Category Archives: Health

Adverse Health Effects, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise

Wind Power Peril- Part 2

Leave a comment

scream-2

By Helen Schwiesow Parker — February 8, 2017

“Imagine fighting Goliath in compromised health: lives given over to complaint protocols, sound measurements, lawyers, delays, appeals, desperate pleas for relief. For some, it becomes a life of learned helplessness.”

“How have we been brought to such an extraordinary betrayal of basic human rights and social justice – a Kafkaesque world where corporate, local and state government personnel ignore and elude victims’ pleas? It is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, of well-intentioned individuals who don’t do their homework, of a new industrial health crisis shunned by news media who are supposed to educate, inform and protect.”

Nina Pierpont paved the way 

This is the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), a constellation of symptoms first given a name by the brilliant young MD/PhD, Nina Pierpont. She followed up her astute and compassionate observations of turbine neighbors around the world with epidemiological research, using a robust case-crossover statistical design: subjects experienced symptoms that varied with proximity to the turbines. When the same subjects were placed some distance from the turbines, their symptoms abated; returning to the scene brought the symptoms back.

Pierpont found that the 1.5-3.0-MW industrial wind turbines she studied wreak these adverse health effects on about 10% of those living within 2km (1.25 miles) or more. Later studies place the percentage of people affected at 20-40% or more. Even at “just” the 10% level, this would never be tolerated by politicians or regulators with regard to peanuts, air emissions or water pollution.

As with seasickness, not everyone is similarly affected. But for many, the experience becomes literally intolerable.  Most vulnerable are the young, the old, and those who are especially sensitive to stimuli – including the autistic, those with a prior Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and some of us who have retreated to rural areas for just that reason.

I personally remember the mother of a young, blind autistic boy. Worried about how her son might respond to IWTs proposed for installation near their rural Indiana home, she decided to explore her question by driving with him toward one of the already up-and-running Big Wind “farms” some forty miles north. This “wind factory” had been inserted in an area that for generations had been a breathtakingly open sweep of endless farmland south and east of Chicago.

When mother and son were still miles away from the turbines, which of course she could see although her son could not, he began to whimper, holding both hands to his ears. Writhing with increasing discomfort, he eventually became distraught, in a panic, shouting in his own language and careening against the confines of the front seat, pleading with her to turn back, go home, get him out of there!! Which she did that day. But she was powerless to stop the Big Wind installation coming to their backyard – and into her young son’s already severely impacted life.

Michigan State University noise engineers explain that “Inaudible components can induce resonant vibration in liquids, gases and solids, including the ground…, building structures, spaces within those structures, and bodily tissues and cavities – potentially harmful to humans.”

Pierpont hypothesized that, in addition to these bodily sensations, a significant pathway from ILFN to symptoms includes disruption to the balance mechanisms located in the inner ear.

Research results – and Big Wind response

Audiological and acoustical consultants Jerry Punch and Richard James provide an excellent review of the recent research findings linking ILFN from IWTs with effects on health and quality of life.

In particular, Punch and James describe fascinating basic research conducted at the Washington University School of Medicine by Dr. Alec Salt, Otolaryngologist, which supports the biological plausibility of Pierpont’s hypothesis.

By focusing on distinctions of anatomy and function between the inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs) of the inner ear, Salt and colleagues found that Infrasound and low-frequency noise signals reach the brain via OHC displacement, leading to unfamiliar and disturbing sensations outside the auditory realm paralleling Wind Turbine Syndrome victim complaints. As utility-scale wind turbines increase in size and power, the blade-pass frequency goes increasingly deeper into the nauseogenic zone.

Installed turbine size is indeed trending upward, with a lot of money riding on keeping the science under wraps or under the radar of public awareness, and regulations to a minimum.

When Denmark’s environmental protection agency proposed severely tightening turbine noise regulations to protect turbine neighbors from ILFN (May 2011), the Vestas CEO wrote the DEPA Minister: Turbines send out ILFN; the bigger they are the more intensely they do so.  It isn’t technically possible to curtail the ILFN output. Not only would your new standards serve as an unfortunate model which might be copied by other countries.

More simply, “Increased distance requirements cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.” DEPA folded, in fact turning instead to looser standards, “likely to be copied by other countries,” to the detriment of thousands of people.

The European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North-American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW) – representing a total of nearly 600 associations from 26 countries – then put out a press release citing the exchange and criticizing DEPA’s manipulation of noise measurements to advance wind industry interests, to the detriment of people’s health. 

But the potentially increased endangerment of tens of thousands of turbine victims around the world was somehow deemed unworthy of widespread media attention, and Big Wind’s central players ramped up their game plan undeterred.

Shadow Flicker

While turbine health impacts due to ILFN radiation may be the least intuitively obvious, another frequently disturbing and often-minimized assailant is Turbine “Flicker” – a strobe-like effect caused by turbine blades alternately blocking and allowing sunlight to sweep the land after sunrise and before sunset. It can “pull your attention in the direction it’s moving, making you dizzy, even sick to your stomach.”

Environmental impact statements will tell you that “Shadow Flicker only impacts objects within 1400 meters of the turbine” – but 1400 meters is 0.87 mile, greater than 15 football fields placed end to end!

The common reassurance that “any issue pertaining to flicker is easily remedied” is at-best poorly thought out, at-worst deliberately false and misleading, and in any case dead wrong.

At a public forum in Fairhaven, MA, where an established neighborhood of some 6,000 people would soon host two 1.5 MW turbines, to be erected within ecologically sensitive salt marshes surrounding a quiet estuary, wind developer Sumul Shah brushed aside a question about Flicker saying: “Not to worry.  It occurs mostly before 7am.”

What!? “Shadow Strobing” results from rotating blades passing between the sun and any object which the sun would otherwise illuminate. When the sun is directly behind them, the blades of 40-story-tall wind turbines throw extensive shadows that skim rhythmically and repeatedly across buildings, trees, roadways, lawns, meadows, ponds – and people.

The direct impact extends to nearly a mile from the turbine – long after sunrise, and again long before sunset – during those magical early and late hours that photographers love, when low light washes the landscape. Jerking flashes ricochet yet further when the blade shadow strikes anywhere within view shed – strobing rock faces across the valley, lakes and ponds in between, or trees across the park.

Sleep disturbance and stress-related illness

Alongside the less familiar ILFN and landscape-strobing turbine assaults, sleep deprivation and stress-related symptoms are the most common health complaints of IWT neighbors. This is not due solely to the turbine sound volume (as some might expect), but also to its characteristics: constantly fluctuating with “swishing” or “thumping” sounds, akin to low-flying jets or the rumble of helicopters, “freakish, screeching sound sludge,” rhythmic, repetitive, throbbing and percussive. It is unnatural. People say the noise gets into your head, and you can’t get it out.

Sleep may be disturbed from yet another non-intuitive angle. In their “McPherson Study,” Ambrose and Rand note that the 22.9 Hz tone considered part of the signature IWT acoustic profile “lies in the brain’s ‘high Beta’ wave range (associated with alert state, anxiety, and ‘fight or flight’ stress reactions). The brain’s ‘frequency following response (FFR)’ could be involved in maintaining an alert state during sleeping hours….”

As enormous industrial wind turbines spread around the world, World Health Organization (WHO) 2009 Noise Guidelines emphasized that any investigation into health impacts must include the equally significant indirect effects. 

Advising the Falmouth, MA Board of Health, Dr. William Hallstein wrote: “All varieties of illnesses are destabilized secondary to inadequate sleep: diabetic blood sugars, cardiac rhythms, migraines, tissue healing. Psychiatric problems intensify… all in the ‘normal’ brain. Errors in judgment and accident rates increase.” 

Imagine bombarding a hypersensitive autistic child with strident, unpredictable, unnatural noise. Imagine our veterans struggling with PTSD, the throbbing drone of the turbines re-igniting anxiety and terror – endlessly through the years once they are back home. Imagine what happens when being “safely” back home instead predictably brings physiological destabilization: nausea, ringing in the ears, vertigo, panic attacks, memory and concentration loss, incapacity.

Imagine fighting Goliath in compromised health: lives given over to complaint protocols, sound measurements, lawyers, delays, appeals, desperate pleas for relief. At best, it becomes a challenge to re-frame every encounter, either to educate a potential ally, or to pretend this isn’t the center of your life.

For some, it becomes a life of learned helplessness: having accepted that nothing will bring relief, they give up trying. With nowhere to go, the dog sits back down on the tack. Other families and individuals … devastated, having lost their health, jobs or farms … return their keys to the bank, sell their homes at a fire-sale price, or simply pack up and flee.

How have we been brought to such an extraordinary betrayal of basic human rights and social justice – a Kafkaesque world where corporate, local and state government personnel ignore and elude victims’ pleas? It is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, of well-intentioned individuals who don’t do their homework, of a new industrial health crisis shunned by news media who are supposed to educate, inform and protect.

In November 2014, after a four-year investigation, the Brown County, Wisconsin board of health declared that the preponderance of evidence showed the Shirley Wind Project is a human health hazard. The news went worldwide, but the local Green Bay Press Gazette ignored it for almost two weeks.

Physician and BOH member Jay Tibbetts said, “I don’t think the average person in the United States hears anything about this issue. For some reason the news media doesn’t seem to want to cover it.

___________

Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a Past Clinical Supervisory Faculty member at the University of Virginia Medical School.  Her career includes practical experience in the fields of autism, sensory perception, memory and learning, attention deficit and anxiety disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD. Part I of this three-post series was posted yesterday.

Adverse Health Effects, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise

Wind Power Peril

1 Comment

wind-refugee

The Secret, Silent Wind Power Peril (Part I: The General Problem)

By Helen Schwiesow Parker — February 7, 2017

“From a distance, many view the massive turbines as majestic – as a clean, seemingly quiet and free source of endless energy. To numerous residents clustered within 2km (1.25 miles) or more of the pulsing machines, however, the Industrial-scale Wind Turbines (IWT) bring strangely debilitating illness – incapacitating for some, yet scoffed at by the Big Wind industry.”

“Common sense tells us that a forty-story-tall metal structure with blades as long as football fields moving at 180 mph at their tips would negatively impact quiet neighborhoods, pastoral and wilderness areas. But the extent and severity of the IWT’s effect on body, mind and spirit comes as a surprise to most people.”

Schools and airlines have become highly responsive to people with peanut sensitivities – going so far as to ban peanuts, peanut butter, peanut oil and related items. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many state agencies have implemented regulations that set allowable power plant, factory, vehicle and other emissions as close to zero as possible, hoping to prevent any potential adverse effects on people thought to be the most sensitive to air and water pollutants.

But with wind power, nearly all federal, state and local authorities gloss over, ignore or bury increasing evidence that wind turbines affect numerous people living in proximity to them.

Legislators and regulators appear unwilling even to consider the possibility that some segments of our population might be extremely sensitive to infrasound, flicker, and other “emissions” from these turbines – and wind energy companies and advocates are working hard to ensure that this approach remains in effect.

Indeed, even those who seek increasing scrutiny of the wind industry generally speak of mandates, subsidies, bird and bat deaths, and impacts on wildlife habitats. Few pay attention to, or even acknowledge, the often devastating and long-lasting health impacts suffered by human wind turbine neighbors, even though clear evidence of the hazard has been available for decades.

Proper attention to this serious and widespread problem is long overdue. It is hoped that this review of available knowledge will accelerate that process.

Disregard for Turbine Health Impacts: A Longstanding Problem

Neil Kelley was principal scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Wind Technology Center from 1980 until 2011.  During the Windpower ’87 Conference, he presented one of many similar studies published in this decade by acousticians working under grants from the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Their findings quickly became a hot topic. Infrasound (inaudible) and low-frequency (audible) noise (collectively referred to as ILFN) produced by Industrial-scale Wind Turbines (IWTs) directly causes adverse health effects, experts stated. The disturbance from the turbines is often worse indoors than outside. “Far from becoming inured to the disturbance, people become increasingly sensitive to it over time,” they noted.

The wind industry response was immediate. Any regulatory standards will reference only A-weighted measurements, they insisted, which exclude the ILFN that are known to cause problems. We will measure only outside, not inside dwellings, insist that neighbors “will get used to it,” and deny that the victims’ suffering has any basis in reality, let alone science.

NOTE: A-weighted noise measurements reflect the relative loudness perceived by the human ear, but drastically reduce sound-level readings in the lower frequencies: the slow periodic vibrations that were found to directly impact human health and wellbeing. Noise meters in common use can present measurements in both A- and C-weighted figures, using built-in electronic filters to adjust the way in which the instruments measure noise.  Clearly, the C-weighted measurement, which more fairly represents the low frequencies, must be included in any regulatory standards that address the impact of sound from wind turbines.

With billions of dollars at stake, the wind lobby overpowered any community or organization that tried to raise concerns or slow its advance. Big Wind expanded rapidly around the globe, devastating wilderness areas and agrarian and shoreside communities, while forming fraternities with other powerful interests to advance and protect its agenda.

From a distance, many view the massive turbines as majestic – as a clean, seemingly quiet and free source of endless energy. To numerous residents clustered within 2km (1.25 miles) or more of the pulsing machines, however, the IWTs bring strangely debilitating illness – incapacitating for some, yet scoffed at by the Big Wind industry.

“When I’m at home I’m usually sick with headaches, nausea, vertigo, tinnitis, anxiety, hopelessness, depression. My ears pop a lot and I hardly ever sleep…. My husband and I are trying desperately to find a cheap little house we can afford away from here…. We own six acres and a beautiful home, but it’s now toxic and unsellable.… Suicide looks to be my only relief.  Land of the FREE Home of the BULLSHIT! … Million to one odds anybody contacts me back.”  

The Surprising Extent and Severity of Problems

Common sense tells us that a forty-story-tall metal structure with blades as long as football fields moving at 180 mph at their tips would negatively impact quiet neighborhoods, pastoral and wilderness areas. But the extent and severity of the IWT’s effect on body, mind and spirit comes as a surprise to most people:

“We reside in what used to be a wonderful home. After just two weeks of this machine running full tilt, I was a physical and emotional wreck!  So tired. Headaches that do not go away. Dizzy and nauseous.  Body functions go haywire – I start dropping things (can’t seem to make my hand close all the way) and fall down basement stairs. Heart palpitations. Go to ear specialist: along with Vertigo, Anger, Teeth grinding – break a tooth. Crying – no more sanctuary of home. Depression. Suicide plans. Call suicide hotline. How do you explain that you are being abused every day by a wind turbine!” 

The primary pathway of turbine assault on human health and wellbeing is no mystery. The Israeli army has used low-frequency sound pulse as high-tech crowd control for years. Low-frequency noise at high intensities creates discrepancies in the brain, producing disorientation in the body: “The knees buckle, the brain aches, the stomach turns. And suddenly, nobody feels like protesting anymore.… It has no adverse effects, unless someone is exposed to the sound for hours and hours.”

But indeed, thousands of IWT neighbors around the world are subjected night and day, some now for decades, to these sub-audible (slowly vibrating) sound waves sent out as turbine blades spin past the shaft, setting up vibrations within body cavities: ears, eye sockets, skull, lungs, and belly.

People are made nauseous and confused, with blurred vision, vertigo, headaches, tachycardia, heightened blood pressure, pain and ringing in the ears, difficulties with memory and concentration, anxiety, depression, irritability, and panic attacks arising when awake or asleep.

“The effects of the turbines run from annoyance with the audible sound and shadow flicker to downright anguish from panic attacks which can feel like a death/dying episode of extreme pain. These are brought on by first a bit of nausea and upset stomach, extreme light headedness, and then the bad part: constriction and wringing of my insides. Sometimes I try to hang by a doorframe, other times I just lie on the ground if I can’t make it to the house. It is truly an inner body disturbance.” 

___________

Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a Past Clinical Supervisory Faculty member at the University of Virginia Medical School.  Her career includes practical experience in the fields of autism, sensory perception, memory and learning, attention deficit and anxiety disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD.

READ AT: https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-health-effects/secret-silent-wind-power-peril-1/

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Green Energy, Health, Ireland fights big wind., Noise

Enercon Admits Liability for Noise Pollution

Leave a comment
13241387_952879334831276_3080059692547901511_n
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.

READ AT: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/wind-farm-being-sued-by-families-admits-its-liability-442172.html 

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Environment, Green Energy, Health

Prove Your Wind Turbines are Safe

1 Comment

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

Camlachie

Published: http://www.wallaceburgcourierpress.com/2017/02/03/letter-no-reason-why-otter-creek-cant-do-more-tests 

 

Adverse Health Effects, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Green Energy, Health, legal challenges, Property Rights

Is there a remedy to Industrial Wind Turbines?

4 Comments

Is there a Remedy for People Suffering, Health Issues, Financially, etc. from Industrial Wind Turbines in Ontario ?– approximately 7700 planned for Ontario.

shawn-tricia
Trish & Shawn Drennan

“Congratulations to Trish and Shawn Drennan!”

The Goderich Superior Court Room was filled to capacity when Shawn and Trish Drennan went to Court on January 19th to reverse the negative impact that the 140 Industrial Wind Turbine Project (K2), two transformer stations and several transmission lines have on their family, home and their Heritage Farm operation.

They put a compelling and sensible case together and spoke with passion and the strength of truth behind their words.  One comment was that some felt they were witnessing an important step in this fight.  I heard, from a lawyer,… “that a lawyer could not 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 they both have given to their case to put the facts on the table.

shawn-drennan
Shawn Drennan at home on his farm operation

Shawn, “presented himself”, and told the court that the government has created an impossible barrier when he has to prove “Serious Harm to human health” at an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), when the turbines have not been installed or in operation yet. The ERT appeals and Divisional Court Hearings occur prior to the IWTs becoming operational. The Divisional Court also confirmed that the ERT’s lack the jurisdiction to determine the validly of section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and its constitutionality. In addition, to date, there appears to be no definition for the term “Serious Harm” even after all the ERT’s, Judicial Reviews and Divisional Court cases here in Ontario.

Shawn 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.  Shawn told the hearing that the government and K2 knew the turbines will harm people even before wind project proposals and permits went ahead.  The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) lobbied the government to remove Infra and Low Frequency Sound regulations and testing when the Green Energy Act was written and this requirement was subsequently removed. If Judge Raikes had asked, at least half or more of the people in the court room that day could have stood up and said, “ I am the evidence of harm from Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs).”

Shawn told the hearing that the difference between then, (ERT Hearings prior to operation) and now (May 29 2015), is that now the switch has been turned on, and the IWT’s are operational and we are being harmed.k2-wind-turbine

Judge Raikes challenged K2 and the MOE to tell him what remedy the Drennans have besides more time in court. We all watched them try to answer to no avail, because as was pointed out the only remedy right now is to move away. “Most people do not want to move away to begin with but do so to regain health.  They  are often penalized yet again when they have to lower the sales price to even get the home sold.

kingsbridge-120910
Home with a K2 industrial wind turbine just a few hundred metres away

When Judge Raikes looked at the K2 lawyer, Mr Bredt,  the judge tried to paraphrase what the lawyer had just said to him, “ So, the Drennans went to the ERT and Divisional Court, have complained to MOE, and still have no remedy, so it’s tough luck for them?  Bredt 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 in the Charter Challenge; K2 and /or govt., it was interesting to watch the judge see both parties try to throw each other under the bus.

Those in attendance are waiting to hear Judge Raikes decision and keep their fingers crossed that Shawn and Trish can move forward in finding a remedy for the harm they have experienced.  This hearing has implications for property owners and people living within at least a 10 km radius of a turbine project here in Ontario.

Thank you, on behalf of a whole lot of us in Ontario.

Dave Hemingway, Reporter, The Landowner

Adverse Health Effects, fighting big wind., Green Energy, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise

Kafkaesque world of windmill neighbors

Leave a comment

despair-400.jpgThe definition of “Kafkaesque”: “Describing something that is horribly complicated for no reason, usually in reference to bureaucracy.” Neighbors of operating and proposed wind projects are watching in disbelief as they witness the Public Service Board (PSB) issue Orders affirming the rights of the wind industry while putting neighbors through expensive, time-consuming legal processes that tramples neighbors’ rights and provide no relief.

Paul Brouha of Sutton lives 6,385 feet from the nearest turbine in the Sheffield Wind plant. He filed his first noise complaint on Dec. 24, 2011, after the wind turbines began operating in October. The PSB dismissed his complaint.

Brouha hired a noise expert who conducted testing and found that instead of the 15 decibels (dBA) noise attenuation between outside and inside projected by wind company experts, the home attenuated 1 dBA.  The expert’s measurements showed “multiple and frequent violations of the CPG noise criteria.”  The PSB ordered the Department of Public Service (DPS) to investigate the complaint early in 2014. DPS hired a consultant who conducted the same test on July 1, 2014.

In January 2015, Brouha filed a nuisance lawsuit in Superior Court in Vermont.

In Sept. 2015, DPS reported to the PSB that Sheffield Wind exceeded interior noise standards 10-14% of the time.

At the end of 2015, the PSB opened an investigation. Sheffield Wind moved to stay Brouha’s nuisance lawsuit which they had moved from Superior to Federal Court.  The Federal judge approved the stay request until the PSB ruled on the complaint.

Brouha’s nuisance complaint has been held hostage by the PSB’s laborious investigation and enforcement process for a year, during which Sheffield Wind, DPS, and Brouha filed written arguments about whether or not a violation occurred.  Brouha argued that the project is in violation.  Sheffield Wind vigorously argued that new monitoring must take place.  The PSB Hearing Officer agreed.  Brouha filed a Motion to Reconsider six months ago.  The Hearing Officer has not ruled.

The parties agreed to have their noise experts meet to try to agree on a new monitoring plan.  They did not come to agreement.

On Jan. 25, 2017, the Hearing Officer held a daylong technical hearing in Brouha’s noise complaint case.  Each expert’s noise monitoring plan was presented.  Sheffield Wind wants an entirely new protocol.  DPS argues for a protocol that would change the noise standard.  Brouha asks to use the protocol originally approved by the PSB.  The hearing did not finish, so three PSB staff, five attorneys and their experts will return to the PSB for another hearing.

Brouha has spent nearly $350,000 so far attempting to get his noise complaint addressed.  No end is in sight.

Melodie and Scott McLane live 3800 feet from the Georgia Mountain Wind turbines. After they filed more than 30 noise complaints, the PSB opened an investigation in Nov. 2015.  In March 2016 the McLanes filed a complaint about the turbines operating under icing conditions.  The PSB opened another investigation.

Attorneys for GMW (same attorneys representing Sheffield Wind), DPS and the McLanes argued on paper about whether an attenuation test at the McLane home should be conducted, and whether the winter operating protocol required the turbines be curtailed under icing conditions.  GMW vigorously argued against testing at the McLane home.

The McLanes also filed a noise complaint along with the icing complaint, because they experienced the loudest noise for the longest period of time since the turbines began operating in 2013.  In every filing in the icing docket, the McLanes reminded the PSB that they also were filing a noise complaint.

Recently, the PSB issued an Order[1] finding GMW violated its CPG by operating its wind turbines under icing conditions in March 2016, and issued a negligible $2000 fine.  The same day, the PSB fined a solar company[2] $17,000 for failing to comply with a condition involving a fire lane.  No one was harmed by the failure of the solar company.  The McLanes sleep is regularly disrupted by the wind turbine noise.  The PSB declined to address the accompanying noise complaint.

In response to the McLane’s 2015 noise complaint, both the PSB Hearing Officer and DPS recommended testing to determine the attenuation of the noise from inside to outside. The Board denied[3] the testing but gave the McLanes and DPS ten days to file paperwork asking to engage in further discovery and cross-examination of GMW’s expert to decide if outside to inside testing should be done.

The McLanes also filed a Motion for Relief in Nov. 2015.  In denying that motion[4], the PSB said, “Nothing in our Order today prevents the McLanes from seeking any individual relief that may be available to them in a forum that has the requisite authority to review their personal circumstances and to take action as may be warranted.”  In other words, they can file a nuisance lawsuit in court and follow Paul Brouha down the path that leads back to – the PSB.

The legislature says it’s the PSB fault.  The PSB says it’s the legislatures fault.   Vermonters are victimized while the wind industry profits.

Annette Smith is Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.  She is the Burlington Free Press’s 2016 Vermonter of the Year.

  1. 8167-memo-and-scoping-order
  2. 17000civilpenalty
  3. 26360527605365onbase-unity_96132205239795106026150
  4. 26365632768515onbase-unity_9630467781853243962494

Published: January 30, 2017  http://vermontbiz.com/news/january/annette-smith-kafkaesque-world-windmill-neighbors?utm_source=VBM+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=4405d9e165-Enews_2017_01_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_85838110bc-4405d9e165-285543701 

Uncategorized

Canada’s Worst Bat Killing Wind Farm

Leave a comment

Wind developers do not have to make the reports filed of bird and bat kills public.  That is now being changed.  It took over one year for the Freedom of Information request made by Esther Wrightman to be delivered. The documents received make sickening reading.

The following copied post highlights just one  of many horrors of the kill rate of wind turbines known by the Ontario government that  until now has been kept hidden from  public scrutiny.

Former Liberal Pres. Crawley built worst ‘bat killing wind farm’ in Canada: 85 bats killed /turbine/yr

Posted on 01/19/2017

Yesterday the CD arrived with loads of Bird and Bat Mortality Reports that I had filed an FOI from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for last year, and you good people had funded. I’m slowly organizing and will get them all posted shortly.

But for starters I came across five reports for Mohawk Point Wind Project, a 6 turbine project in Haldimand County. I didn’t know much about this one – it was never in the news… sort of flew under the radar. It came on around the time of the Clear Creek turbines in Norfolk County.

This was an AIM PowerGen/International Power Corporation project – whose president is none other than the past Federal and Ontario Federal Liberal Party President Mike Crawley. It was approved  in 2009, and pretty much nothing more was said about it since.

Which is so wrong. Let me explain. The “five” reports stuck out because usually (if the project is not killing over the ‘limits’ set by the government) there are only three reports. That means some ‘mitigation reporting’ was happening, for some reason.

Well that reason became pretty obvious within seconds of looking at the 2011 report.

How does 85.42 bats killed per wind turbine strike you?

Or how about 53.1% of them being the Endangered Little Brown Bat?

Perhaps I’m too soft, but my thinking is 25 bats per turbine is atrocious (I mean, 10 is the MNRF’s limit). And as for Little Browns, they usually only make up a percent or two – not HALF of the kill! It’s an endangered species for crying out loud!

Okay, based on these insane numbers, why didn’t they SHUT DOWN the project? Oh they mitigated instead, and they believe they brought it down to a more reasonably atrocious number of 24.27 bats killed per wind turbine/year by 2013. That puts you all at ease, doesn’t it? I mean shouldn’t we be happy for the success of this ‘mitigation’ even though it is still double the legal limit?

Not so fast. Think about this – female Little Browns have just one offspring a year. After 5 years of 6 turbines decimating 85 bats each (give or take), how many do you really think are left in those local colonies? Pretty damn sure that number is dropping rapidly by the oh-so-natural process of “wind turbine selection”.

And as for you, dear Crawely, at least you have the current claim of creating the biggest bat killing “farm” in the country. Now that should make the green Liberals proud.

Esther Wrightman

[With only an initial look at some reports I hope this is as bad as it gets for bat kills in this country. As the bird and bat mortality reports are slowly uncovered, the numbers just seem to get worse and worse. I never imagined it could get this low, but then again nobody was releasing this info to the public, so how were we to know? Maybe some company will outdo Crawley on this one yet…heck, maybe even some of Crawley’s other projects could claim this title too…]

Adverse Health Effects, fighting big wind., Health, Ireland fights big wind., Unite the Fight!

It’s official – wind farms are a damned Nuisance

Gallery Leave a comment

Neil van Dokkum's avatarThe Law is my Oyster

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…

View original post 731 more words

Adverse Health Effects, fighting big wind., Green Energy, Health, Ireland Wind

Enercon Admits Liability in High Court Ireland

2 Comments

enercon-turbinesPRESS RELEASE 3rd January 2017 – Wind Aware Ireland

wind-aware-irela-d

High Court order for families forced from homes due to noisy wind turbines.

The High Court has issued its order regarding the seven families from Cork who were impacted by noise pollution from a nearby 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 1km from the wind farm.

The defendant, Enercon Wind Farm Services Ireland Ltd., has admitted liability and the case is listed for ten days in the High Court commencing 25th April 2017 to deal with damages and costs.   The outcome of the April court case could be a watershed for existing and planned wind farms as well as for investor confidence in, and government plans for the future of on-shore wind in Ireland. Many families, similarly affected by noisy wind turbines are anxiously awaiting the outcome and it is expected that more cases will now follow.

There has been a failure of successive governments to regulate the wind industry. Minister Denis Naughten is the latest minister to delay the introduction of regulation. This despite his promise to regulate the distance turbines can be placed from homes within 3 to 6 months of his taking office. Instead, yet another lengthy period of consultation is planned, despite previous consultations on the matter attracting over 7,000 submissions. A spokesperson from Wind Aware Ireland has stated  “This further delay has indicated how far this government are prepared to allow the continuation of a free-for-all in the construction of wind farms, to the detriment of rural communities who are bitterly opposing their construction.”   Ireland’s embarked on an all-wind strategy in 2007 under Minister Eamon Ryan in conjunction with Brendan Halligan (chairman of SEAI), who was also a director and shareholder in Mainstream Renewables, one of Ireland’s biggest wind farm developers.   No cost benefit analysis (CBA) or strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was ever carried out on the plan. Both of these legally required analyses were sidestepped.   To date, these analyses have not been carried out and Ireland proceeds with this expensive experiment. Ireland’s 1400 wind turbines have reduced our CO2 emissions by a paltry 3-4%.

COURT DECISION