Category Archives: Noise

Sixty Residents fighting for their Quality of Life.

This is a lawsuit to keep an eye on.  It’s being heard in their State Supreme Court.

Sixty residents from Orangeville and Attica have filed lawsuits claiming that the Stony Creek Wind Farm is ruining their quality of life, destroyed property values, and is affecting their health because of noise and vibration.

CaptureAttorney Richard Lippes, who handled the Love Canal lawsuits, is representing the angry residents.

Lippes said the basis of the lawsuit claims the wind turbines were erected too close to residential homes and are now causing “adverse effects.”

The lawsuits were filed in State Supreme Court in Wyoming County and they also seek restrictions on operation of the wind turbines.

The Orangeville wind farm contains 58 wind turbines and was constructed in 2013 by Invenergy – which is the sole defendant in the lawsuits.

Invenergy issued the following statement in response:

About the Orangeville wind farm

As a clean energy leader, Invenergy is committed to successful, enduring partnerships with the communities in which our projects are located. We are grateful for the broad support we’ve received in Western New York and continue to receive from members of the community.

While support for renewable energy is strong across our country, we take seriously any concerns of those who live in a project host community. That is why we took great care in developing the Orangeville wind farm in accordance with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The lengthy authorization process was open and inclusive, allowing extensive opportunity for citizen input.

In addition, since the Orangeville wind farm commenced commercial operation, the facility has been operated and maintained in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including local zoning laws, relevant state agency directives, and Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) requirements.

About Wind Turbine Sound and Health

Numerous studies – conducted in countries all over the world – have found no evidence to support a link between sound emitted from wind turbines and adverse health effects.

About Wind Turbines and Property Values A 2013 comprehensive report by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory studied wind turbines and home values. In analyzing more than 50,000 home sales near 67 wind farms in nine states, researchers were “unable to uncover any impacts to nearby home property values.”

About Petitioners’ Motions

The Orangeville wind farm will vigorously defend itself against the unfounded claims set forth in these complaints

Follow to watch the accompanying News Report.

The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being

 Published July 22, 2011

Corresponding Author: Arline L. Bronzoft, GrowNYC, New York, NY. USA

Albtor@aol.com

Bio:

Arline L. Bronzaft, PhD is a Professor Emerita of Lehman College, City University of New York.

She serves on the Mayor’s GrowNYC, having been named to this organization by three previous

Mayors as well. Dr. Bronzaft is the author of landmark research on the effects of elevated train noise on children’s classroom learning; has examined the impacts of airport-related noise on quality of life; and has published articles on noise in environmental books, academic journals and the more popular press. In 2007, she assisted in the updating of the New York City Noise

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Abstract

Research linking loud sounds to hearing loss in youngsters is now widespread,  resulting in the issuance of warnings to protect children’s hearing.  However, studies attesting to the adverse effects of intrusive sounds and noise on children’s overall mental and physical health and well-being have not received similar attention. This, despite the fact that many studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises such as those from passing road traffic, nearby rail systems, and overhead aircraft can adversely affect children’s cardiovascular system, memory, language development and learning acquisition. While some schools in the United States have received funds to abate intrusive aircraft noise, for example, many schools still expose children to noises from passing traffic and overhead aircraft. Discussion focuses on the harmful effects of noise on children, what has to be done to remedy the situation, and the need for action to lessen the impacts of noise from all sources. Furthermore, based on our knowledge of the harmful effects of noise on children’s health and the growing body of evidence to suggest the potential harmful effects of industrial wind turbine noise, it is strongly urged that further studies be conducted on the impacts of industrial wind turbines on their health, as well as the health of their parents, before forging ahead in siting industrial wind turbines.

read entire paper here : The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being Arline L. Bronzaft

Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill

Magda Havas and David Colling

Abstract

People who live near wind turbines complain of symptoms that include some combination of the following: difficulty sleeping, fatigue, depression, irritability, aggressiveness, cognitive dysfunction, chest pain/pressure, headaches, joint pain, skin irritations, nausea, dizziness, tinnitus, and stress. These symptoms have been attributed to the pressure (sound) waves that wind turbines generate in the form of noise and infrasound. However, wind turbines also generate electromagnetic waves in the form of poor power quality (dirty electricity) and ground current, and these can adversely affect those who are electrically hypersensitive. Indeed, the symptoms mentioned above are consistent  with electrohypersensitivity.  Sensitivity to both sound and electromagnetic waves differs among individuals and may explain why not everyone in the same home experiences similar effects. Ways to mitigate the adverse health effects of wind turbines are presented.

Introduction

With growing concern about climate change, the carbon budget, depletion of fossil fuels, air pollution from dirty coal, radiation from nuclear power plants, and the need for a secure energy supply, more attention and funding are being diverted to renewable energy. Among the various types of renewable energy, wind has received a lot of attention due, in part, to opposition from communities earmarked for wind turbines and from communities that have experienced wind turbines firsthand.

Some people who live near wind turbines report difficulty sleeping and various symptoms of ill health and attribute these problems to noise and shadow flicker—two elements they can perceive. Indeed the U.S. National Research Council (Risser et al., 2007) identify noise and shadow flicker as the two key impacts of wind turbines on human health and well-being.

Not all health agencies, however, recognize that sound waves from wind turbines may cause adverse health effects. Following a review of the literature, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario (2010), concluded

that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.  the sound level sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.

Low frequency sound and infrasound from current  generation upwind model turbines are well below the pressure sound levels at which known health effects occur. Further, there is no scientific evidence to date that vibration from low frequency wind turbine noise causes adverse health effects.

follow link to read full report:   Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society

Wind Turbines: A Different Breed of Noise?

images (8)“Much of what scientists can conclude today about the health effects of noise in general draws upon studies of transportation noise in urban areas conducted over the past four decades. Among the first to suggest a link between noise and learning impairment was a 1975 study by environmental psychologist Arline Bronzaft.21 In a New York City elementary school adjacent to an elevated train track, Bronzaft compared the reading scores of children in classrooms facing the tracks to those of children in classrooms on the other side of the building. She discovered that children on the noisy side were nearly one year behind their peers in reading. After two years, once noise-abatement measures had been completed—and other classroom variables held constant—Bronzaft returned to the school and found reading scores on both sides of the building to be at the same grade level.22

follow link to read artice: Environmental Health Perspectives, CEHN July 2014 Article of the Month

Kingston Independence turbine exceeds state’s noise threshold during study

The Kingston Independence wind turbine violated the state’s noise policy two of the nights sound samples were taken as part of an acoustical monitoring study, according to an interim report.

Page 2 of 2 – According to Fine’s letter, “MassDEP’s determination of exceedences is based on a comparison of the L90 background sound including the sound of traffic from Route 3 compared to the LMax sound levels excluding any source of interference sound (traffic).”
The consulting firm Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson Inc. (HMMH) performed the study for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and DEP.

Doreen and Sean Reilly live close to the Independence turbine, and their property was a sampling site. They are not only interested in the results released to date. They are interested in seeing the full report.
Sean Reilly said they don’t understand how the turbine can be out of compliance 100 feet away on Schofield Road and not at their property.

With the turbine out of compliance, they are calling for the town and the state to do something to fix it and help their and other families.
“The Independence wind turbine was permitted and constructed with no flicker study and inadequate sound studies,” Doreen Reilly said. “It is becoming clear that this was a mistake from the beginning that the town of Kingston and the state of Massachusetts is allowing to continue to diminish the quality of our lives at our home and on our property.”

Fine said the final report will be released to the public once it has been received by DEP and undergone quality assurance and review in the coming weeks. He said the interim report was released because there were times when the regulation was exceeded. He said HMMH and Mass CEC have assured the state that the regulation was not exceeded during the other sampling dates.

According to the Fine letter, DEP does not plan to request additional sound sampling. The interim report was based on monitoring events October through April before the study was suspended.

“As you know, the full study has taken longer to complete than anticipated due to persistent weather challenges, turbine operational issues and problems with background noise contamination,” Fine wrote. “Now that the winter sampling season has ended, the time identified in the scope as appropriate for monitoring worst case scenario sound impacts has also ended.”

To view the interim report, go to  https://mothersagainstturbines.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/kwicvletinterimreport0714.pdf

Kathryn Gallerani, Kingston Reporter

Ontario’s Power Trip: Bring in ‘da Noise, Bring in ‘da Facts

Wind power generates noise at levels that Ontario says must meet enforceable standards—but it has no enforceable standards. The long shabby story of wind noise from the province’s wind energy regime: Misguided Direction or Failure to Communicate?

The issue of noise from Ontario’s wind farms deserves a full public review. Instead, people are getting a run around from bureaucrats and politicians. Standards don’t exist, yet approvals are being issued without regard to consequences or the impact on people of noise levels.

Donna Cansfield, in November 2005, as Ontario Minister of Energy issued a “Direction” to the Ontario Power Authority instructing it to enter into contracts for up to 1000 MW of new electricity supply from renewable energy. Most were wind turbines. The health and other effects of wind turbines wasn’t actively studied before the contracts were signed. Noise, building codes, environmental standards etc. existed and were adapted tofit. No real review was undertaken.

To cite an example, the Amaranth wind contract used Stantec Consulting Ltd. of Guelph, Ontario to complete an Environmental Screening Report in February. They used Helimax Energie Inc. for the “noise” sector portion of that report. Three and a half years later Helimax presented a paper at the June 2008, World Wind Energy Conference which stated: “no recognized standard exists for measuring the noise impact of an operational wind farm.”

So the “noise” information used for Amaranth in the Environmental Screening Report in 2005 to secure the licence from the Environment Ministry was done without a “recognized standard”.

A leaked paper from the Guelph district office of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment stated the local authority “knowingly issued a series of Certificates of Approval (AIR) that are unenforceable.”

Sound measurement reports from the Ministry of the Environment exceeded the approved 40 decibel limit by almost 30%. The Ministry notes that allowances are related to wind speed and will allow 51 decibels based on higher wind speeds. This is almost 30% greater than those “experienced in a quiet office”. Research indicates a “clearly notable change” occurs with only a 5dB change and a 10dB increase is roughly equivalent to being a doubling in the perceived sound level as noise is measured on a logarithmic scale similar to earthquakes.

Noise produced by wind turbines is defined as “tonal” (eg: sirens, saws, etc.) and intrusive. Normally a 5dB penalty is applied for tonal noise, including that emanating from wind turbines. It is not clear that this penalty is applied by the Ontario regulators.

Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Health Officer, has accepted the findings of others in the May 2010 review endorsing setbacks established by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment so that noise levels that do not exceed 40 decibels at the nearest residence. However, health complaints by residents are generally ignored and end up tangled in provincial bureaucracy. A recent story indicates the MOE received 750 complaints in two years.

Most complaints about how people have suffered wind turbine related health effects remain unresolved, but over 25 families (five in Amaranth alone) have publicly disclosed their problems. Families have abandoned their homes and others have had their homes purchased by the developers and signed “gag” orders. Despite all of this, the various Ministries have not altered or changed their outright denial that there are any health effects.

We don’t really know what the health and quality of life issues are related to wind farms, but the evidence so far seems at odds with the basic premise that politicians are elected to execute the “will of the people.” We clearly need a full open factual review of the wind/noise issue. We have the noise, what we don’t is sold review of the facts on the impact on citizens who have to live with it.

to read a more complete version of my comments and report on this subject. click here

Financial Post, Parker Gallant, July 8 2011

 

 

Schmalz: turbine fight is a ‘worldwide movement’

Shoreline Beacon Friday, May 16, 2014

Buergerinitiative Windstill, Germany

A town hall style meeting was held at Maple Hall in Port Elgin Thursday night on the subject of wind turbines.

The meeting falls shortly after the one year anniversary the Unifor turbine blades started spinning it was fourth in a series of open meetings for continued education. The turbine meeting, which was hosted by Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy (S.T.O.P) brought in two speakers with new theories and histories in the fight against wind power.

Organizer Greg Schmaltz quipped “people are probably tired of hearing from him,” so he brought in some featured speakers from Toronto.

First to speak was Sherri Lange, the co-founder of Toronto Wind Action “whose claim to fame is that they beat the turbines on the Scarborough Bluffs down in Toronto,” said Schmalz.

Lange is also CEO of NAPAW (North American Platform Against Wind).

The second speaker Thursday evening was Kevin Dooley “who likes to be called an inventor and he truly is, with over one hundred US patents’ to his name,” Schamlz added. “He is a retired jet engine turbine specialist; his life’s mission is all about vibration which of course noise is a vibration.”

The S.T.O.P spokesperson said Dooley has interesting theories about how people suffering adverse effects from industrial turbines are in fact identical to motion sickness that you would experience on a boat caused by atmospheric pressure changes “which is a pretty cutting edge scientific data.”

Dooley’s presentation showcased The McMauley Hypothsis about infrasound and how it causes tempera illness. He displayed acoustic data captured from Port Elgin homes showing the rate of the blade passing the tower in a pulse spectra analysis.

“These frequencies of thumping are specific to each wind turbine”, said Dooley. Read rest of article here.

MPAC study on property values and wind turbines self-serving

WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO News release

The year-late report from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) on the effect of wind turbines on Ontario property values is nothing more than a self-serving exercise by bureaucrats to serve their government masters, says Wind Concerns Ontario.

President Jane Wilson, who consulted with real estate appraisers and finance professionals, commented that “the reality is, as anyone knows, no one wants to live near a wind turbine.  But the government doesn’t want the voting public to know more about the negative effects of what they’ve done with their wind power program. So, the bureaucrat assessors at MPAC took their time, and came up with the answer the government wants—no impact on value.”

Instead of using comparison to actual sales as real estate appraisers do, the assessment staff at MPAC used a mathematical methodology called multiple regression analysis. “Unlike actual comparisons to sales, this type of analysis can be manipulated to get the ‘right’ answer,” Wilson explains. “They left out sales before 2008, they only studied turbines of a certain size, and they completely excluded homes that have been abandoned and purchased by the wind power developers.”

The MPAC study also does not include properties that are listed for sale but never sell. “You can’t measure what didn’t happen,” Wilson adds.

The purpose of the study was to justify MPAC’s refusal to add wind power developments as a factor in assessing property value, although the corporation does factor in other less desirable features such as quarries, garbage dumps and other industrial facilities.

“Taxpayers paid for this study which will now doubtless be used by their own government against them, as they seek re-assessment of their properties, or even go to court for lost property value,” Wilson said.

Read more from WCO.

Bylaw sought for Noisy Turbines

NORFOLK – A movement is afoot that could ultimately force wind turbine companies to shut down some units after dark.

North Perth Coun. Warren Howard is touring Ontario building support for a common bylaw that would silence turbines after dark if they produce noise that is audible to residents nearby.

“The legal advice we have is we can enforce a `quiet night’ provision,” Howard told Norfolk council Tuesday. “Yes, we’ll be challenged. But the legal advice we have is we can win.”

The Liberals’ Green Energy Act stripped municipalities of planning authority in the area of renewable energy projects several years ago.

In a recent ruling, a court said that Wainfleet Township had over-stepped its authority by trying to establish a large setback for wind turbines. However, the judge also said municipalities have the right to pass bylaws on nuisance issues that affect residents’ quality of life.  Read rest of article here.

Enercon E-101 Turbines – Higher Sound Power Levels – Proof to MOE

Incomplete Response – EBR #012-0613
By Bonnie Tuson
 (documents following the letter)
Ms. Garcia-Wright,
Regrettably, I find myself in the position of having to write back yet again.  That is because most of the questions I asked in my email of January 8, 2013 were not addressed in your response to me (attached).  I have my also attached my email to you for you to re-read and consider as I am still expecting a response to those questions.
Specifically, I ask for an explanation regarding your earlier correspondence in which you indicated that the MOE would not be considering the documents sent to you regarding other wind developments that show a higher sound power level than what has been reported by the Niagara Region Wind Corporation (NRWC).  You stated that there are differences and I asked for an explanation as to what those differences are.  Neither of those questions was answered.  I also asked whether the MOE would also be dismissing the additional documents showing evidence of the higher sound power level as well but that was not answered either.
In your most recent letter (also attached), you indicate that the MOE requires the sound power levels be guaranteed by the manufacturer and that they be included in the Noise Study Report.  There is no such guarantee in this application yet the MOE saw fit to deem it complete.  Why is that?   We have provided you with a variety of documentation from other wind developments using this particular wind turbine as well as a document from Enercon itself demonstrating the higher sound power level. That Enercon documentation is not included in the NRWC application so I question how you can state that the MOE requires that it be included.  Clearly you did not require that.  Please provide an explanation for this oversight.  It seems very odd that the Enercon documentation that you claim you require is provided to you by residents of this community rather than the company making the application.
The only documentation in the NRWC report is for a 99m wind turbine which as you know, is much smaller than the wind turbine that is actually proposed for use.  In countless instances throughout the reports, the NRWC references wind turbines of 124m and 135m reports so I fail to understand why the height is not confirmed until the technical review.  Clearly, this presents a significant gap and I require an explanation as to why the MOE would choose to accept the application as complete.
You are already in receipt of 16 documents indicating that the sound power level of the Enercon E-101 is 106 dBA.  Recently, a resident of our community obtained the attached 4 documents directly from Enercon.  These documents once again raise the question of why the NRWC reports only a sound power level of 104.8.  The test report completed by Kotter Engineering Consultants does not represent the worst case scenario that is required by your ministry.   Regulations require that the 104.8 rating be rounded to 105.0 which is the nearest whole number and then the variance of +/-1 must be applied. Enercon’s own documents support that conclusion.  As mentioned in previous correspondence, research by residents of this community showed that only the NRWC claims that the sound power level is lower.   We found absolutely no data to support that claim.  NRWC reports show that even at 104.8, there are at least 10 non-participating receptors that will be subjected to a noise level of 40 dBA.  At the true sound power level of 106.0, there will be many receptors in excess of the permissible limits.  I would also like to point out that in a letter to a resident of this community, Mr. Steve Klose advised that the sound power level is an inherent property of a wind turbine.  It does not change.
Suspiciously, the NRWC application did not include the conversion sheet for wind turbines of the height that they propose to use nor did they include the attached Enercon data sheet for the E101.  The conversion sheet provided by Enercon shows that the 104.8 sound power level is achieved at only 2,859kw which of course, begs the question of what the power level is at 3 MW.  Also missing was the data sheet provided by Enercon that shows the reduced rated power modes for the E-101.  It clearly shows that at reduced power levels, the company cannot meet the 230 MW contract.  These documents are readily available from Enercon and MOE must explore the reasons that the NRWC did not include them.
You also failed to address my questions regarding the 3dBA variance.  Please review my earlier questions and supply an explanation.
My question regarding the claim of a 104.8 sound power level and the regulations requiring that it be rounded to the closest number was also not addressed.  Please provide an answer to that as well.
I appreciate that you have forwarded the German court case to Mr. Klose.  I will be expecting a reply from him.  As you may or may not know, Enercon is in the process of determining how to adapt their turbines based on this decision.
I am appalled and frightened at your statement that REA applications are “usually” conditional to an acoustic audit after the facility is constructed.  You indicate that the sound power levels will be checked post-construction to determine if they were suitable.  Is that not akin to “closing the barn door after the horse has bolted?”  Your comments in this regard do not support the MOE’s claims that applications are diligently reviewed to ensure that the health of Ontarian citizens is protected.   The MOE’s rather lackadaisical approach to approving is evidenced by testimony at several recent Environmental Review Tribunal(ERT) hearings.  At the recent ERT hearing for Armow Wind, one of your own supervisors (Heather Pollard) confirmed that the MOE has no expertise with health effects, that hundreds of noise complaints for wind developments in the area have been received and that the MOE does not shut down wind turbines in excess of the permissible limits following the acoustic audits you speak of.  At the ERT hearing for Wainfleet Wind Energy yesterday, another of your supervisors (Vic Shroeter) confirmed that in the absence of expertise regarding parachuting, he chose to approve the application. I’m sure you can understand why the public has no faith in the MOE’s claims of diligence or in the acoustic audits that you may or may not conduct post-construction.  Once again, I will remind you that Ontario has no experience with 3MW wind turbines and it is incumbent upon you to take any and all precautions with this application prior to approval.  That includes careful consideration of the documents supplied to you in respect of the other wind developments that utilize this size and type of wind turbine.
Please get back to me on both the questions that have not been answered as well as on the new questions and concerns raised.
Thank you.
Bonnie Tuson

 

Letter Response_Ms. Bonnie Tuson_Dated January 23, 2014 (2)

E-101 OM I KCE 213121-02.01_english_Extract (6)

E-101 OM I KCE 213121-02-02_english 135m

SIAS-04-SPL E-101 OM I 3050 kW Rev1_3-eng-eng (2)

SIAS-04-SPL E-101 Red Rev1_2-eng-eng (4)

Jan8MOE