Category Archives: Health

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

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

Noise as a Public Health Problem

icben

Sound emitted by wind turbines has been dogged by ongoing world wide reports of associated adverse health resulting from exposure due to industrial wind turbine acoustic emissions. Health effects that can be severe enough people are forced to abandoned their homes. Seeking relief, respite and to protect their health from further negative impacts due to exposure to noise pollution.  The 12th International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem was held in Zurich on 18–22 of June 2017.  The proceeding received multiple papers on the subject of wind turbine noise and health.

The following shares some of the papers presented.

12th ICBEN Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem

Selected papers from the 12th International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Zurich, 18–22 June 2017:

Recent progress in the field of non-auditory health effects of noise – trends and research needsby Yvonne de Kluizenaar and Toshihito Matsui – The Netherlands and Japan
… A wealth of new research on non-auditory health effects of noise has been published over the last 3 years. …

Health Effects of Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound from Wind Farms: Results from an Independent Collective Expertise in Franceby Philippe Lepoutre, Paul Avan, Anthony Cadene, David Ecotière, Anne-Sophie Evrard, Frédérique Moati, and Esko Topilla – France
… Recent results on the physiology of cochleo-vestibular system have revealed several pathways of physiological effects mechanisms that could be activated in response to exposure to ILFN. This sensory system has a particular sensitivity to these frequencies, superior to that of other parts of the human body. Available data suggest the hypothesis that sounds of frequencies too low or levels too low to be clearly audible could have effects mediated by receptors of the cochleo-vestibular system. …

Noise Annoyance Caused by Large Wind Turbines – A Dose-Response Relationshipby Valtteri Hongisto and David Oliva – Finland
The purpose was to determine a dose-response-relationship of large wind turbines with nominal power of 3-5 MW. A cross-sectional survey was conducted around three wind power areas in Finland. The sample involved all households within 2km from the nearest turbine. Altogether 400 households out of 753 reported the annoyance indoors. The dose-response relationship was determined between the predicted noise exposure, LAeq, outdoors and the percentage of highly annoyed by wind turbine noise indoors. The percentage of highly annoyed, %HA, was less than 3%, and relatively even below 40dB LAeq. %HA started to increase when the level exceeded 40dB. …

Hearing Beyond the Limit: Measurement, Perception and Impact of Infrasound and Ultrasonic Noiseby Christian Koch – Germany
In our daily lives, many sources emit infrasound due to their functions or as a side effect. At the other end of the hearing frequency range, airborne ultrasound is applied in many technical and medical processes and has also increasingly moved into everyday life. There are numerous indicators that sound at these frequencies can be perceived and can influence human beings. However, the precise mechanisms of this perception are unknown at present and this lack of understanding is reflected by the unsatisfactory status of the existing regulations and standards. …

A Review of the Human Exposure-Response to Amplitude-Modulated Wind Turbine Noise: Health Effects, Influences on Community Annoyance, Methods of Control and Mitigationby Michael J. B. Lotinga, Richard A. Perkins, Bernard Berry, Colin J. Grimwood, and Stephen A. Stansfeld – U.K.
… The conclusions of most reviews of the research on the effects of WTN on health, including those carried out on behalf of Government agencies, confirm that annoyance is caused by WTN, and that AM appears to increase annoyance. The association of WTN with sleep disturbance appears to be considerably more complex. … All of the field studies outlined so far have focussed on the responses to time-averaged WTN exposure levels. In a study of noise emissions from 1.8 MW turbines, it was argued that noise annoyance expressed by residents at 500-1900m distances might be exacerbated by AM, increased levels and low-frequency content occurring in the late evening and night-time. These phenomena were attributed to the stable night-time atmosphere causing high wind shear, and the coincidence of AM patterns from the turbines. … On the basis of the review and studies considered above, a control for AM has been proposed for use in planning windfarm developments. This control takes as its basis the principle that AM increases annoyance caused by WTN, and that this increase can be characterised by adding a penalty value to the overall WTN level, to equalise it with subjective judgement of a negligible-AM WTN sound. The results of ref 58 suggest that fluctuation in broadband WTN-like sounds will almost certainly be sensed by most people with normal hearing at approximately 3dB ΔLAeq,100ms(BP) which forms the proposed onset for the penalty. … The possible influence of increased low-frequency content in the AM is addressed by the design of the metric used to rate the magnitude, which employs frequency filtering to ensure the signal is evaluated for the range that produces the maximum AM rating. …

Review of Research on the Effects of Noise on Sleep Over the Last 3 Yearsby Sarah McGuire and Gunn Marit Aasvang – U.S. and Norway
… Among
the new actigraphy and polysomnographic field studies are the first studies on wind turbine noise which have used objective measures of sleep, as well as a study examining the potential benefit of nighttime air-traffic curfews. Also there have been new epidemiological studies which have added to the knowledge on the effects of noise on self-reported sleep disturbance. …

The Inadequacy of the A-Frequency Weighting for the Assessment of Adverse Effects on Human Populationsby Bruce Rapley, Mariana Alves-Pereira, and Huub Bakker – New Zealand and Portugal

Case Report: Cross-Sensitisation to Infrasound and Low Frequency Noiseby Bruce Rapley, Huub Bakker, Mariana Alves-Pereira, and Rachel Summers – New Zealand
This Case Report describes an episode experienced by two noise-sensitised individuals during a field trip. Exposed to residential infrasound and low frequency noise due coal mining activities, the subjects reacted suddenly, strongly and unexpectedly to pressure pulses generated by a wind farm located at a different town, approximately 160km by road from their residence. Simultaneous physiological data obtained in one subject and subjective sensations occurring during the episode are reported. Acoustical evaluations of the location of the episode are also reported. The possibility of a nocebo effect as an etiological factor for their bodily reactions is cogently eliminated. …

Evaluation of Wind Turbine Noise in Japanby Akira Shimada and Mimi Nameki – Japan
In order to tackle with wind turbine noise (WTN) related complaints, Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ) set up an expert committee in 2013. In November 2016, the committee published a report on investigation, prediction and evaluation methods of WTN. The report compiles recent scientific findings on WTN, including the results of nationwide field measurements in Japan and the results of review of the scientific literature related to health effects of WTN. The report sets out methodology for investigation, prediction and evaluation as well as case examples of countermeasures. A noise guideline for wind turbine, which suggests WTN should not be more than 5dB above the residual noise where residual noise levels are above 35-40dB, is also presented in the report. MOEJ is developing a WTN noise guideline and a technical manual for WTN investigation based on the report. Both documents will be finalized in the fast half of 2017.

Wind Turbine Noise Effects on Sleep: The WiTNES Studyby Michael Smith, Mikael Ögren, Pontus Thorsson, Laith Hussain-Alkhateeb, Eja Pedersen, Jens Forssén, Julia Ageborg Morsing, and Kerstin Persson Waye – Sweden
Onshore wind turbines are becoming increasingly widespread globally, with the associated net effect that a greater number of people will be exposed to wind turbine noise (WTN). Sleep disturbance by WTN has been suggested to be of particular importance with regards to a potential impact on human health. … Almost all measures of self-reported sleep were negatively impacted following nights with wind turbine noise. The WTN nights lead to increased sleep disturbance, reduced sleep quality, increased tiredness, increased irritation, awakenings, increased difficulty to sleep, sleeping worse than usual, and decreased mood. Subjects dwelling close to wind turbines, and consequently potentially exposed to WTN at home, repeatedly scored their sleep and restoration lower than the reference group following the WTN nights.

Frequency Weighting for the Evaluation of Human Response to Low-Frequency Noise Based on the Physiological Evidence of the Vestibular Systemby Junta Tagusari, Shou Satou, and Toshihito Matsui – Japan
Several studies were found regarding adverse health effects due to low-frequency noise emitted by industrial machines including wind turbines. However, the causal chain between low-frequency noise and health effects still remains unclear. Meanwhile, from the physiological viewpoint, low-frequency noise stimulate hair cells in the vestibular system, which could cause dizziness, vertigo, headache and nausea. The stimulating process is different from the hearing process in the cochlea, which implies that the A-weighting is not appropriate for evaluating the risk of low-frequency noise and that an alternative method is required. …

 

Source: National Wind Watch

child & noise

 

Falmouth Ordered to shut down Turbines

falmouth wind turbine clock is ticking

By Ethan Genter  Cape Cod Times

Posted Jun 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM
Updated Jun 20, 2017 at 9:34 PM

BARNSTABLE — A Barnstable Superior Court judge on Tuesday ordered the town of Falmouth to shut down two town-owned wind turbines.

Judge Cornelius Moriarty issued his decision at about 4:30 p.m. in the case which pitted the town against its own Zoning Board of Appeals and a neighbor of the turbines. The Board of Selectmen had appealed a decision by the zoning board that found the turbines are a nuisance.

In an emergency meeting Tuesday night, selectmen instructed the town manager to comply with Moriarty’s order.

“We are going to abide by what the judge has ordered,” said Doug Jones, chairman of the Board of Selectmen.

Known as Wind 1 and Wind 2, the two turbines at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility have been subjected to a litany of lawsuits, with neighbors saying the turbines have negatively affected their health and enjoyment of their properties.

Moriarty’s decision was welcomed by Barry Funfar, who lives next to one of the turbines and has sunk more than $100,000 into fighting their operation.

“We’ve been waiting for this decision for six months,” Funfar said.

The last action in the case was in December.

“My wife and I have been taxed by these turbines, right out of our home. … I’m very, very happy,” Funfar said.

Wind 1 has already been shut down under a prior court ruling, and Wind 2 had been reduced to 12-hour operation cycles.

In their emergency meeting Tuesday, the selectmen only touched on what to do as of 7 a.m. Wednesday morning, when Wind 2 is scheduled to go back online for its next 12-hour cycle.

Jones declined to comment on what the town plans to do after losing its appeal.

“The Town is evaluating the decision with its attorneys,” according to a statement issued by Town Manager Julian Suso.

The selectmen are scheduled to meet again on Monday in executive session to further discuss the judge’s decision, which contradicts another court decision.

In April, a Barnstable Superior Court jury sided with the town, saying there was no nuisance at a Wind 1 neighbor’s property.

There are several other lawsuits working their way through the courts, and while he looks forward to seeing what the selectmen decide, Funfar said he sees Tuesday decision as a “happy bump” in what will likely remain a long road ahead.

“My wife is going to be so happy to hear this,” he said.

 

falmouth_vermont-1473171761-2525

Nothing Brings a Community Together Like Wind Energy

To The Editor:

Not many things bring together a community like an Industrial Wind Energy Installation. In Illinois, the Concerned Citizens for the Future of Clinton and DeKalb Counties have banned together to fight Industrial Wind. Their lawyers took NextEra and the wind industry’s parade of “experts” to task in sworn testimony.

In Michigan’s Thumb, their “Wind Capital” has their own group of citizens calling themselves the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition who helped to discover that townships could call for a referendum vote on whether or not they wanted any more wind energy. 12 townships, 12 votes, 12 times the answer was a resounding NO.

Vermont is working on enacting a much stricter IWT noise ordinance as well as setbacks 10x the height of the turbine. Minnesota has a similar bill in the works.

Oklahoma ended its wind subsidies early because of the overwhelming cost of Industrial Wind. Their former Governor Frank Keating released a statement saying that he regrets his part in funding Industrial Wind.

There are over 300 groups that have been formed for the singular reason of opposing Industrial Wind in North America alone. Europe and Australia have many groups of their own. They are people who may have thought that Industrial Wind was good or at least benign until they educated themselves, or where educated by their close proximity to turbines. There is well over a decade of testimonials, documentation, expert witness accounts and research into the negative impacts of Industrial Wind. The wind industry also has come up with its own testimonials, documentation, expert witness accounts and research that seeks to reframe or refute all the opposition’s evidence just as tobacco companies have done. Why are these negative impacts still listed within their contracts if there are not major problems?

People like to say that landowners can do whatever they want to on their own land but you know that is not true. If what you are doing (or not doing) negatively impacts your neighbor whether it be the length of your grass or the number of vehicles in your yard, it is not allowed. In our townships where the wind development is being proposed only a few people were willing to sign over land where they actually live. 4-5 people alone were responsible for signing over of the land for the proposed installation. That leaves 100s of people directly impacted but left with no choice to opt out.

Lastly people equate turbines with CAFOs. If they are allowed to annoy neighbors then Industrial Wind should get the same right is how the thinking goes. Our Planning and Zoning Board asked for mile setbacks for IWT, same as CAFOs but the wind companies said that they would leave. Our Supervisors shortened the setback to bring in revenue. Their first consideration needed to be people impacted, not the money to be made. Though industry supported with tax money is like cutting off the top foot of a blanket and sewing to the bottom to make it longer.

(signed) Janna Swanson

Coalition for Rural Property Rights

Ayrshire, IA

Published June 15, 2017 Emmetsburg News

ridgesrenotrenewble