levels at 86.8 NTU. The Ontario Drinking Water Standard’s objective turbidity level is 5.0 NTU.
To meet conditions of the wind project’s permit, Pattern Development delivered a 2,000 gallon water tank from Ingersoll to the Brooks residence on Saturday.
“He said that there is no empirical evidence of an issue. I think the delivery of a water tank is recognition of an issue. Given that Mr. Law is the project manager, you’d hope he would know what is going on with this project,” says Jakubec.
Paul and Jessica Brooks demand that North Kent Wind executive Jody Law issues a full apology and retraction of his press release.Jakubec adds the project permit ensures that families, like the Brooks, who complain that their well has been affected by the turbines, do not have to pay for the costs of the investigation or water tanks……
READ ARTICLE: Blackburn News August 8, 2017
Pile driving for turbine foundation installations are again being associated to changes in a water well. Another day and another well impacted…
Sediment so thick it prevents water from coming through taps of Chatham Township family’s home
Eugene Clune who lives in Ballinvalley shared his family’s trauma and said that if he had the chance now he would approach things very differently.
‘My house is situated 800 metres from an industrial turbine and my four-year-old has slept, maybe two nights since last winter.
‘She would ask us why her granddad is outside on the digger in the middle of the night – because that is what it sounds like,’ he said.
Source: Crouck Substation Action Group
Published July 29, 2017: Independent IE
Friday, 14th July 2017 Wexford County, Ireland
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 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,
- 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.
- L1, L5, L10, L50, L90, L95 and L99,
- All of 1 and 2 above to be carried out at Fast time weighing,
- 1/3 Octave measurements from 6 Hz to 20 KHz,
- Narrow Band Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis extending from 0 Hz to 200 Hz,
- Analysis for amplitude modulation,
- 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,
- Wind speed and direction at 10 metres is to be recorded during the survey,
- 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:
- 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,
- Compliance with the Dept of Environment, Community and Local Government, Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006, in so far as they relate to noise standards,
- 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
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.
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.
For further information please contact firstname.lastname@example.org , Senior Executive Scientist.
Source: Wexford County Council
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”
Source: National Wind Watch
Dr John Yelland, Professor Mariana Alves Pereira & Professor Alun Evans presentation at Tullamore Eire, Ireland (also Melvin Grosvenor INWG in attendance)