Category Archives: Noise

Adverse Health Effects, Children Affected, Government Misrepresentation, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, legal challenges, Noise, Turbines & Property Devalue

Falmouth Ordered to shut down Turbines

1 Comment

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

Adverse Health Effects, Cost Benefit, Destruction from turbines, Environment, fighting big wind., Green Energy, harm to wildlife, Health, Noise, Unite the Fight!

Nothing Brings a Community Together Like Wind Energy

1 Comment

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

Adverse Health Effects, Children Affected, Direct Effects, Green Energy, Health, Ireland Wind, Noise, Property Rights

Families Settle Court Actions taken against Enercon

2 Comments

Seven families which included children in a north Cork village in Ireland launched legal actions back in 2013 against the wind turbine operators for a project adjacent to their homes.  The wind plant began operations in 2011 which they claimed caused them adverse health effects mainly due to noise pollution coming from the turbines.  The impacts to health were severe enough that several families were forced to abandon their homes seeking relief. In January 2017 Enercon Wind Farm Services Ireland Ltd. admitted to liability leading to the court order to settle the actions for damages.

THE HIGH COURT 2011 No. 9955P Tuesday the 6th day of December 2016

And the Court records that liability has been admitted by the Defendants in the action herein and each action listed in the schedule here-after……

(Bolded for emphasis)

An announcement has been published that settlements have now been reached in the actions before the High Court.

Cork village families settle action against wind turbine operators

By Ann O’Loughlin

14/06/2017 – 12:28:35

A group of families in a north Cork village who sued a wind farm operator claiming the huge turbines adversely affected their health have settled their High Court actions.

The High Court was this morning told the cases involving seven families from the Banteer area had been settled and the cases could be struck out.

The actions were regarded as landmark cases and the High Court had been due to assess damages after liability was admitted in the case several months ago.

The cases against Enercon Windfarm Services Ireland Ltd and Carrigcannon Wind Farm Ltd were taken by the Shivnen family and others including couples, families, and one single occupant.

The seven families from Banteer area claimed they have been severely impacted, particularly through noise pollution, since the turbines began operating in Nov 2011.

In court today, Roland Budd Bl told Mr Justice Tony O’Connor the implementation of the settlement agreements had taken place and the seven actions could be struck out.

No details of the settlement were given in court. The case will be briefly mentioned next month in relation to certain costs. The Banteer action was the first of its kind in the country.

enercon turbine
Enercon Wind Turbine
Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise, Protecting our children, world Health Organization

Industrial Wind Turbines Can Harm Humans

1 Comment
Carmen Krogh
Carmen Krogh is a researcher into the risks of harm to human health associated with wind energy facilities

ABSTRACT:
The topic of the risk of harm to human health associated with wind energy facilities is controversial and debated worldwide. On March 29, 2017, Carmen Krogh presented at the University of Waterloo which considered some of the research dating back to the early 1980’s. A snapshot of some of the current research available in 2017 was provided. The research is challenged in part by the complexities and numerous variables and knowledge gaps associated with this subject. This presentation explored some of these research challenges and provided an update on the growing body of evidence regarding human health risk factors. Included was the emerging research indicating risks to those working in this field.
BIO:
Carmen M Krogh is a full time volunteer and published researcher regarding health effects and industrial wind energy facilities and shares information with communities; individuals; federal, provincial and public health authorities, wind energy developers; the industry; and others. She is an author and a co-author of peer reviewed articles and conference papers presented at wind turbine scientific noise conferences. Ms Krogh is a retired pharmacist whose career includes: senior executive positions at a teaching hospital (Director of Pharmacy); a drug information researcher at another teaching hospital; a Director of a professional organization; and a Director (A) at Health Canada (PMRA). She is the former Director of Publications and Editor in Chief of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS), the book used by physicians, nurses, and health professionals for prescribing information in Canada.

No headlineVideo:  University of Waterloo- Livestream: Industrial Wind Turbines Can Harm Humans

Green Energy, Noise, Ontario Wind

West Lincoln wind action group hears from vibration specialist

1 Comment
Andy Metelka 1
Andy Metelka is the president of Sound and Vibration Solutions Canada and is currently researching sound emitted by wind turbines. He presented some of his findings to West Lincoln residents at a talk hosted by Mothers against Wind Turbines and the West Lincoln and Glanbrook Wind Action Group. – Alexandra Heck/Metroland

May 25, 2017 by Alexandra Heck Grimsby Lincoln News

WEST LINCOLN — He wasn’t just a bag of wind.

Andy Metelka, an acoustics and vibrations specialist who has been studying the sound effects of wind turbines, was very careful about the conclusions he made from his studies.

He has just returned from a conference on wind turbine noise in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and shared his insights with a group of residents in Smithville.

Metelka has perfected his own sound measuring technique and a formula to isolate the sound coming from turbines from other background noise.

“There are no guidelines in Canada on infrasound regarding wind turbines,” said Metelka, explaining that further research could lay the groundwork for those regulations.

“I’m not here to discuss medical science, I’m not a medical professional,” he said. “I do not act on behalf of any party as a professional engineer.”

Metelka has been studying the sound and infrasound from turbines in Grey Highlands, a municipality just southeast of Owen Sound. Infrasound is the low-level noise that is not detected by the human ear.

Metelka concluded that both weather and the shape of the ground can affect how the sound travels, and that older farmhouses let more infrasound in than newer homes.

Metelka also concluded that infrasound is indeed present in homes near operating wind turbines, but he could not say what effect, if any, they have on human life.

READ ARTICLE HERE

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise, Protecting our children, The problem with Wind Turbines, world Health Organization

Critique of “Health Nuisances of Land-based Wind Turbines”

Leave a comment

Critique of “Health Nuisances of Land-based Wind Turbines”, Statement by the French National Academy of Medicine issued May 9, 2017

By Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD.

The French National Academy of Medicine has used this document in an attempt to redefine “Wind Turbine Syndrome”:

In summary, the health nuisances seem to be primarily visual (disfigurement of the landscape and its psychosomatic consequences) and to a lesser degree noise (of an intermittent and random character as generated by wind turbines of older generations). Medically, wind turbine syndrome is a complex and subjective entity with several factors contributing to its clinical expression, some related to the wind turbine itself, others to the complainants and to the social, financial, political, and communication environment (p. 14).

To reach this conclusion, the authors first review turbine noise levels and hearing thresholds, concluding that noise levels are low. They then review the following potential mechanisms:

  • Outer hair cells (Salt): “The work is not clinical or experimental but theoretical, based on the analysis of electrophysiologic, biomechanical, and acoustic models and data, and its conclusions are conservative.” Mechanism not supported (p. 9).
  • Otolith organs (Schomer, Todd, Rand): Conflicts with other studies suggesting that the sensitivity of otolith hair cells to infrasound is too low for this mechanism to be relevant to the production of motion sickness symptoms (pp. 9-10).
  • Stimulation of visceral organs (Pierpont): Intensities of infrasound not high enough (p. 10).
  • Direct action of noise on sleep: This mechanism is supported with a 1.5 km radius, but not further mentioned in the conclusions (see below) (p. 10).
  • Psychological factors: These are supported, including the impact of new technologies, the nocebo effect, individual factors of hearing sensitivity and emotional/psychological fragility, and social and economic factors such as lack of profit sharing and excessive communication of unsupported fears on social media (pp. 10-12).

The authors continue:

  • These nuisance factors being identified, the analysis of the medical and scientific literature (more than sixty articles have been published to date on the health effects of wind turbines) does not make it possible to demonstrate that, when wind turbines are properly located, they have a significant impact on health. In other words, no disease or infirmity can be imputed to their functioning.
  • The problem, however, is that the definition of health has evolved. According to WHO, this today is defined as “a state of complete physical well-being, mental and social,” not only the absence of illness or infirmity.
  • In this sense, we must admit that wind turbine syndrome, though the symptoms are subjective, reflects an existential suffering, a psychological distress, in short a violation of the quality of life, which, however, concerns only a part of the neighboring population (p. 14).

The authors proceed to discuss how to ameliorate the effects of wind power development, assuming (as they do) that wind energy is a political given. They propose extending the setback distance from 500 to 1000 m, while recognizing that this is neither politically feasible nor likely to be effective with larger turbines (p. 17).

They discuss caps on dBA noise levels relative to pre-construction and suggest that post-construction enforcement should be improved (p. 15). They suggest design features that affect airflow over and around the blades or stop the turbines when noise thresholds are exceeded (p. 16).

They recommend better public discussion and profit-sharing:

  • In the dual aim of improving the acceptance of wind energy and mitigating its impact health, directly or indirectly, on a part of the population of residents, the workgroup recommends:
  • To facilitate dialogue between local residents and farmers [who host turbines] as well as the referral of complaints to the authorities, to ensure that public inquiry is conducted with legal rigor and effectively implemented, and to ensure that residents have more interest in the economic repercussions or spin-off of the projects (p. 18).

My critique of the Academy’s report:

Out-of-date on noise descriptions. Does not use the “wind turbine signature” of pulsatile infrasound/low frequency noise with duration of 4 to 100 msec, which is perceptible at sound pressure levels as low as 60 dB (Punch & James 2016, Cooper 2014).

Never mentions migraine as a clinical entity affecting 18% of women and 6% of men; individual differences are instead treated as a reason to discredit physiologic causation and discredit as psychological frailty the population affected. They cite 4 to 20% affected, saying this is so close to the 10% considered affected by traffic noise in Europe that it is acceptable. This is tantamount to defining a sacrifice population and includes blaming of victims.

All the recommended interventions are either in place, have been tried and are useless, or have been called for for years but require changes in human nature, reducing the recommendations herein to “tuttut, let’s all behave better.”

This document attempts to redefine “wind turbine syndrome” to represent factors which are actually not wind turbine syndrome. Wind turbine syndrome is the reaction of migrainous or motion-sensitive people to wind turbine acoustic emissions, the latter now well defined as sharply pulsatile lowfrequency noise. Wind turbine syndrome is different from hysteria or nocebo, as it occurs in people by surprise, who had no thoughts about the turbines before the turbines were installed and turned on and the symptoms began.

I challenge every member of the French working group and their consultants, listed in the report, who self-identifies as having migraine, motion sensitivity, or balance problems, or their family members, including children with developmental disorders such as autism in which auditory and position/balance processing are distorted, to spend a week in a wind park. This would be simple to accomplish and could lead to a tidy “exposure” experiment without ethical obstacles, as the authors believe that they could not be affected as they do not have the psychological limitations and shortcomings they blithely attribute to affected people and use as an excuse to dismiss them.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
19 Clay St
Malone, NY 12953
518-483-6481 ph
518-207-4488 fax
pierpont@twcny.rr.com

References:

Jerry L. Punch and Richard R. James, “Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health: A Four-Decade History of Evidence That Wind Turbines Pose Risks,” The Journal at Hearing Health & Technology Matters (October 2016), 72 pp.

Steven Cooper, “The Results of an Acoustic Testing Program: Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm,” The Acoustic Group Report for Energy Pacific, 44.5100.R7:Msc (November 26, 2014), 224 pp.

Download Article

Dr_Nina_Pierpont
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Source: Friends Against Wind

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, Health, Noise, world Health Organization

French Academy of Medicine Declare Wind Turbines Health Nuisance

3 Comments

academie-01REPORT

Health nuisances of onshore wind turbines

Patrice TRAN BA HUY *

summary

The planned extension of the terrestrial wind energy sector raises an increasing number of complaints from associations of local residents reporting functional disturbances achieving what is known as the “wind turbine syndrome”. The aim of this report was to analyze the real health impact and to propose recommendations that could reduce its potential impact.  

If the terrestrial wind does not seem to directly induce organic pathologies, it affects through its noise and especially visual nuisance the quality of life of a part of the residents and thus their “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being “Which today defines the concept of health.

In order to improve the acceptance of the wind and to reduce its direct or indirect health impact, the working group recommends:

– to ensure that during the authorization procedure the public inquiry is carried out with the aim of fully informing the local populations, facilitate consultation between them and the operators, and facilitate referral to the prefect by the complainants , 

– to allow the installation of new wind turbines only in areas where there has been consensus among the population concerned as to their visual impact, given that the increase in their size and their planned extension may alter Sustainably the landscape of the country and to elicit opposition and resentment on the part of the riparian population – and general – with their psychic and somatic consequences.

– to systematize acoustic compliance checks, the periodicity of which must be specified in all authorization orders and not on a case-by-case basis,

– to encourage technological innovations likely to restrict and “bridle” in real time the noise emitted by the wind turbines and to equip the oldest wind turbines,

– to reduce the threshold for triggering emergence measures to 30 dB A outside the dwellings and to 25 inside, (while leaving the wind turbines under the regime of the Classified Installations for the Protection of the Environment) ,

– undertake, as recommended in the previous report, a prospective epidemiological study on health nuisances.

* Member (s) of the Academy of Medicine

The authors state that they have no conflict of interest in relation to the content of this report.

May 21.2018:  Bulletin in French via Wind Watch  

READ ORIGINAL BULLENTIN IN FRENCH- link no longer active May 21.18

Download Report pdf (in French)

french wind project
Plouarzel in Brittany.   French landscape ‘will be ruined by wind farms’
Adverse Health Effects, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise

Physiological effects of wind turbine noise on sleep

1 Comment

sleepConclusions: Physiological measurements indicate that nights with low frequency band amplitude modulation and LAEq,8h=45 dB, slightly open window (LAEq,8h=33 dB indoors) impacted sleep the most. In particular, amplitude modulation and the presence of beating were important constituents of the wind turbine noise contributing to sleep disruption

Presented: Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016  PROCEEDINGS of the 22nd International Congress on Acoustics

Wind Farm Noise: Paper ICA2016-440 Physiological effects of wind turbine noise on sleep Michael G. Smith(a), Mikael Ögren(b), Pontus Thorsson(c), Eja Pedersen(d) and Kerstin Persson Waye(e) (a) University of Gothenburg, Sweden, michael.smith@amm.gu.se (b) University of Gothenburg, Sweden, mikael.ogren@amm.gu.se (c) Chalmers University of Technology Sweden, pontus.thorsson@akustikverkstan.se (d) Lund University, Sweden, eja.pedersen@arkitektur.lth.se (e) University of Gothenburg, Sweden, kerstin.persson.waye@amm.gu.se

house-surrounded-by-wind-turbines

Adverse Health Effects, Direct Effects, fighting big wind., Green Energy, Health, Health effects from wind turbines, Noise, Protecting our children, world Health Organization

Wind Power-Experiment in Environmental Ethics

1 Comment

Our Experiment in Environmental Ethics

To the Editor:

Back in the 1960s, Yale psychology professor Stanley Milgram conducted a research experiment whose results shocked the nation.

Participants were told that they were taking on the role of ‘teacher’ in a study of methods to improve learning. An authority figure told the ‘teacher’ to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to a ‘learner’ in the next room whenever a question was answered incorrectly. There actually were no shocks and the learner was part of the research team, but the ‘teacher’ heard increasing cries of pain with each ‘shock’ administered. Even as the intensity of the shocks approached the maximum of 450 volts, the authority insisted that the shocks should continue – that the anguished screams, the banging on the wall, the pleas about heart conditions, and ultimately the ominous silence from the other room should all be ignored.

It was believed that most people would defy the authority figure once they became aware that the shocks were seriously harming another person. But that was not the case: almost 2/3 of participants continued to obey the authority figure, administering ‘shocks’ until the very end.

I was reminded of the Milgram experiments recently while attending two Public Service Board hearings on new proposed sound limits for industrial wind facilities. Because there have been problems, a lower standard of 35 dBA, (down from 45 dBA) has been proposed. (The World Health Organization recommends 30 dBA.)

SONY DSC
Shirley & Don Nelson- A Sacrificial Property Owner

Those who live close to Vermont’s existing industrial wind facilities have described a range of symptoms that include sleeplessness, headaches, ringing ears, and nausea. For fifteen months, Shirley Nelson, who lived less than a mile from the Lowell wind project, kept detailed recordings of decibel readings (from a monitor installed at their home by the developer, Green Mountain Power) and the health effects she and her husband were experiencing. Entries from her ‘noise diary’ clearly demonstrate the sustained and cumulative adverse effects of living near the turbines at the previous standards.

therriens
Therrien family  abandoned their home after wind turbines became operational

The Therrien family, who lived near the turbines in Sheffield, pleaded for years for relief – from the PSB, the wind developer, the town of Sheffield, former governor Shumlin and other state officials – to no avail. Their symptoms? “Disturbed sleep, headaches, tinnitus (ear ringing), sense of quivering or vibration, nervousness, rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, nausea, difficulty with concentration, memory loss and irritability.”

At the Montpelier hearing, the lawyer who represents the proposed Swanton Wind project told the Board to ignore these symptoms – dismissing them as coming from “complainers” and “outliers” whose testimony was just “anect-data”. Instead, he said, the Board should focus solely on submitted peer-reviewed studies that show no health impacts from proximity to industrial wind facilities

In other words: trust authority; ignore the pleas from the other room; continue administering the shocks.

What about other peer-reviewed studies showing that infrasound from industrial wind turbines does affect human health? And it’s hard to dismiss as mere “anect-data” the fact that deteriorating health forced the Therriens and their two young children to abandon a home they loved.

At the hearings, several residents of Lowell (perhaps believing that new standards would threaten their cash cow) not only implied that their neighbors were lying about the health impacts they’ve experienced, but claimed to live much closer to the turbines – with no ill effects – than they actually do. And the few supporters drummed up by VPIRG and industry promoter Renewable Energy Vermont callously waved off the impacts on humans, wildlife, land and water. Some actually called for raising the noise standard to make it easier on the industry.

Reading from talking points generated by VPIRG, someone commented, “There are only eight families complaining….”

What is the magic number that will elicit empathy from VPIRG? Thirty families? A hundred?

In the Milgram study, the pain the ‘teachers’ believed they were inflicting was justified by the supposed benefit of a better understanding of human learning. In Vermont, the justification from developers is that industrial wind is a ‘clean’ solution to climate change. And there are politicians, ‘environmental’ celebrities and non-profit organizations willing to put on a white coat and hold a clipboard to pose as the ‘authority’ on the industry’s behalf.

vermont-ridgeline
Vermont mountain ridgeline

But for those who find clear-cutting, blasting, and bulldozing mountain ridgelines, degrading water sources, eliminating wildlife habitat, and killing birds and bats ‘clean’ and ‘green’, take a look at before-and-after photos of entire valleys in China destroyed by the mining of rare earth metals, a critical component in industrial wind turbines. Where there were once thousands of acres of carbon-sequestering grasslands there are now mountains of toxic sludge. Four thousand tons of material must be mined to produce the two tons of metals needed for each 3-megawatt turbine.

Production tax credits, the sale of renewable energy credits, and the requirements of state renewable energy portfolios have made the buildout of industrial ‘renewables’ very profitable for corporations, even when the climate benefits are marginal or non-existent. Utility law professor Kevin Jones at Vermont Law School describes all this as a ‘shell game’ that has actually led to an increase in Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Clever marketing has induced some of us to engage in moral relativism, ethics without substance, and environmentalism at the cost of its soul. If you find yourself arguing in favor of throwing someone under the bus because your favorite pop-‘environmentalist’ says it’s necessary, ask yourself what you would have done in Milgram’s lab.wind-refugee

Suzanna Jones lives off the grid in Walden.

Suzanna Jones

Walden, Vermont

Letter to Editor Published Caledonia Record on May 22, 2017

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

Environmental Noise Pollution: Has Public Health Become too Utilitarian?

Leave a comment

noise sensitiveAbstract: Environmental noise pollution is an ever-increasing problem. The various sources: Aircraft, Road Traffic and Wind Farms are reviewed, but the latter source, because of the intrusive, impulsive and incessant nature of the sound emitted, is the major focus of this review. Wind turbines produce a range of sound but it is the Infrasound and low frequency noise which deserves special attention. Infrasound is considered to be below the range of human hearing so it is not measured in routine noise assessments in the wind farm planning process. There is, however, evidence that many can register it and a sizeable minority is sensitive, or becomes sensitised to it. The actual route of transmission still requires elucidation. The net effect of the entire range of noise produced is interference with sleep and sleep deprivation. Sleep, far from being a luxury is vitally important to health and insufficient sleep, in the long term, is associated with a spectrum of diseases, particularly Cardiovascular. The physiological benefits of sleep are reviewed, as is the range of diseases which the sleep-deprived are predisposed to. Governments, anxious to meet Green targets and often receiving most of their advice on health matters from the wind industry, must commission independent studies so that the Health and Human Rights of their rural citizens is not infringed. Public Health, in particular, must remember its roots in Utilitarianism which condoned the acceptance of some Collateral Damage provided that the greatest happiness of the greatest number was ensured. The degree of Collateral Damage caused by wind farms should be totally unacceptable to Public Health which must, like good government, fully exercise the Precautionary Principle. The types of study which should be considered are discussed. Indeed, the father of Utilitarian Philosophy, Jeremy Bentham, urged that government policy should be fully evaluated.

Keywords: Environmental Noise Pollution, Wind Farms, Infrasound, Health Impacts

Evans, A. (2017) Environmental Noise Pollution: Has Public Health Become too Utilitarian? Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 80-109. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.55007

house-surrounded-by-wind-turbines