Category Archives: Shadow Flicker

Hidden Dangers of Wind Towers

calf frighten

February 27, 2019

Dear Publisher:

On Jan. 12, after a big snow, I was feeding my 83 feeder calves as I’ve done every day since I weaned them in October. I was also sorting out a few as I planned to sell the majority the next week.

It was in the late afternoon and the sun was shining on the snow. All of a sudden the calves stampeded out of the feed lot, hitting the gate, breaking off the corner posts and flattening another fence. By the grace of God I was out of the way or I’d been fatally injured as the stampede was quick and fast. The calves calmed down and came back to eat, but soon stampeded again. This time I noticed the cause. Since the sun is lower in the winter and the wind turbine was just barely turning, a big black shadow from the wind turbine blades was quietly and slowly moving up behind the calves on top of the snow, spooking them. One was killed and two were crippled.

Besides the loss of these three calves, I will have the expense and labor of fixing my fences when the weather is fit. I noticed the same thing happening again with the shadow. Conditions have to be just right – snow on the ground, sun low in the sky, and a light breeze from the southwest slowly turning the turbine blades. Since the calves I had confined in the lot before had been sold, there wasn’t a stampede. In the “Successful Farming” magazine, February 2019, there’s the article, “Ways to Stay Safe While Handling Cattle” by Libby Eiholzer, Specialist. In it is stated, “Cattle also have poor depth perception, which can cause them to be nervous in the dark, around shadows, and skittish of foreign objects.”

I have fed and sorted cattle on this concrete floor for over 50 years and have never had a problem with them stampeding. I had nothing to say about this wind tower causing the problem as it isn’t on my land, but I shouldn’t have to take this loss. I feel this is an injustice to me as I was here long before the wind turbine. I can’t get insurance coverage on my cattle for this type of loss as it is a man-made hazard. I raise cattle on my land without infringing on the rights of others and I believe this should be the same with those who produce energy.

Iowa agriculture has an exemption to county zoning in the Iowa Code (Iowa Code 335.2). Yet a few years ago I was threatened by the Madison County Zoning Commission that I could be fined $750.00 a day. They wrote that I must obtain a county permit, something I didn’t need under the Iowa Code as a farmer erecting a farm shop to be used for farming purposes on a farm zoned for agriculture.

The wind tower southwest of my farm was erected on land zoned only for agriculture and which never has been rezoned. This tower was also erected without notifying me of any hazards it might cause. The stampede as a result of the wind tower shadow could have caused my death or the death of a helper, since it was an unforeseen occurrence. The shadow from the tower blades will be a hazard to me and any future owners of this farm as long as the wind turbine is in its present location.

The only solution that will correct this situation is the removal of the turbine.

Art Knutson

Letter published| Winterset Madisonian, Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Wind Turbine Study being Conducted

Do you have an opinion on wind turbines? The Huron County Health Unit wants to hear it. Epidemiologist, Dr. Erica Clark, says they’re conducting a study to learn what factors may be affecting people who live close by.

Unifor_Wind_Turbine_in_Port_Elgin.jpg

Participation involves returning a completed consent form, doing the Registration Survey, and completing the Observation Diary. Recruitment ends on October 31st, and the data collection ends on December 1st.  

Source|June 28, 2018: Shoreline Today

To participate or more information: Contact-

Puppets on a string

Puppets-cover-640x430

Credit: Emmetsburg News|December 19th, 2017

At the Supervisors meeting of Oct 24, they adamantly denied the accusation that they had effectively let Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy write the Palo Alto County Wind Energy Ordinance. However, documents obtained by way of the Iowa Open Records Act indicate otherwise. The original ordinance, written Aug 11, 2016, clearly did not meet with Invenergy’s and MidAmerican Energy’s approval. In a memo from Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy to the Supervisors dated Aug 26, 2016, the company states, “there are some key provisions that must be changed if the county desires to attract and encourage the development of wind energy conversion systems” Following are some specific examples comparing the original ordinance with the one modified to meet Invenergy’s demands.

Compliance with Palo Alto County Zoning Ordinance: Original: “requirement to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance in accordance with Article 9, Section 5 of the Palo Alto County Zoning Ordinance.” – Modified: zoning compliance eliminated.

Setbacks from Permanent Residential Dwellings: Original: 2640 ft.- Modified: 1500 ft.

Setbacks from Property Lines: Original: 1000 ft. – Modified: 120% of height of wind device (approximately 600 ft).

Setbacks of Wind Energy Accessory buildings from permanent residential dwellings: Original: 2640 ft. – Modified: 1500 ft.

Shadow Flicker: Original: “No wind energy conversion system shall be installed in any location where shadow shall fall on any existing residential structures.” – Modified: “The owner-developer shall use shadow flicker computer modeling to estimate the amount of shadow flicker anticipated before mitigating any of it.” (How reassuring it is to learn that how I feel about my health will be determined by an energy company’s computer model.)

Drainage Systems: Original: “Permit required if underground electrical construction activity spans across organized drainage districts and private tile systems. – Modified: No permit required for affecting private tile systems.

These are just some of the many changes demanded by Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy to increase the profitability of their project. Clearly most of the Supervisors, with assistance from other county employees, capitulated to every demand, without considering residents who are adversely affected by the project, and who elect and pay these county officials to look after their well-being.

Instead, these same officials have forfeited the health, environment, and homes of some of their constituents to generate huge profits for companies like Invenergy, Mid-American Energy and its billionaire investors like Warren Buffet, and large wealthy landowners, most of whom are absentee. Nearly all major projects such as this involve costs and downsides, as well as any benefits. In this case there are many downsides, starting with the ill health effects on humans caused by shadow flicker, audible noise, and worst of all, infrasound, which can cause stress, sleeplessness, and nausea. Further, there can be adverse effects on farm animals as well. Also, wind turbines can kill many birds, especially when placed too close to lakes and wetlands. Therefore, it is so important to follow regulations and perform due diligence, neither of which has been undertaken by our county officials.

Dr. Stephen Mathis

Professor Emeritus,

Shippensburg University,

Emmetsburg

 

Noise from wind turbines may cancel a Sale

good neigboursParis – The noise of new wind turbines may justify the cancellation of the purchase of a house if the buyer claims it.

The purchaser, faced with this nuisance, may in fact invoke his own misjudgment which has vitiated his consent, especially if he has been preoccupied with the environment before buying, judges the Court of Cassation.

Although no one is at fault, the error of one of the parties leads to a defect in his consent which justifies the handing over of things to their former state, that is to say the reciprocal restitution of the house and its price, Admit the judges.

Since the construction of wind turbines is not a question of town planning, it may not be reported as such to the future purchaser, To inform the city council on urbanism projects, observes the judges.

This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences.

In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisance. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. 

(Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337)

This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences. In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

Installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences. In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

While knowing the project, no one could imagine the extent of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

Google translate Original text in French:

Link to Court Decision

Le bruit des éoliennes peut annuler une vente  

french wind project
Installation of wind turbines in France

Report Shadow Flicker

turbine silouete
May 27, 2017

For anyone experiencing shadow flicker from turbines, and especially if you have been told erroneously NOT to report it, please read this message to us from the MOECC. We advise everyone to report to the MOECC, and the wind power developer but above all, to always include the MOECC in your reporting. Be sure to get an Incident Report number when you call.

MOECC: Thank you for your inquiry. The Ministry remains committed to reviewing and assessing all complaints related to the operation of a wind facility.

To register a complaint, please contact either the local MOECC district office (during business hours), or the Spills Action Centre (after hours).

Complaints received by the Spills Action Centre will be assessed and forwarded to the appropriate MOECC district office for action.

I thank you again for your inquiry.

Shannon Seko

Senior Manager, Spills Action Centre

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

5775 Yonge Street, Suite 500
Toronto, ON M2M 4J1

Spills Action Centre -Reports after business hours can be made by calling:

  • 1-800-268-6060 (toll-free, province-wide, 24/7)
  • 416-325-3000 (Toronto area)
  • 1-855-889-5775 (TTY)

Business Hours– Report to your local District Office

Find your local MOECC office 

mnr_offices

 

 

Shadow Flicker

You have to see it to believe it.  You have to see it to understand the intrusive severe nature of trespass for residents whose homes are now adjacent to industrial wind turbines.  You have to see it to gain an idea of the damaging effects of being exposed to strobing shadow flicker in the most private of places your home.

““As it stands, shadow flicker is annoying and annoyance is a serious health issue under the World Health Organization.”

Wind facilities are NOT good neighbours.

Dashwood couple’s problem with shadow flicker raises ire

By Lynda Hillman-Rapley, Postmedia Network

Matt Metzgar’s video has gone viral.

Filmed April 28 and then uploaded, the video of the shadow flicker his parents live with at their RR 1, Dashwood home has been viewed over 44,000 times and has been shared 740 times.

Metzgar filmed and then shared the video to draw attention to the conditions in which his parents have had to endure from a nearby wind turbine. The turbine is placed 667 metres away from their home, but the shadows from the rotating blades reach their home on County Rd. 83 in Huron County.

“Most people admire a beautiful sunset, my parents not so much,” Metzgar says in the video.

The video has drawn comments from around the globe, but more importantly for Metzgar, it’s also drawn the attention of Northland Power, which owns and operates that wind turbine and others. Northland has promised to investigate, and has even offered to provide some blinds for the occupants “until a permanent solution” can be found.

The senior Metzgar have lived with the flicker problem – without complaint – since the turbine became operational in 2016. They didn’t want to be interviewed about the situation.

But their son believes the flicker needs to be corrected. Indeed, he said his parents can’t watch television without their viewing being interfered by the movement of the turbine blades.

“My parents have never been complainers,” Metzgar said. “And they don’t wish to be seen as such. They don’t have any hope that complaining will get them any results. I, however, have heard them mention the shadow flicker numerous times but never experienced it until last month. I was under the impression that the flicker is the same as what I’m experiencing at my home. That flicker lasts for about 45 minutes, and since we are not using the east part of my house in the morning for prolonged times, I just took notice of their complaints and never thought it was this extreme.”

READ REST OF ARTICLE

Plymptom Wyoming, Ontario, Mayor, Council, Issue Groundbreaking New Wind Turbine Noise By Law

turbine noise Canada Free Press,  By Guest Column Sherri Lange  October 18, 2014

Mayor Lonny Napper of Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, with his Chief Administrative Officer, Kyle Pratt, led his council to a “game changer” bylaw last week.  The wind turbine noise bylaw crafted by council and vetted with Toronto lawyer, Eric Gillespie, references Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise (ILFN) and pulsing barometric pressure changes that are now recognized to damage health around the world.

The bylaw references charging fees to developers if ILFN causes residents problems.  Common effects are from chronic unrelenting noise, sleep disorders, hormone level disruption, increased risk of disease, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart arrhythmias, and possibly even cancer. (Carmen Krogh and Dr Robert McMurtry, both of Ontario,  recently published a case definition that accepts inner ear disruption, sleep disorders, hypertension, mood disorders, nausea, tinnitus, as part of the presenting complaints combined with proximity to wind turbines.)

In  Plympton Wyoming, complaints will lead to investigations and hefty fines. This is the first bylaw directly referencing ILFN and demanding fines of between $500 to $10,000 per day, and which may be, the bylaw states, in excess of $100,000.
While over 80 Ontario municipalities have called for a moratorium, declared themselves unwilling hosts, and have called for the resignation of the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Arlene King, as well as variously creating new bylaws for longer setbacks and decommissioning costs, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act 2009 (GEA), subjugates most Ontario law under its wings, leaving communities scrambling to find ways to protect themselves.  Mayor Napper and his council have likely found the idea remedy: one that is not subsumed into the GEA.  Health issues cannot be found to be contrary to the GEA or “frustrate” the efforts of the laws to perpetuate wind turbine factories, or so-called “renewable energy platforms.”

“When I took an oath to protect my community, I took it very seriously,” continues Mayor Napper.  “The information about what other communities are suffering, disruption, noise, degradation of precious landscapes, seriously divided communities, and to see that this possible devastation is in my full view, for my residents, something has to give.”

Thank you Mayor Napper and Plymptom Wyoming council. Read the rest of the article here.

Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of wind turbines

Summary:

In an effort to address climate change, governments have pursued policies that seek to reduce greenhouse gases.  alternative energy including wind power, has been proposed by some as the preferred approach.  Few would debate the need to reduce air pollution, but the reduction is important not only for efficiency but also for health protection.  The topic of adverse health effects is the environs of Industrial Wind Turbines (AHE/IWT) has proven to be controversial and can present physicians with challenges regarding the management of an exposure to IWT.  Rural physicians in particular must be aware of the possibility of people presenting to their practices with a variety of sometimes confusing complainants.  An earlier version of the diagnostic criteria for AHE/IWT was published in Aug 2011.  A revised case definition and a model for a study to establish a confirmed diagnosis is proposed. 

[The healthcare practitioner applying the criteria must be licensed to take a medical or health history and to make a diagnosis.  Physicians should consider that children are also affected but in ways sufficiently different from adults}

Read the entire report here:

Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the everons of wind turbines..