Category Archives: Direct Effects

Niagara Wind Turbines & Battle for Rights

1My project is the Niagara Region Wind, which consists of 77, 3.0 MW 124m height, plus the blade length which is 101m tip to tip. These turbines exceeds the span of a Boeing 747. In my backyard. I live in Haldimand County.

It is very hard to post everything about the projects, from noise, visual pollution, a community driven apart and divided, to human health, environmental health, the corruption uncovered, the rights you no longer have and the push backs from every single level of government there is. Not one single level of government will converse with you, they have a standard response they give to everyone.

I have one IWT 680m from my home, 417m to my property line. I have one 1022m from my home, another 1322m from my home and a transfer station is 900m to my home. Within 3km’s of my home there is at least 20+ turbines.

I live remotely, dead end street with 23 beautiful acres.
It’s a very different life. There is no more quiet space. There isn’t any quiet time anywhere. They are enormous, unsightly. Visually distracting, Visually disturbing, night and day. At night I have blinking red lights that penetrate our home.

I am on a prescription for vertigo, cabin pressure and motion sickness. This is a way of life I have never dreamed of living, nor thought would ever happen. This is MY new life, not chosen by me, but rammed down my throat by the incompetent greedy corrupt liberals. Yes, the prescription helps to lessen the symptoms and at times debilitating pain, but I am on a DRUG to remain in my home most days (forced out some days).

Let me explain something. I have fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Both of which I do not medicate or take any scribe for. I manage with a healthy lifestyle and staying active. Now, in order to not be hospitalized for violent episodes of vertigo, balance loss and vomiting, I MUST remain on a prescription.

I can not convey my anger at this situation correctly. I can not convey to those who do not have turbines exactly what it is like to live with them. It is an experience that goes beyond ones ability to express correctly.

How do you tell people, the turbines haunt you 24/7. How do you explain to people the turbines and the IFS and LFS keep you awake all night.

I continue to battle for my rights. The same rights given to every Canadian and the same rights laid out in the constitution. But when you learn the GEA 2009 has over ridden rights, over ridden by-laws, abolished the MOECC, MNR rights and so on, you know you don’t live in Kansas anymore.

I am more than willing to discuss this on an ongoing basis.
Later I will post videos of the noise, the view from my living room and explain that as a mother how your FIGHT mode is triggered when a minor in your home is adversely affected. How you quietly retreat to your room to cry in overwhelming shame; Shame you can not provide a safe home for your family and yourself.

I truly am a different person than I was 7 months ago.

With each write to the government and agencies, I remind them I did not give up my rights, I did not consent to be a human trial project and their blatant disregard for human health will have consequences.

Lastly, I’d like to mention I have a fantastic Doctor. Most GP’s think its all in your head. My doctor understands LF’s and IFS. Due to the immense cabin pressure in my ears he acknowledges it’s time to start tracking nerve damage seeing as we are at the early stages, nerve damage which will cause hearing loss. I will be going for extensive hearing tests until further notice.
There is so much more to write….

Sandy Max,  Haldimand County
March 2017

Niagara Wind turbines came online November 2016: 

Toolkit for Turbines

house-surrounded-by-wind-turbines“Pressures to stop (new) wind energy production in Ontario have increased significantly since the controversial GEA. “

Opposition to wind turbines is facing a growing resistance not just in Ontario but globally. The acceptance and excitement over using an alternative way to generate electricity has  given way to the bitter nightmare  faced by abutting residents who are adversely impacted by these massive and intrusive structures. Courts worldwide are increasingly rendering decisions to compensate families and individuals who have been harmed.

The Toolkit document opines (give it a read and try not to choke on the obvious) as to why a few (smaller) turbines in a less densely populated rural area will meet with less resistance than clusters of hundreds (increasingly larger machines) placed adjacent to towns and settled areas.   It is suggested that entering into a more intimate relationship with wind development will mitigate the harms of not being able to give consent.

This is a false and misleading conclusion as landowners who host wind turbines have given witness that they too were harmed even when money was received.

“The ultimate goal is fairer and much less divisive turbine facility siting outcomes when governments and communities themselves decide that turbine development is the policy path they wish to pursue.”  Toolkit for Turbines: Wind Energy Development in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada

Harm from wind power will not be remedied with the stated goal. The document fails to address a fundamental flaw in reasoning- which is to examine if turbines justify the negative documented outcomes. Simply put the wind turbines are not fit for purpose. To continue to pursue an energy policy that accepts inflicting harm on a few without remedy and without proven benefits for the greater good is wilful blindness.

Protesters demonstrated in Oakville where Premier Kathleen Wynne was the guest speaker at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

Enercon Admits Liability for Noise Pollution

Niagara Wind’s Enercon wind turbines in West Lincoln, Ontario

In Irish High Court Enercon admitted its liability for claims of noise pollution created by its wind turbines.  Several families in Cork sued the wind turbine manufacturer claiming the noise from its wind turbines were creating ill health that resulted in some of the families having to abandon their homes.  The decision is being watched closely worldwide. This  lawsuit has implications for Niagara Wind project in Ontario as some residents are already reporting ill health and negative symptoms since the installation was commissioned in late 2016.

Wind farm being sued by families admits its liability

Monday, February 06, 2017

By Claire O’Sullivan
Irish Examiner Reporter

The case is next listed for hearing on April 25, and will be closely observed by many of the families living in close proximity to wind farms and who claim that there should be a greater distance between homes and turbines.

The case against Enercon Windfarm Services Ireland Ltd and Carrigcannon Wind Farm Ltd was taken by the Shivnen family and another six households in Banteer including couples, families, and one single occupant.

The householders had claimed their health had been affected by the noise emanating from the turbines since they began operating in November 2011.

Planning regulation around wind turbines remain governed by 2006 guidelines which allow companies to build turbines within 500m of private dwellings.

Updated guidelines stipulating how far wind turbines should be set back from residential homes are three years overdue.

These guidelines will also deal with noise and ‘shadow flicker’ from the turning blades.

Up to 7,000 submissions were made in the public consultation process that followed the issuing of draft guidelines by the then minister for housing Jan O’Sullivan, which set down a mandatory minimum setback of 500m “for amenity considerations”.

The draft guidelines also set a maximum day and night noise limit of 40 decibels for future wind energy development, measured outdoors at the home nearest to the wind turbine.

The guidelines also stipulated that there should be no shadow flicker at home within 10 ‘rotor diameters’ of a turbine.

The Shivnen case appeared before Mr Justice Gilligan on December 6 where the Court recorded that liability had been admitted by the defendants.

A spokesman for Enercon was unavailable for comment.

A spokesman for the Department of Housing, Planning Community, and Local Government said that, due to the programme for government, ongoing policy, and legal developments, the Department is continuing “to advance work on the guidelines and related matters in conjunction with the Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, in order to bring the various issues to a conclusion as early as possible”.

“It is expected that a statement on the matter will be made in the coming weeks, outlining the timelines for implementation of the various elements,” said the spokesman.


Prove Your Wind Turbines are Safe

Water droplet with the earth in it.Regarding the Courier Press story, Otter Creek says there’s no proof that wind turbines are responsible for dirty water.

The headline of that story captures the essence of what’s wrong with Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Rather than providing proof that their turbines won’t harm well water, the developers are quite content with casting doubt about harm because they know the government will approve their project if they can create the slightest hint of doubt… the precautionary principle be damned.

This is perhaps the biggest flaw in the Green Energy Act that wind developers are only too happy to exploit — the burden of proof for proving harm rests with the individual residents. 

This is an impossible barrier for individuals with limited resources. The onus rightfully belongs on the Otter Creek developers to prove their turbines will not cause harm to the wells, rather than engage a consultant to review another consultant’s report, which in turn was based on other reports from other consultants; none of whom have bothered to actually test the water in the Dover wells.

This statement by Otter Creek project manager Marc Weatherill is one example of wind developers attitude towards local residents when he stated: “A lot of the claims have been based on anecdotal evidence or experience.”

The “experience” of residents in Dover, after nearby turbines have been installed, has been turbid well water that reeks of hydrocarbons. Their experience has been that they must buy bottled water for drinking and cooking, and some make regular trips to laundromats to wash their clothing.

Their experience has been that their horses would rather drink water at roadside ditches instead of the well water.

Their experience has been that the filters provided to some have not been effective in providing them with clean water.

Perhaps Mr. Weatherill should visit some of the well owners in Dover and taste their water before he dismisses their claims as merely “anecdotal” and not worthy of further investigation.

Mr. Weatherill also claims that if the Water Wells First group provided scientific data that proves their claims, they would be grateful and happily review the information and details.

He also states that, “What we said to them is, look we want to understand your concern, we want to understand the issue but we need to see it laid out for us.”

Seriously, he wants the residents to do his work for him.

Otter Creek’s selected turbine model, the Enercon 141, with a nominal output of 4.2 MW, will be the largest deployed in Ontario with a nacelle height of 129 metres and a rotor diameter of 141 meters.  There’s enormous potential for vibration, and yet Adam Rosso, project development director for Boralex, said there are no plans on doing baseline testing on water wells in and around the Otter Creek Wind Farm area. And Mr. Weatherill added: “If that’s something that is required of us then we will, but as of right now we don’t have any plans to do that.”

I would point out that the Otter Creek developers hope to vacuum about $218 million directly out of the ratepayers’ pockets over the 20-year life of the contract. Since the Minister of Energy has acknowledged that Ontario has a “robust supply” of generating capacity for the next decade, we will pay the Otter Creek owners about $100 million over the next 10 years in exchange for exactly zero net benefit. The cost of baseline and ongoing water testing pales in comparison to the potential profit.

Confirming “there’s no proof that wind turbines are responsible for dirty water” is as simple as installing an in-line turbidity meter and data logger at several wells in key locations before construction and continuing past start-up. This would confirm the water quality throughout the entire process. If there was an increase in turbidity, the data logger would be able to pinpoint the exact time it occurred, which could then be compared with any activity such as pile driving for turbine bases or when the turbines are operating. If there’s no change in the water turbidity, it would be definitive proof that the turbines are not causing any problems with the wells.

This so obvious, that refusing to perform such simple and low-cost testing would result in the public perception that the developers are engaging in willful blindness, perhaps out of fear of the results.

Santo Giorno




People vs Wind Turbines

vive-a-la-resistance-2Ontario Superior Court- Goderich  January 19, 2017

Congratulations to Trish and Shawn Drennan!

You put a compelling and sensible case together and spoke with passion and the strength of truth behind your words today.  One comment was that some felt they were witnessing an important step in this fight.  I heard, from a lawyer, that a lawyer couldn’t have done a better job in arguing the case.  Most felt the judge really got it and it was in no small part because of the time, work, expense and personal sacrifice you’ve both given to this to put the facts on the table. 

You told the court the govt has put up an impossible barrier when we have to prove at an ERT that a turbine installation that isn’t built yet, will seriously harm us and that the judicial review confirmed the ERT’s decision.

You declared that the many witnesses who have come forward to testify that they have been harmed by turbines all over this province have not been given the gravity and respect they deserve for putting their testimony forward.  You told them the govt and the wind company KNOWS it will harm people even as the proposals and permits go ahead.  And I note that if the judge had asked, at least half or more of the people in that room today could have stood up and said, I am the evidence of harm from turbines.”

You told them that the difference between then and now, is now the switch has been turned on, the turbines are running and you too are being harmed.

The judge challenged the wind company and the MOE to tell him what remedy the Drennins have besides more time in court and we all watched them try to answer to no avail, because as was pointed out the only remedy right now is to move away. 

When the judge looked at the wind company lawyer and tried to paraphrase what the lawyer had just said to him with, “ So, the Drennins went to the ERT and judicial review, have complained to MOE, and still have no remedy, so it’s tough luck for them?  The wind company lawyer replied, “Yes.” which drew gasps of disbelief from the full gallery of people who attended.  

When it came time to argue about who should be named as defendants; wind company and /or govt., it was interesting to watch the judge watch both try to throw each other under the bus.

I await to hear the decision and keep fingers crossed that you can move forward. 

Thank you on behalf of a whole lot of us.

Lorrie Gillis


It’s Official- wind farms are a Damned Nuisance

lady-noiseThe link to the posting on The Law is My Oyster seems to be broken- so we have copied and pasted the posting.

The tort of Nuisance – basic principles

The law of (private) nuisance has been around for a long time but it has always been a poor neighbour to the more commonly litigated torts of negligence and trespass.

In a nutshell, a nuisance is “any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant’s] land or his use or enjoyment of that land”(Bamford v Turnley [1860] 3 B&S 62).  Private nuisance is a tort or civil wrong, unlike public nuisance, which is a crime.

Something that farmers leasing their land to wind farms might not know is that a landlord can be liable where the lease is granted for a purpose which constitutes a nuisance, as in Tetley v Chitty [1986] 1 All ER 663.

For there to be a claim in private nuisance, the claimant must show that the defendant’s actions caused damage. This can be physical damage, or discomfort and inconvenience. The test for remoteness of damage in nuisance is reasonable foreseeability. In other words, was it foreseeable that a wind turbine will cause discomfort and inconvenience to nearby dwellings?  The test is an objective one: was the nuisance reasonably foreseeable? If it was, the defendant is expected to avoid it.

It is impossible to specifically define what is or what is not unreasonable but factors that are taken into account include the nature of the locality where the nuisance took place, the time and duration of the interference and the conduct of the defendant.

The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions have caused an interference with their use or enjoyment of their land or home/property. These interferences are indirect, and almost always the result of continuing events rather than a one-off incident. The courts have allowed cases where the interference causes emotional distress, like continuous noise / infrasound for example.

The granting of planning permission does not constitute immunity from a claim in nuisance.

The families of Shivnen, Whelan/Walsh, Sexton, Sheehan, Duggan, McSweeney and O’Connor, versus Enercon Wind Farm Services  Ireland Limited and Carraigcannon Wind Farm Limited

It was with considerable interest then that we waited for the outcome of the action in nuisance brought by the seven families from Cork who were impacted by noise pollution from a nearby Enercon wind farm. A number of the families had to abandon their homes because of the severity of the noise and some lived up to a full kilometre from the wind farm.

A judgment against the wind farm would have constituted a powerful precedent to be used against the wind industry given the multitude of examples of Irish families living in misery due to unwelcome turbine neighbours. It was for that reason that the defendant settled the matter (probably at the instance of, and financial assistance from, IWEA). Although settlements are always better for the parties concerned as it avoids the huge emotional and financial cost of litigation, it does mean that we do not have that precedent in Irish law (although there are a number of foreign precedents – see

Although the defendant wind farm admitted liability (nuisance-order-dec-2016) the wind industry will seek to minimise this by arguing that this was a “one-off” situation for any fallacious reason that they can think of: “the unique terrain; the extraordinary sensitivity of the plaintiffs; etc etc.” Expect a carefully worded press release soon in your nearest rag.

There is still one more opportunity to achieve a damning precedent though. The case is listed for ten days in the High Court commencing 25th April 2017 to deal with damages and costs. If the High Court was to make a massive award of damages (i.e. in the millions of euros) that would send a very strong message to the wind industry that Ireland is simply not suitable to build wind farms, due to the scattered population leaving very little wide open spaces, and in they insist on building them next to people’s homes, they must be prepared to pay a lot of money, which is what the wind industry is all about anyway – money. Don’t believe all the “green” rhetoric – if you hit them hard in the pocket, they will leave, our subsidies notwithstanding.

It is for that reason that there will very likely be a financial settlement. Good news for the family involved – they can avoid the ten days of litigation and get on with their lives. Bad news for the Irish rural population, as again there will be no precedent and it is guaranteed that the settlement will come with a gag order that will prohibit any of the families disclosing the details of the financial settlement. One would almost pray for a wealthy benefactor to compensate the families up front so that the ten days’ litigation could continue (assuming that the notoriously conservative High Court would hand down a decent damages award in the millions). Any friendly millionaires out there willing to step up to the plate?

Electricity Costs Kills Belgium Hall


You Wynne We Lose. Sign outside Delhi Belgium Hall

Electricity Costs bring down Delhi Community Hall

It is claimed wind projects bring many economic benefits in a green economy to society but in reality they are killing the economic viability for many community groups. Expensive renewable energy contracts are a driving force pointed at as responsible for escalating the costs of electricity beyond sustainability.  Green ideology tearing apart the binding fabric of our communities one after another and another.

Club gives tip of the hat to Premier Wynne

By Monte Sonnenberg, Simcoe Reformer Thursday, December 29, 2016 6:15:22 EST PM

There will be no more banquets, wedding receptions, concerts, trade shows or public meetings at the Delhi Belgian Hall for the foreseeable future.

However, the Shields & Friends Lounge in the lower level of the sprawling complex will continue receiving patrons and serving drinks into 2017.

That according to the bar’s manager Kim Starling. Starling was hired in October soon after the Belgian Club announced it was pondering its future in the face of punishing utility bills and declining rentals.

In late October, the club executive announced that its financial problems were insurmountable and that the historic property would be sold.

They weren’t bluffing. Today, a sign is posted out front advertising the 30,000-square-foot building for sale. The asking price, according to the realtor’s website, is $899,000.

There is also a second sign out front expressing the club’s bitterness over skyrocketing electricity prices and what that has done to the hall’s viability as a community centre.

The sign says: “Hydro One 2016: $49,559. You Wynne, We Lose.”

Some of the hall’s monthly hydro bills this year were as high as $5,700. Even with 1,200 members, the club concluded it can’t go on carrying a burden like this.

The timing of the hydro whammy is especially unfortunate. The hall’s heating-ventilation-air conditioning system needs to be replaced. The building’s electrical system also needs updating.

If the club finds a buyer, Starling hopes the hall can continue forward in its current format.

“That would be nice,” she said Friday. “That’s how I’d like it to be. I’d hate to see the building go.”

In its promotional literature, realtor CBRE Ltd. of London says the 1.78-acre package has a lot of potential uses.

CBRE notes that 360 James Street has a service commercial zoning. In Norfolk County, this allows for a wide range of commercial applications.

The property, CBRE adds, comes with a “large lot with plenty of excess land for parking or further development.”

The Belgian Hall was founded in 1948 as a meeting place for the wave of Belgian families that settled in this part of southern Ontario after the Second World War. The hall earned a reputation in southern Ontario in the 1970s as a premier showcase for up-and-coming rock bands.

Acts that performed at the Belgian Hall include Ronnie Hawkins, Rush, Lighthouse, The Stampeders, April Wine, Max Webster, Blood, Sweat & Tears, and Bachman-Turner Overdrive.


Wind Turbine Noise Conference 2017


Noise made by industrial wind turbines will be generating a lot of discussion at the upcoming international conference May 2017 in Rotterdam.


Wind Turbine Noise 2017

Abstracts Accepted 2017

Here is a list of abstracts submitted for WTN 2017 in alphabetical order of lead author.

Presentations will be either oral, poster or part of a workshop session. The type of presentation will be notified when the full paper is accepted.

You can also download a PDF here

Managing tonality during the planning, design and construction of a wind farm. Justin Adcock, Christophe Delaire, Daniel Griffin, Alex Morabito.

Noise measurement on a Small Wind Turbine preliminary results. Mariano Amadio.

Trailing edge serrations – effect of their flap angle on flow and acoustics. Carlos Arce León, Roberto Merino-Martínez, Daniele Ragni, Stefan Pröbsting, Francesco Avallone, Ashish Singh, Jesper Madsen.

An investigation into the effect of wind shear on the noise emission of modern wind turbines. Payam Ashtiani, Duncan Halstead.

Airfoil noise reduction using active flow control. Mahdi Azarpeyvand, Mate Szoke, Weam Elsahhar, Yannick Mayer.

Investigation of Amplitude Modulation Noise with a Fully Coupled Noise Source and Propagation Model. Emre Barlas, Wei Jun Zhu, Wen Zhong Shen, Kaya Dag, Patrick Moriarty.

Windfarm noise assessment methodologies comparison: UNI 11143-7 and ISPRA guidelines. Different approaches, results, features. Andrea Bartolazzi, Michela Spizzichino.

Pre-construction Site Prediction Tool for Wind Farm AM – Do We Now Know Enough?. Jeremy Bass, Andrew Birchby.

Wind turbine noise – an overview of current knowledge and perspectives. Andrea Bauerdorff, Steffen Körper.

Coupled wind turbine noise generation and propagation – A numerical study. Franck Bertagnolio.

Wind turbine noise prediction using Olive Tree Lab. Alexis BIGOT, Panos ECONOMOU, Costas ECONOMOU.

The influence of aero-elastic coupling on rotor sound predictions. Remy Binois, Thomas Klemme, Sascha Erbsloeh.

Annual analysis of sound propagation from a boreal wind park. Karl Bolin, Ilkka Karasalo, Esbjörn Olsson.

Developing and presenting a unique and innovative acoustic installation template to offer a spatial, frequency and calibrated reproduction of a wind turbine noise to the public.. Dominique Bollinger, Xavier Falourd, Lukas Rohr.

Efficient tools for assessing the emergence, audibility and masking potential of wind turbine noise by background noise. Dominique Bollinger, Xavier Falourd, Romain Feuz, Patrick Marmaroli.

An Investigation into Short-Term Fluctuations in Amplitude Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise. Ian Bonsma, Nathan Gara, Brian Howe, Nick McCabe.

Wind turbine noise measurement in controlled conditions. Koen Boorsma, J.G. Schepers.

Use of the Acoustic Camera to accurately localise wind turbine noise soiurces and their Doppler shift. Stuart Bradley, Michael Kerscher,, Torben Mikkelsen.

The Challenges and Benefits of Long-Term Noise Monitoring of Wind Farm Sites. Ethan Brush, James Barnes, Marc Newmark, William Yoder.

Characterizing the acoustic noise from wind turbines by using the divergence of the sound pressure in the ambient. Valentin Buzduga, Alexandru Buzduga.

An Experimental Parametric Study of Airfoil Trailing Edge Serrations. Thomas H. CAROLUS, Farhan A. MANEGAR (Univ Siegen) ; Elodie THOUANT (ECL) ; Kevin VOLKMER (Univ Siegen) ; Isabelle SCHMICH-YAMANE (EDF).

A scoping study on assessment practices for noise impacts from renewable technologies in Scotland. Matthew Cassidy, Susanne Underwood (Land Use Consultants), Nick James (Land Use Consultants). .

Numerical Prediction of DU96 Airfoil Self Noise using Detached Eddy Simulation. Kenan Cengiz, Yusuf Özyörük.

Application of the UK IOA Method for Rating Amplitude Modulation. David Coles, Tom Levet, Matthew Cand.

Sound propagating from wind turbines in winter conditions. Kristina Conrady, Anna Sjöblom, Conny Larsson.

Variation in wind turbine sound power measurements. Jon Cooper, Tom Evans.

Using long term monitoring for noise assessment of wind farms. Eugène de Beer. . Australian Criteria for C-weighted Wind Farm Noise Levels. Christophe Delaire, Justin Adcock, Daniel Griffin, Lachlan Deen.

The different evaluation-methods of the wind farm noise in Switzerland – computer models/in-situ measurements. Victor Desarnaulds, Ronan Fécelier, Dimitri Magnin.

Comparison of Sound Propagation Models for Offshore Wind Farms. Guangsheng (Sam) Du, A.D. Lightstone, Joseph Doran.

Perceptual aspects of wind-turbine noise. Pierre Dutilleux.

Wind turbine noise assessment by regression tree analysis.. David Ecotière.

Wind turbine noise at neighbor dwellings, calculations versus measurements.. Rune Egedal, Lars Sommer Søndergaard, Morten Bording Hansen.

Wind turbine noise: Sound power level measurements 3.0. Leon Eilders, Eugène de Beer.

Vertical directivity observations based on statistics of low frequency tonal components measured at downwind and upwind locations.. Xavier Falourd, Dominique Bollinger, Romain Feuz, Patrick Marmaroli.

Effects of Individual Pitch Control on Amplitude Modulated Noise. Chris Feist, Matt Lueker, Bill Herb, Peter Seiler, Daniel Ossmann.

Modeling and localizing low frequency noise of a wind turbine using an array of acoustic vector sensors. Daniel Fernandez Comesaña, Krishnaprasad Ramamohan and David Perez Cabo.

Investigation of turbulence interaction noise generated in wake operation. Andreas Fischer, Helge Aagaard Madsen, Franck Bertagnolio.

Assessment of WTN by separating residual noise without the farm shoutdown. Luca Fredianelli, Paolo Gallo, Gaetano Licitra, Diego Palazzuoli, Stefano Carpita.

Comparison of the IOA method and Japanese F-S method for quantitative assessment of amplitude modulation of wind turbine noise – A study based on the field measurement results in Japan. Akinori Fukushima, Hideki Tachibana.

Low-frequency micro-seismic radiation by wind turbines and it’s interaction with acoustic noise emission. Theodore V. Gortsas, Zieger, Toni; Triantafyllidis, Theodore; Kudella, Peter; Ritter, Joachim; Polyzos, Demosthenes

Comparison of Measured and Modelled Wind Turbine Noise in Indian Terrain. ARIVUKKODI GUNASEKARAN, Dr.S.Gomathinayagam, Dr. S.Kanmani.

An investigation into correlation between stron wind turbine amplitude modulation and environmental conditions. Duncan Halstead, Payam Ashtiani, Adam Suban-Loewen.

The occurrence of nocturnal wind farm rumbling noise. Kristy L Hansen, Branko Zajamsek, Colin H. Hansen.

Annoyance caused by amplitude modulated wind turbine noise, a study carried out with real far- field recordings of amplitude modulation. Morten Hansen, To be determined.


Human response to wind turbine noise: infrasound and amplitude modulation. William Herb, Peggy Nelson, William Herb, Matt Lueker, Jeff Marr, Noah Stone, John Wachtler.

Low-frequency noise incl. infrasound from wind turbines and other sources. Lorenz Herrmann, U. Ratzel, O. Bayer, K.-G. Krapf, M. Hoffmann, J. Blaul, C. Mehnert.

Predicted and Measured Trailing-Edge Noise Emission for a 2.3 MW Wind Turbine. Cordula Hornung, Christoph Scheit, Christian F. Napierala, Matthias Arnold, Andree Altmikus, Thorsten Lutz.

The Institute of Acoustics Reference Method for Rating Amplitude Modulation. Gavin Irvine. .

Epidemiological Study on Long-Term Health Effect of Low-Frequency Noise Produced by Wind Power Stations in Japan. TATSUYA ISHITAKE, KUNIO HARA, YOSHITAKA MORIMATSU, TATSUHIKO KUBO, YOSHIHISA FUJINO.

Partial masking and the perception of wind turbine noise in ambient sounds. Anders Johansson, Karl Bolin.

Wind Turbine Rotor Noise Prediction and Reduction for Low Noise Rotor Design. Mohammad Kamruzzaman, Jeremy Hurault, Kaj Dam Madsen.

Comparison of measured and calculated noise levels in far distances of wind turbines. Ulf Kock, Arno Trautsch.

International Legislation and Regulations for Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker Impact. Erik Koppen, Mahesh Gunuru.

Cotton Farm Wind Farm long term community noise monitoring 3 years on: testing compliance and AM control methods.. Sarah Large, Stigwood, Mike; Stigwood, Duncan.

Long-term experimental campaign on an operating wind turbine for trailing edge serrations verification. Irene Lauret-Ducosson, Albert ALARCON, Isabelle SCHMICH YAMANE.

Why do some people feel that they are “made ill” by wind turbine noise. Geoff Leventhall.

Frequency Content of Measured Wind Farm Noise Levels in Comparison to Background Noise Levels. Tom Levet. . Presenting insights from shadow flicker compliance monitoring. Peter Longbottom.

Putting the IOA preferred AM assessment method and the penalty into practice – an outlook for future developments of wind farms in the UK. Krispian Lowe, Sylvia Broneske.


Simulated low frequency wind turbine noise from wake operation. Helge Aagaard Madsen, Franck Bertagnolio, Andreas Fischer.

High Fidelity Airfoil Trailing Edge Noise Predictions via Lattice-Boltzmann Simulations. Farhan Ahmed Manegar, Thomas Carolus, Sascha Erbslöh.

Perceptual confusion between an 8-Hz tone plus 125-Hz tone mix and an 8-Hz amplitude- modulated 125 Hz tone. Torsten Marquardt.

Development of an Airfoil Inflow Noise Prediction Tool. Alexandre Martuscelli Faria, Marcos de Mattos Pimenta.

Accurate Prediction of Noise from Aerofoils with Serrated Trailing Edges. Yannick Mayer, Benshuai Lyu, Hasan Kamliya Jawahar, Mahdi Azarpeyvand.


Acoustic measurements of a wind turbine cambered airfoil with flow-misaligned serrations in a closed wind tunnel test section. Roberto Merino-Martinez, Wouter van der Velden, Francesco Avallone, Daniele Ragni.

Measurement Techniques for determining Wind Turbine Infrasound Penetration into Homes. Andy Metelka, Andy, Metelka.

A single aggregated exposure response relationship for all magnitudes of annoyance toward multiple wind turbine features. David Michaud, Leonora Marro.

Evaluation of Wind Turbine Noise in Japan. Mimi NAMEKI, Hitomi KIMURA: Hiroya DEGUCHI: Nobuo MACHIDA; Hideki TACHIBANA.

Analysis of sound emission by using amplitude modulation components of wind turbine noise. Yasuaki Okada, Shinya Hyodo, Koichi Yoshihisa, Teruo Iwase.

Wind Turbine Noise Dose Response – Comparison of Recent Studies. Isaac Old, Kenneth Kaliski.

The Variation of WTN Limits Across the United States – Should there be a Bright Line. Christopher Ollson.

A Rigorous Method of Addressing Wind Turbine Noise. William (Bill) K.G. Palmer.

Addressing a management strategy of Wind Farms Noise Control in Chile. José David Parra Cuevas, Igor Valdebenito, Víctor Hugo Lobos.

Assessment of commercial codes for the prediction of wind turbines noise. José David Parra Cuevas, Enrique Suárez.

Background Noise Variability Relative to Wind Direction, Temperature, and Other Factors. Patricia Pellerin, Kristjan Varnik, Erik Kalapinski, Kevin Fowler.


Acoustic Directivity Pattern of Multi-Megawatt Wind Turbines. Benoît Petitjean, Drew Wetzel, Roger Drobietz, Jonathan Luedke, Kevin Kinzie.

Impact of noise from suburban wind turbines on human well-being. Fei Qu, Jian Kang, Aki Tsuchiya.


Real atmospheric propagation makes blade passage harmonics audible. Werner Richarz, Harrison Richarz.

The development and limits of the German shadow flicker guidelines. Peter Ritter.

A new characterization of wind turbine noise from Life Cycle Assessment. Andrea Rivarola, Pablo Arena, Héctor Mattio. Aeroacoustic simulation of multiple wind turbine source interaction. Xavier Robin, Cesar Legendre, Diego Copiello.

Variation of wind induced non-turbine related noise due to position, shelter, wind direction and season. Lars Sommer Søndergaard, Rune Egedal, Morten Bording Hansen.

Verification and Validation of the QBlade Airfoil Trailing-Edge Noise Prediction Module. Joseph Saab, Marcos de Mattos Pimenta, José Roberto Castilho Piqueira, David Marten, Geoarge Pechlivanoglou, Christian Navid Nayeri, Christian Oliver Paschereit

iEar dynamic acoustic windfarm curtailment. Jérémy SCHILD, Vincent CHAVAND.

Origin, Transfer and Reduction of Structure-Borne Noise in Wind Turbines. Lukas Schneider.

Wind turbine sound predictions: Literature survey, model assessment and case study on the effect of blade elasticity. Leonard Schorle, Thomas Carolus, Sascha Erbslöh.

Wind farm design including noise contraints. Javier Serrano González, José Miguel Riquelme Dominguez, Jesús Manuel Riquelme Santos, Manuel Burgos Payán.

Modelling activities in wind turbine noise generation and propagation at DTU Wind Energy Wenzhong Shen, Wei Jun Zhu, Emre Barlas, Harald Debertshauser, Jens Noerkaer Soerensen, Franck Bertagnolio, Andreas Fischer, Helge Aagaard Madsen.

Wind turbines in hilly terrain – response of residents to sound disturbance related to sound and meteorological measurements. Anna Sjöblom, Conny Larsson, Kristina Conrady.

Tonal noise mitigation on wind turbines. Jutta Stauber, Brett Marmo, Donald Black, Mark-Paul Buckingham.

Experience of reviewing wind farm noise assessments for Scottish local authorities and the implementation of the IOA Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise. Steve Summers, Graham Parry.

An Update on the Prediction, Assessment and Compliance of Wind Farm Noise in Australia. Peter Teague.

A case study of how to involve impacted neighbors in measuring and characterizing windfarm noise. Sveinulf Vagene.

A ‘social review’ of wind turbine noise. Frits van den Berg, John Bolte.

Variations in measured noise emission of wind turbines due to local circumstances. Wim van der Maarl, Eugène de Beer.

Small Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine: Aeroacoustic and Aerodynamic Optimization of Airfoil and Blade. Kevin Volkmer, N. Kaufmann, T. Carolus.

Extended simulations of wind noise contamination of amplitude modulation ratings. Sabine von Hunerbein, Paul Kendrick; Trevor Cox.

Influence of Harmonic Phases on Subjective Response to Periodic Infrasonic Pulses. Bruce Walker, Joseph Celano.

Computational Aeroacoustics of Small Vertical Axis Wind Turbines by Applying a Hybrid Approach. Johannes Weber, Matthias Tautz, Andreas Hüppe, Stefan Becker, Manfred Kaltenbacher.

Objectify wind turbine noise complaints by longterm sound measurements. Friedrich Wilts, Thomas Neumann.

The visual effects of wind turbines in Japan. Takashi Yano, Sonoko Kuwano, Hideki Tachibana.

An Amplitude Modulation Noise Measurement and Analysis for IEEE P2400 Standard Project. Xiang Ye, Dr. Xue, Yu.

Subjective experiments on the perception of tonal component(s) contained in wind turbine noise. Sakae Yokoyama, Tomohiro Kobayashi, Hideki Tachibana.

HEARING AT LOW FREQUENCIES IN THE PRESENCE OF INFRASOUND. Branko Zajamsek, Peter Catcheside, Gorica Micic, Kristy Hansen, Colin Hansen.