LINCOLN - Five people were arrested Monday after they refused to stop blocking construction vehicles at the Rollins wind energy project here.
About three dozen protesters gathered at the entrance to the project site shortly before 8 a.m. as part of a rally planned by groups that oppose the project on Rollins Mountain and other large-scale wind energy proposals around Maine.
Most of those arrested are affiliated with the Maine branch of the national activist group Earth First! Wearing orange ponchos against driving rain and biting wind, they stood across a gravel access road and forced truck drivers to stop for nearly a half-hour.
Traffic resumed after the activists ignored warnings from Lincoln police and officers began escorting them to waiting cruisers. One woman was carried by officers when she refused to walk to a police car.
Other protesters, one dressed as a clown, many holding signs, cheered for their colleagues and jeered the police. Other officers tried to move the crowd off the project property and onto the public right of way bordering Route 6.
Boston-based First Wind began clearing the site and building the road for the $130 million project in late September. It has been pouring concrete foundations for the 40 turbines planned for the ridge lines here and in neighboring Burlington, Lee and Winn. More than 150 workers are on the job, with more expected later this fall when the turbine towers are erected.
John Lamontagne, spokesman for First Wind, said the company was pleased to move ahead with the project and provide jobs in northern Maine during tough economic times.
"It's unfortunate a small group of renewable-energy opponents have chosen to protest that, but we respect their rights to do so," he said. "This project will put more than 200 people to work during construction, and generate enough clean, renewable power for more than 24,000 homes in Maine. We're proud of that."
The project is rated at a capacity of 60 megawatts. The output is set to be sold to Central Maine Power and Bangor Hydro-Electric, under an agreement approved by state regulators.
Opposition to Rollins has slowed, but not stopped, First Wind. The company received local planning board approvals late in 2008, and won state permits in 2009. The project was appealed by Friends of Lincoln Lakes, which ultimately lost a widely watched test case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Members of the group who turned out Monday morning said they hoped that the publicity would draw attention to what they see as harmful development of Maine's wild lands.
The protest was part civic protest, part street theater.
Brad Blake, one of the organizers, carried a poster that read, "Stop the rape of rural Maine."
Gary Steinberg carried a giant screwdriver and shouted: "Screw the citizens!"
Arrested were Jessica Dowling, 29, of Thorndike; John Waters, 49, of Greene; Leonard Murphy, 29, of Woodville; Donald Smith of Lincoln; and James Freeman, 61, of Verona Island.
All were charged with criminal trespassing and released from jail on bail later Monday.
As a practical matter, the protest did little to disrupt construction. Most work was curtailed Monday morning by the bad weather.
Brad Kites, who lives in Lincoln and is First Wind's project manager, said he respects the right of residents to express their opinion, but would rather that they not disrupt the work, or create a safety hazard.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Monday, November 08, 2010
Protesters arrested at Lincoln windfarm
LINCOLN --- Five people were arrested this morning after they refused to stop blocking construction vehicles at the Rollins wind energy project here.
The arrests came as roughly three dozen protesters gathered at the entrance to the project site, shortly before 8 a.m. The action was part of a rally planned by citizen groups opposed to the project on Rollins Mountain, as well as other large-scale wind energy proposals around the state.
Most of those arrested were affiliated with the Maine branch of the national activist group, Earth First! Wearing orange ponchos against the driving rain and biting wind, they stood across a gravel access road and forced trucks to stop for nearly a half hour.
Traffic resumed after the activists ignored warnings from Lincoln Police and officers began escorting them to waiting cruisers. One woman was carried by officers when she refused to walk to a police car.
Other protesters, one dressed as a clown, many holding signs, cheered for their colleagues and jeered the police. Other officers attempted to move the crowd off the project property and onto the public right-of-way bordering Route 6.
Boston-based First Wind began site clearing and road building for the $130 million project in late September. It since has been pouring concrete foundations for the 40 turbines planned for the ridge lines here and in neighboring Burlington, Lee and Winn. More than 150 workers are currently on the job, with more expected later this fall when the turbine towers are erected.
John Lamontagne, spokesman for First Wind, said the company was pleased to move ahead with the project and provide jobs in northern Maine during tough economic times.
"It’s unfortunate a small group of renewable energy opponents have chosen to protest that, but we respect their rights to do so," he said. "This project will put more than 200 people to work during construction, and generate enough clean, renewable power for more than 24,000 homes in Maine. We’re proud of that.”
The project is rated at a capacity of 60 megawatts. The output is set to be sold to Central Maine Power and Bangor Hydro-Electric, under a power purchase agreement approved by state regulators.
Opposition to Rollins has so far slowed, but not stopped, First Wind. The company received local planning board approvals late in 2008, and won state permits in 2009. The project was appealed by Friends of Lincoln Lakes, which ultimately lost a widely-watched test case at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Members of the group who turned out this morning said they hoped publicity would draw attention to what they see as harmful development of Maine's wild lands.
Today's protest was part civic protest, part street theater. Brad Blake, one of the organizers, carried a poster that read, "Stop the rape of rural Maine." It showed a "Welcome to Lincoln" sign that boasted the town is home to 13 lakes, not 40 turbines.
Gary Steinberg carried a giant screwdriver around and shouted: "Screw the citizens!"
Other protesters came from western Maine, where citizen groups are fighting proposed projects.
As a practical matter, the protest did little to disrupt construction. Most work was curtailed this morning by the bad weather. Brad Kites, who lives in Lincoln and is First Wind's project manager, said he respected the right of residents to express their opinion, but would rather that they not disrupt the work, or create a safety hazard
The arrests came as roughly three dozen protesters gathered at the entrance to the project site, shortly before 8 a.m. The action was part of a rally planned by citizen groups opposed to the project on Rollins Mountain, as well as other large-scale wind energy proposals around the state.
Most of those arrested were affiliated with the Maine branch of the national activist group, Earth First! Wearing orange ponchos against the driving rain and biting wind, they stood across a gravel access road and forced trucks to stop for nearly a half hour.
Traffic resumed after the activists ignored warnings from Lincoln Police and officers began escorting them to waiting cruisers. One woman was carried by officers when she refused to walk to a police car.
Other protesters, one dressed as a clown, many holding signs, cheered for their colleagues and jeered the police. Other officers attempted to move the crowd off the project property and onto the public right-of-way bordering Route 6.
Boston-based First Wind began site clearing and road building for the $130 million project in late September. It since has been pouring concrete foundations for the 40 turbines planned for the ridge lines here and in neighboring Burlington, Lee and Winn. More than 150 workers are currently on the job, with more expected later this fall when the turbine towers are erected.
John Lamontagne, spokesman for First Wind, said the company was pleased to move ahead with the project and provide jobs in northern Maine during tough economic times.
"It’s unfortunate a small group of renewable energy opponents have chosen to protest that, but we respect their rights to do so," he said. "This project will put more than 200 people to work during construction, and generate enough clean, renewable power for more than 24,000 homes in Maine. We’re proud of that.”
The project is rated at a capacity of 60 megawatts. The output is set to be sold to Central Maine Power and Bangor Hydro-Electric, under a power purchase agreement approved by state regulators.
Opposition to Rollins has so far slowed, but not stopped, First Wind. The company received local planning board approvals late in 2008, and won state permits in 2009. The project was appealed by Friends of Lincoln Lakes, which ultimately lost a widely-watched test case at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Members of the group who turned out this morning said they hoped publicity would draw attention to what they see as harmful development of Maine's wild lands.
Today's protest was part civic protest, part street theater. Brad Blake, one of the organizers, carried a poster that read, "Stop the rape of rural Maine." It showed a "Welcome to Lincoln" sign that boasted the town is home to 13 lakes, not 40 turbines.
Gary Steinberg carried a giant screwdriver around and shouted: "Screw the citizens!"
Other protesters came from western Maine, where citizen groups are fighting proposed projects.
As a practical matter, the protest did little to disrupt construction. Most work was curtailed this morning by the bad weather. Brad Kites, who lives in Lincoln and is First Wind's project manager, said he respected the right of residents to express their opinion, but would rather that they not disrupt the work, or create a safety hazard
'Windfall' nabs grand jury prize at Doc NYC fest - Entertainment New
Some exciting news -- WINDFALL, Laura Israel's documentary on wind, won the grand jury prize last night at the DOC NYC Festival. This is very, very big news!
The price is a 35 mm film print of her work worth $40,000 -- needed to be eligible for the Academy Awards next year and also helps for theatrical distribution. See below.
Laura's film has now been invited and shown at the Evanston, Toronto, Vancouver, Woodstock, New York Film Festivals, and she is shortly off to Amsterdam in Europe. Laura is also looking into showing her work at select theatres around the US. The hope is that a distributor will contract for WINDFALL -- with that comes advertising clout and a lot of venues to show her film and get the message out.
Special congratulations to Laura for all her efforts on a job well done!
If you have a moment, please visit WINDFALL's facebook page http://www.facebook.com/windfallthemovie and friend it/share it with others. Thanks so much.
Best,
--Lisa
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118027088
'Windfall' nabs grand jury prize at Doc NYC fest
By Gordon Cox
"Windfall" nabbed the grand jury prize in the Viewfinders competish of the first Doc NYC festival, while Bronx-set docu "To Be Heard" picked up a pair of kudos.
Laura Israel's "Windfall," a look at the dark side of green energy, was chosen from a pool of eight pics in the Viewfinders section, which centers on films with distinct directorial voices.
The price is a 35 mm film print of her work worth $40,000 -- needed to be eligible for the Academy Awards next year and also helps for theatrical distribution. See below.
Laura's film has now been invited and shown at the Evanston, Toronto, Vancouver, Woodstock, New York Film Festivals, and she is shortly off to Amsterdam in Europe. Laura is also looking into showing her work at select theatres around the US. The hope is that a distributor will contract for WINDFALL -- with that comes advertising clout and a lot of venues to show her film and get the message out.
Special congratulations to Laura for all her efforts on a job well done!
If you have a moment, please visit WINDFALL's facebook page http://www.facebook.com/windfallthemovie and friend it/share it with others. Thanks so much.
Best,
--Lisa
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118027088
'Windfall' nabs grand jury prize at Doc NYC fest
By Gordon Cox
"Windfall" nabbed the grand jury prize in the Viewfinders competish of the first Doc NYC festival, while Bronx-set docu "To Be Heard" picked up a pair of kudos.
Laura Israel's "Windfall," a look at the dark side of green energy, was chosen from a pool of eight pics in the Viewfinders section, which centers on films with distinct directorial voices.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
The Leonard Lopate Show
Director Laura Israel and cartoonist Lynda Barry talk about the controversy over wind turbines. Israel directed “Windfall,” a revealing look at wind energy that tells the story of residents of Meredith, NY, who are divided when companies want to build wind turbines in the traditional dairy farm community. “Windfall” is playing as part of DOC NYC Friday, November 5, and Monday, November 8, at IFC Center. Lynda Barry is researching a book on homes near turbines. Her latest book is titled Picture This.
(Listen to the audio broadcast)
(Listen to the audio broadcast)
Noisy Brutes
The big surprise in Laura Israel's Windfall, a doc that I saw just before the Toronto Film Festival, is that wind-turbines, the "green" energy source that everyone is in favor of, are oppressors -- bringers of discomfort and anguish and headaches and lawsuits. They're 400 feet tall these days and weigh hundreds of tons and look like huge white Martian invaders out of Spielberg's War of the Worlds, and they have a proven history of making the lives of people who live near them miserable.
Last night, I'm told, the film played to a sold-out house at the IFC Center. During the q & a Israel and cartoonist Lynda Barry discussed the ravaging and plundering of economically hard-up communiities by the wind turbine industry.
Barry is writing a book about how wind turbines invaded the small burgh where she lives in Wisconsin. She's already interviewed more than 20 families and has done some initial drawings that have appeared on her website. She also runs the anti-wind turbine development website below.
Last night, I'm told, the film played to a sold-out house at the IFC Center. During the q & a Israel and cartoonist Lynda Barry discussed the ravaging and plundering of economically hard-up communiities by the wind turbine industry.
Barry is writing a book about how wind turbines invaded the small burgh where she lives in Wisconsin. She's already interviewed more than 20 families and has done some initial drawings that have appeared on her website. She also runs the anti-wind turbine development website below.
Unity of knowledge
Piece by piece, presentation by presentation, the foundation upon which industrial wind industry and much of Ontario’s Green Energy Act sits was taken apart and dismantled this past weekend.
The industrial wind turbine business was always on shaky ground. It has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets. They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale.
None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.
Several analogies were made about how the
fight against the harmful effects of smoking tobacco began with just a few voices in the medical and scientific community. It would take decades, however, before governments would listen and begin to take action. The esteemed participants of the Picton gathering fervently hope it doesn’t take as long for governments and the broader public to understand the harm caused by industrial wind turbines.
Dr. Bob McMurtry, a physician and former deputy minister of health in Ontario, gathered doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to Picton in reveal their findings and share the latest information on the impact of industrial wind turbines in what he termed a “consilience” or unity of knowledge.
WHAT WE LEARNED
Several alarming messages emerged. Every animal with a functioning hearing organ, including humans, is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by industrial wind turbines. Those most acutely affected tend to be disposed to motion sickness or car sickness— but even those without these symptoms may be responding to the noise, whether they are aware of it or not.
The low-frequency and subsonic (below the hearing range) noise from wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on the ear and hearing mechanisms. The most acute symptoms include nausea, dizziness and sleep disturbance. It is now becoming evident, however, that even those who don’t suffer these particular symptoms are likely realizing some harm. These hearing mechanisms are closely related to language development, learning and cognitive organization— as the fine components of the ear become stressed, learning in children becomes impaired, concentration becomes harder for adults, and sleep is disrupted.
Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.
Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong. Many opponents of large scale industrial wind factories have pressed for setbacks from homes of at least two kilometres. (Ontario’s Green Energy Act prescribes setbacks of just 550 metres.) But studies done by sound experts John Harrison and Richard James now show that in some conditions— over water and rocky terrain and beneath low cloud cover—the low-frequency noise can travel up to 15 kilometres.
Keynote speaker Dr. Nina Pierpont, the author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained that “our brains don’t function well” when subjected to long-term sustained low thumping noise from industrial wind turbines.
According to her research 90 per cent of those in her test sample exposed to the “pulsating tone” of the wind turbines suffered from cognitive performance deficit as compared to a control group. Generally they had more difficulty with reading, spelling, math, memorization and recalling the plots of television shows.
Pierpont’s findings extend beyond cognitive issues. She has also observed that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. These are the same triggers that cause in some a paralyzing fear of heights.
She observed that two-thirds of her test group—14 of 21—presented “disturbing symptoms” such as the need to flee, difficulty breathing, and panic.
Dr. Arlene Bronzaft recounted her groundbreaking studies on noise and learning done three decades ago in New York City. In her work she documented how children on one side of a school nearest a busy train line suffered from measurable learning impairment compared with students on the opposite side of the school. Her work led to legislation and changes in the classroom to ensure students has a quiet place to learn, not just in New York, but across the U.S..
She urged the physicians and scientists in the room to continue to produce evidence of the harm of industrial wind turbines.
“You need the studies and the research,” said Dr. Bronzaft. “You need to teach. You need to be political. But I ask you not to give up if you are successful in one area—there are communities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine and across North America with small groups who are fighting these developers. They will continue to need your help.”
Alec Salt heads the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis. He illustrated that sound emitted from industrial turbines is many times greater than the audible hearing range—prompting him to work through the answer to his own question—does sound that you can’t hear hurt you?
Salt’s research has shown how low-frequency sound affects the transport mechanism of the ear and hearing structure.
“A big part of the sound created by an industrial wind turbine can’t be heard,” explained Salt. “That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you. When these structures move frequently and dramatically it can have an effect on a range of symptoms.”
He asked the audience to consider this proposition against other human senses.
“Apply this notion to taste, smell, sight and touch,” said Salt. “Does anyone believe that you have to taste something in order for it to be harmful? We know that ultraviolet light (light we can’t see) can have a dramatic effect on skin and other organs. The notion that we can’t be harmed by sounds we can’t hear is nonsense. We need to stop ignoring the effects of infrasound on people.”
He is less clear about whether symptoms persist after exposure to industrial wind turbine infrasound is discontinued.
Sleep expert Dr. Chris Hanning travelled from the U.K. to explain the effect of industrial wind turbines on sleep. He observed that the need for sleep is universal among animals—that poor sleep leads to a range of disorders from obesity to heart disease.
“Disrupted sleep over time leads to heightened states of frustration, anger and feelings of loss of control,” said Hanning. “This noise is viewed as an invasion of the place in which we go to retreat from life, where we go to feel safe.”
He also observed that the pulsating tone when measured on a spectragraph appears very similar in pattern to a fire alarm: “the tone we use to arouse people from sleep and warn them of danger.”
He has found that the persistent low frequency throbbing of industrial wind turbines is more disruptive to sleep than traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. The only thing worse, according to Dr. Hanning, is the rhythmic bass pounding from a loud stereo or “boombox” nearby.
Like Dr. Bronzaft, Hanning urged his colleagues in the room to continue to produce research and studies. He said illconsidered government policies have created thousands of guinea pigs around the world.
“There are enough folks being affected right now that together we can do the work that government and industry should have done in advance,” said Hanning.
MARS HILL
After the physiological mechanics of the effect of industrial wind turbines had been described the conference turned to the victims. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted a controlled study of effects of industrial wind turbines on residents of Mars Hill in Maine. The subjects in his study live within 1,100 metres of an industrial wind installation consisting of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines. His control group consisted of 27 adults living on average 5,000 metres from the wind turbines.
Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of those closest to the turbine reported “a new onset or worsened sleep disturbance” since the turbines went online. Only one of the 27 of those five kilometers away reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance. One hundred per cent of those closest to the turbines had considered moving away.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Much of this evidence presented this weekend, will likely be used in January as Ian Hanna of Big Island takes on the Ontario Government in court. Hanna is arguing that the province failed to use the “precautionary principle” when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act. The precautionary principle states that governments or organizations must ensure that its policies do not harm individuals or communities prior to enactment.
It seems clear from this weekend’s Picton conference that the province failed to meet this test.
The industrial wind turbine business was always on shaky ground. It has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets. They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale.
None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.
Several analogies were made about how the
fight against the harmful effects of smoking tobacco began with just a few voices in the medical and scientific community. It would take decades, however, before governments would listen and begin to take action. The esteemed participants of the Picton gathering fervently hope it doesn’t take as long for governments and the broader public to understand the harm caused by industrial wind turbines.
Dr. Bob McMurtry, a physician and former deputy minister of health in Ontario, gathered doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to Picton in reveal their findings and share the latest information on the impact of industrial wind turbines in what he termed a “consilience” or unity of knowledge.
WHAT WE LEARNED
Several alarming messages emerged. Every animal with a functioning hearing organ, including humans, is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by industrial wind turbines. Those most acutely affected tend to be disposed to motion sickness or car sickness— but even those without these symptoms may be responding to the noise, whether they are aware of it or not.
The low-frequency and subsonic (below the hearing range) noise from wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on the ear and hearing mechanisms. The most acute symptoms include nausea, dizziness and sleep disturbance. It is now becoming evident, however, that even those who don’t suffer these particular symptoms are likely realizing some harm. These hearing mechanisms are closely related to language development, learning and cognitive organization— as the fine components of the ear become stressed, learning in children becomes impaired, concentration becomes harder for adults, and sleep is disrupted.
Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.
Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong. Many opponents of large scale industrial wind factories have pressed for setbacks from homes of at least two kilometres. (Ontario’s Green Energy Act prescribes setbacks of just 550 metres.) But studies done by sound experts John Harrison and Richard James now show that in some conditions— over water and rocky terrain and beneath low cloud cover—the low-frequency noise can travel up to 15 kilometres.
Keynote speaker Dr. Nina Pierpont, the author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained that “our brains don’t function well” when subjected to long-term sustained low thumping noise from industrial wind turbines.
According to her research 90 per cent of those in her test sample exposed to the “pulsating tone” of the wind turbines suffered from cognitive performance deficit as compared to a control group. Generally they had more difficulty with reading, spelling, math, memorization and recalling the plots of television shows.
Pierpont’s findings extend beyond cognitive issues. She has also observed that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. These are the same triggers that cause in some a paralyzing fear of heights.
She observed that two-thirds of her test group—14 of 21—presented “disturbing symptoms” such as the need to flee, difficulty breathing, and panic.
Dr. Arlene Bronzaft recounted her groundbreaking studies on noise and learning done three decades ago in New York City. In her work she documented how children on one side of a school nearest a busy train line suffered from measurable learning impairment compared with students on the opposite side of the school. Her work led to legislation and changes in the classroom to ensure students has a quiet place to learn, not just in New York, but across the U.S..
She urged the physicians and scientists in the room to continue to produce evidence of the harm of industrial wind turbines.
“You need the studies and the research,” said Dr. Bronzaft. “You need to teach. You need to be political. But I ask you not to give up if you are successful in one area—there are communities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine and across North America with small groups who are fighting these developers. They will continue to need your help.”
Alec Salt heads the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis. He illustrated that sound emitted from industrial turbines is many times greater than the audible hearing range—prompting him to work through the answer to his own question—does sound that you can’t hear hurt you?
Salt’s research has shown how low-frequency sound affects the transport mechanism of the ear and hearing structure.
“A big part of the sound created by an industrial wind turbine can’t be heard,” explained Salt. “That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you. When these structures move frequently and dramatically it can have an effect on a range of symptoms.”
He asked the audience to consider this proposition against other human senses.
“Apply this notion to taste, smell, sight and touch,” said Salt. “Does anyone believe that you have to taste something in order for it to be harmful? We know that ultraviolet light (light we can’t see) can have a dramatic effect on skin and other organs. The notion that we can’t be harmed by sounds we can’t hear is nonsense. We need to stop ignoring the effects of infrasound on people.”
He is less clear about whether symptoms persist after exposure to industrial wind turbine infrasound is discontinued.
Sleep expert Dr. Chris Hanning travelled from the U.K. to explain the effect of industrial wind turbines on sleep. He observed that the need for sleep is universal among animals—that poor sleep leads to a range of disorders from obesity to heart disease.
“Disrupted sleep over time leads to heightened states of frustration, anger and feelings of loss of control,” said Hanning. “This noise is viewed as an invasion of the place in which we go to retreat from life, where we go to feel safe.”
He also observed that the pulsating tone when measured on a spectragraph appears very similar in pattern to a fire alarm: “the tone we use to arouse people from sleep and warn them of danger.”
He has found that the persistent low frequency throbbing of industrial wind turbines is more disruptive to sleep than traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. The only thing worse, according to Dr. Hanning, is the rhythmic bass pounding from a loud stereo or “boombox” nearby.
Like Dr. Bronzaft, Hanning urged his colleagues in the room to continue to produce research and studies. He said illconsidered government policies have created thousands of guinea pigs around the world.
“There are enough folks being affected right now that together we can do the work that government and industry should have done in advance,” said Hanning.
MARS HILL
After the physiological mechanics of the effect of industrial wind turbines had been described the conference turned to the victims. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted a controlled study of effects of industrial wind turbines on residents of Mars Hill in Maine. The subjects in his study live within 1,100 metres of an industrial wind installation consisting of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines. His control group consisted of 27 adults living on average 5,000 metres from the wind turbines.
Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of those closest to the turbine reported “a new onset or worsened sleep disturbance” since the turbines went online. Only one of the 27 of those five kilometers away reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance. One hundred per cent of those closest to the turbines had considered moving away.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Much of this evidence presented this weekend, will likely be used in January as Ian Hanna of Big Island takes on the Ontario Government in court. Hanna is arguing that the province failed to use the “precautionary principle” when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act. The precautionary principle states that governments or organizations must ensure that its policies do not harm individuals or communities prior to enactment.
It seems clear from this weekend’s Picton conference that the province failed to meet this test.
An answer to a NY Times article on italian wind energy
Dear Mr. Roncalli:
Thanks for sharing this correspondence. Below, see the note I had written Rosenthal, on September 29, a day after her article appeared, which I also sent to Stefano Allavena and then shared widely with people in this country and in Europe. She provided no response. As you can see, I'm also providing Rosenthal with a copy of this exchange, so that she may read Carlo Pinelli's excellent commentary, which the Times should publish but likely won't. Cheers!
Jon Boone
_____________________
Ms. Rosenthali:
We have some things in common: our environmentalism (among other things, I helped found the North American Bluebird Society) and a long-time interest in the life and work of Roger Tory Peterson, whose Institute in Jamestown I've helped over the years, particularly assisting in the acquisition of a great deal of RTP's original art work. I greatly enjoyed your book on Peterson, and was sorry to have missed your talk about it in Jamestown (though Marlene Mudge gave me a good account).
What we evidently don't have in common is a mutual respect for wind "power," brought to a head by your paean yesterday regarding the wind project in Tocco da Casauria. In truth, wind is perhaps the silliest modern energy idea imaginable, at virtually every level of consideration. It is an antediluvian technology, with a fuel far too diffuse to be converted into modern power performance. It is typically inimical to demand cycles, and existentially destabilizes any grid, since its continuous flux unhinges the necessary match between supply and demand. In the process, it makes everyone and everything work much harder simply to stand still, subverting its ability to replace fossil fuels and abate greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the presence of over 100,000 huge wind turbines worldwide, not one coal plant has been closed because of those turbines--and there is no evidence whatsoever that there is less fossil fuel consumed as a direct consequence. I assure you that further investigation into the actual performance of the wind installation at Tocco da Casauria will reveal that what is really providing power to that community is more inefficiently operating coal and gas facilities.
After a conference at which I spoke last year in Palermo entitled Landscape Under Attack (the keynote speaker was former French president, Valery Giscard d' Estaing), one Italian journalist rightly characterized your "towering white wind turbines" as the leprosy of wind. Hundreds of people from across Italy came together to produce a document known as the Charter of Palermo, beseeching the governments of the world, particularly those in Europe, to come to their senses about this hulking presence over the countryside. More than half of the conference speakers were environmentalists concerned about the cognitive dissonance inherent in the idea of wreaking havoc on the environment in the name of saving it. Others addressed the genuine health issues surrounding wind technology, such as wind turbine noise syndrome, that Nina Pierpont, a New York physician, continues to study.
Puff pieces like yours, published on the heels of a push to require a national renewable energy standard for the country, do a disservice to the genuine discourse we should be having about the power needs for the future in an era of entrenched fossil fuel use. As it is, wind is an alternate energy source in the way that a blade of grass or a hangnail--anything in the material world--is an alternate energy source. The trick is how to convert energy fuels into sustained, manageable power. And there's the rub for wind, since it can only produce tail-wagging-the-dog power, which is why those wonderful Clipper ships today reside mainly in museums. Why not do a column featuring how gliders are now being incorporated into commercial air transport?
Those towering white turbines are totemic of ignorance and greed, not better energy policy. As is the case with ethanol, wind must be seen as the spawn of powerful economic interests within the energy industry itself (GE, AES, BP, FPL, Siemens, Goldman Sachs, even Areva), cynically using wind in Enronesque ways to enrich themselves while capturing government to make sure they get even richer. The success of PR spinners in creating a meaningless modern day melodrama, where wind technology is somehow transformed from a little shepherd boy into a fossil fuel slaying hero as the hook to sell more fossil fuel, is the real story. This cozy fable plays nicely on NPR. But it should be exposed for the grizzly corporate/government sleaze it really is, saving rate and taxpayers a bundle while restoring a modicum of intellectual integrity to the media.
I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Meanwhile, you might glance at some of the things I've written and done over the last eight years at this link: http://www.stopillwind.org. And I'm attaching my vignette painting of a bluebird on a hollyhock, symbolic of both hope and happiness and environmental history itself, which is essentially the chronicle of how adverse consequences too often flowed from the uninformed actions of the well intentioned. It is also a tribute to the indefatigable Arthur Allen, whose lab at Cornell and whose books and photos were, like the Peterson's, inspirational. Cheers!
- Show quoted text -
On Nov 7, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Fabio Tinelli Roncalli wrote:
On Sept. 26 2010 the New York Times published a misleading and deeply biased article by Elisabeth Rosenthal on wind energy ( Link ) . Here is the answer sent to the NYT from Carlo Alberto Pinelli, ( http://www.carloalbertopinelli.it ), director, alpinist and renowned environmentalist ( founder of Mountain Wilderness International).
Fabio Tinelli RoncalliWebmaster Via dal Vento Link
Dear Sir,
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica publishes each week a number of the most significant articles appeared in the New York Times during the week, and I have just read an article by Elisabeth Rosenthal titled: Old Town in Italy has Wind at its Back. In order to complete the information I would like you to know that the increasing number of wind towers for the production of clean energy is one of the most serious dangers threatening the beauty and historic value of the landscape in our country. This is a large and barbaric aggression supported by the excessive and unjustified incentives granted by the government to the industry concerned.
Therefore, it is not surprising that criminal organizations such as Mafia, Camorra, Ndrangheta, Sacra Rota Unita, are deeply involved in this profitable business with illegal and dishonest operations bringing only negligeable advantages to the national community. All independent experts agree on the fact that in Italy the wind is not sufficiently constant for a consistent supply of energy produced by the eolic towers. Should the incentives granted in Italy be considerably reduced to the standard applied in Germany or France, the business with wind energy would shrink drastically.
The author of your article quotes the opinion of a Legambiente official, an association that, strangely enough, is deeply involved in favour of wind energy. In Italy, many environmental associations are strongly struggling against the way the wind business is growing like a leprosy in our country with disgraceful side effects, among others Italia Nostra, Club Alpino Italiano, Mountain Wildeness, Friends of the Earth, LIPU, together with a great number of local groups defending with all sorts of means the historical and aesthetic significance of their traditional landscapes. Surely the wind power turbines will not free us from the need of acquiring fossil fuels, nor will it considerably reduce CO2 emissions. If somebody in your office is able to read Italian, I wish to ask him to consult the site www.viadalvento.org .I am available to supply any further detailed information, and I thank you for your attention.Carlo Alberto Pinelli, Honorary President, Mountain Wilderness Italia
Thanks for sharing this correspondence. Below, see the note I had written Rosenthal, on September 29, a day after her article appeared, which I also sent to Stefano Allavena and then shared widely with people in this country and in Europe. She provided no response. As you can see, I'm also providing Rosenthal with a copy of this exchange, so that she may read Carlo Pinelli's excellent commentary, which the Times should publish but likely won't. Cheers!
Jon Boone
_____________________
Ms. Rosenthali:
We have some things in common: our environmentalism (among other things, I helped found the North American Bluebird Society) and a long-time interest in the life and work of Roger Tory Peterson, whose Institute in Jamestown I've helped over the years, particularly assisting in the acquisition of a great deal of RTP's original art work. I greatly enjoyed your book on Peterson, and was sorry to have missed your talk about it in Jamestown (though Marlene Mudge gave me a good account).
What we evidently don't have in common is a mutual respect for wind "power," brought to a head by your paean yesterday regarding the wind project in Tocco da Casauria. In truth, wind is perhaps the silliest modern energy idea imaginable, at virtually every level of consideration. It is an antediluvian technology, with a fuel far too diffuse to be converted into modern power performance. It is typically inimical to demand cycles, and existentially destabilizes any grid, since its continuous flux unhinges the necessary match between supply and demand. In the process, it makes everyone and everything work much harder simply to stand still, subverting its ability to replace fossil fuels and abate greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the presence of over 100,000 huge wind turbines worldwide, not one coal plant has been closed because of those turbines--and there is no evidence whatsoever that there is less fossil fuel consumed as a direct consequence. I assure you that further investigation into the actual performance of the wind installation at Tocco da Casauria will reveal that what is really providing power to that community is more inefficiently operating coal and gas facilities.
After a conference at which I spoke last year in Palermo entitled Landscape Under Attack (the keynote speaker was former French president, Valery Giscard d' Estaing), one Italian journalist rightly characterized your "towering white wind turbines" as the leprosy of wind. Hundreds of people from across Italy came together to produce a document known as the Charter of Palermo, beseeching the governments of the world, particularly those in Europe, to come to their senses about this hulking presence over the countryside. More than half of the conference speakers were environmentalists concerned about the cognitive dissonance inherent in the idea of wreaking havoc on the environment in the name of saving it. Others addressed the genuine health issues surrounding wind technology, such as wind turbine noise syndrome, that Nina Pierpont, a New York physician, continues to study.
Puff pieces like yours, published on the heels of a push to require a national renewable energy standard for the country, do a disservice to the genuine discourse we should be having about the power needs for the future in an era of entrenched fossil fuel use. As it is, wind is an alternate energy source in the way that a blade of grass or a hangnail--anything in the material world--is an alternate energy source. The trick is how to convert energy fuels into sustained, manageable power. And there's the rub for wind, since it can only produce tail-wagging-the-dog power, which is why those wonderful Clipper ships today reside mainly in museums. Why not do a column featuring how gliders are now being incorporated into commercial air transport?
Those towering white turbines are totemic of ignorance and greed, not better energy policy. As is the case with ethanol, wind must be seen as the spawn of powerful economic interests within the energy industry itself (GE, AES, BP, FPL, Siemens, Goldman Sachs, even Areva), cynically using wind in Enronesque ways to enrich themselves while capturing government to make sure they get even richer. The success of PR spinners in creating a meaningless modern day melodrama, where wind technology is somehow transformed from a little shepherd boy into a fossil fuel slaying hero as the hook to sell more fossil fuel, is the real story. This cozy fable plays nicely on NPR. But it should be exposed for the grizzly corporate/government sleaze it really is, saving rate and taxpayers a bundle while restoring a modicum of intellectual integrity to the media.
I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Meanwhile, you might glance at some of the things I've written and done over the last eight years at this link: http://www.stopillwind.org. And I'm attaching my vignette painting of a bluebird on a hollyhock, symbolic of both hope and happiness and environmental history itself, which is essentially the chronicle of how adverse consequences too often flowed from the uninformed actions of the well intentioned. It is also a tribute to the indefatigable Arthur Allen, whose lab at Cornell and whose books and photos were, like the Peterson's, inspirational. Cheers!
- Show quoted text -
On Nov 7, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Fabio Tinelli Roncalli wrote:
On Sept. 26 2010 the New York Times published a misleading and deeply biased article by Elisabeth Rosenthal on wind energy ( Link ) . Here is the answer sent to the NYT from Carlo Alberto Pinelli, ( http://www.carloalbertopinelli.it ), director, alpinist and renowned environmentalist ( founder of Mountain Wilderness International).
Fabio Tinelli RoncalliWebmaster Via dal Vento Link
Dear Sir,
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica publishes each week a number of the most significant articles appeared in the New York Times during the week, and I have just read an article by Elisabeth Rosenthal titled: Old Town in Italy has Wind at its Back. In order to complete the information I would like you to know that the increasing number of wind towers for the production of clean energy is one of the most serious dangers threatening the beauty and historic value of the landscape in our country. This is a large and barbaric aggression supported by the excessive and unjustified incentives granted by the government to the industry concerned.
Therefore, it is not surprising that criminal organizations such as Mafia, Camorra, Ndrangheta, Sacra Rota Unita, are deeply involved in this profitable business with illegal and dishonest operations bringing only negligeable advantages to the national community. All independent experts agree on the fact that in Italy the wind is not sufficiently constant for a consistent supply of energy produced by the eolic towers. Should the incentives granted in Italy be considerably reduced to the standard applied in Germany or France, the business with wind energy would shrink drastically.
The author of your article quotes the opinion of a Legambiente official, an association that, strangely enough, is deeply involved in favour of wind energy. In Italy, many environmental associations are strongly struggling against the way the wind business is growing like a leprosy in our country with disgraceful side effects, among others Italia Nostra, Club Alpino Italiano, Mountain Wildeness, Friends of the Earth, LIPU, together with a great number of local groups defending with all sorts of means the historical and aesthetic significance of their traditional landscapes. Surely the wind power turbines will not free us from the need of acquiring fossil fuels, nor will it considerably reduce CO2 emissions. If somebody in your office is able to read Italian, I wish to ask him to consult the site www.viadalvento.org .I am available to supply any further detailed information, and I thank you for your attention.Carlo Alberto Pinelli, Honorary President, Mountain Wilderness Italia
Town considers law against power lines
HENDERSON — Some Henderson Town Council members tried to kick the fight against wind development up a notch Thursday, offering a resolution that would start work on a law to ban transmission lines.
Councilwoman Carol A. Hall offered the resolution.
"This is more or less because we have Galloo Island coming," she said. "Since they are going to make a decision in January, I wanted to get the ball rolling. I make a motion to introduce and vote on a resolution ... to prepare for both public viewing as well as a public hearing" for a local law.
The motion was voted down 3-2, with Ms. Hall and Councilwoman Torre J. Parker-Lane in favor. Supervisor Raymond A. Walker and councilmen Stephen C. Cote and Frank W. Ross opposed.
The proposed law would prevent running pole transmission lines designed to transport wind-generated electricity from Henderson to another location, Ms. Hall said.
(Click to read the entire article)
Councilwoman Carol A. Hall offered the resolution.
"This is more or less because we have Galloo Island coming," she said. "Since they are going to make a decision in January, I wanted to get the ball rolling. I make a motion to introduce and vote on a resolution ... to prepare for both public viewing as well as a public hearing" for a local law.
The motion was voted down 3-2, with Ms. Hall and Councilwoman Torre J. Parker-Lane in favor. Supervisor Raymond A. Walker and councilmen Stephen C. Cote and Frank W. Ross opposed.
The proposed law would prevent running pole transmission lines designed to transport wind-generated electricity from Henderson to another location, Ms. Hall said.
(Click to read the entire article)
Friday, November 05, 2010
AWEA Webinar 2010 Election Analysis and the Wind Industry
Denise Bode and senior staff members will hold a free live webcast at 1 pm EST this Friday for AWEA members, wind supporters and the media, with:
•Analysis of how the election results will impact the U.S. wind energy industry
•Examples of how we countered misinformation during the campaign
•Critical lessons from the industry's Third Quarter results
•Legislative priorities going forward
This event is a must for everyone who cares about U.S. wind energy. Live streaming video and audio, video clips, and PowerPoint slides will be shown.
1:00 pm to 1:30 pm EST
Presentations by AWEA CEO Denise Bode and staff
1:30 pm to 2 pm EST
Q&A
To watch live streaming video and audio of this webcast over a web browser on your computer, return to this link a few minutes before 1 pm Eastern this Friday, Nov. 5.
To ask questions, send them by email between now and the event to: energyexpert@awea.org
Webcast participants will also be able to submit questions during the event using an interactive box on your screen.
To listen by telephone only, and as a fallback in case you experience any technical problems with audio and video during the webcast, a telephone backup number will also be provided at this link between now and the event.
Please note: Up to 2,500 participants may watch the webstream live at a time. If you do not immediately get through, please dial in to the phone line, and/or wait a few minutes and try again. The event will be archived for 30 days viewing afterwards, as well.
•Analysis of how the election results will impact the U.S. wind energy industry
•Examples of how we countered misinformation during the campaign
•Critical lessons from the industry's Third Quarter results
•Legislative priorities going forward
This event is a must for everyone who cares about U.S. wind energy. Live streaming video and audio, video clips, and PowerPoint slides will be shown.
1:00 pm to 1:30 pm EST
Presentations by AWEA CEO Denise Bode and staff
1:30 pm to 2 pm EST
Q&A
To watch live streaming video and audio of this webcast over a web browser on your computer, return to this link a few minutes before 1 pm Eastern this Friday, Nov. 5.
To ask questions, send them by email between now and the event to: energyexpert@awea.org
Webcast participants will also be able to submit questions during the event using an interactive box on your screen.
To listen by telephone only, and as a fallback in case you experience any technical problems with audio and video during the webcast, a telephone backup number will also be provided at this link between now and the event.
Please note: Up to 2,500 participants may watch the webstream live at a time. If you do not immediately get through, please dial in to the phone line, and/or wait a few minutes and try again. The event will be archived for 30 days viewing afterwards, as well.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
“Inconvenient Truths”
—Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, CounterPunch Magazine (10/31/10)
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind—what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these “clean, green, renewable energy” giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs—the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle—function as Mother Nature’s gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function—amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don’t consciously hear, but feel—as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it’s advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes—locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical “wind turbine” symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published an NIH-funded, peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing.
Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that “what you can’t hear, can’t hurt you.” It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It’s time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism (“Not In My Back Yard!”)—and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind—what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these “clean, green, renewable energy” giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs—the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle—function as Mother Nature’s gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function—amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don’t consciously hear, but feel—as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it’s advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes—locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical “wind turbine” symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published an NIH-funded, peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing.
Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that “what you can’t hear, can’t hurt you.” It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It’s time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism (“Not In My Back Yard!”)—and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Wind Turbine Syndrome by Dr. Pierpont
This important summary piece written by Dr. Nina Pierpont provides a clear explanation of what Wind Turbine Syndrome is and how turbine noise might be negatively impacting those living within the viewshed of the towers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind-what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these "clean, green, renewable energy" giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs-the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle-function as Mother Nature's gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function-amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don't consciously hear, but feel-as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it's advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic ("flight or fight" response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes-locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical "wind turbine" symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing. Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that "what you can't hear, can't hurt you."
It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It's time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard!")-and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it," suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Dr. Pierpont, MD, PhD, is a pediatrician and author of "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment" (2009)
Web link: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind-what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these "clean, green, renewable energy" giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs-the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle-function as Mother Nature's gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function-amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don't consciously hear, but feel-as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it's advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic ("flight or fight" response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes-locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical "wind turbine" symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing. Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that "what you can't hear, can't hurt you."
It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It's time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard!")-and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it," suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Dr. Pierpont, MD, PhD, is a pediatrician and author of "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment" (2009)
Web link: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/
Towns should have veto rights on PILOTs
The Uniform Tax Exemption Policy (UTEP) for wind projects currently before the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency for public comment and enactment is critical to what towns in Jefferson County may receive financially from any project. The focus is how much of a reduction from full taxation shall be allowed to the developer and how tax revenues would be allocated between the town, school district and county.
In discussion back and forth, the developer is pushing for a starting reduction of 85 percent to just 15 percent of full taxation that could be imposed by the UTEP law. The current version of the UTEP, however, would allow towns the right to veto this initial 15 percent amount and insist on a higher level of taxation based on what the town believes is appropriate in their community's unique situation. I support this right.
As to the allocation of tax revenues, if percentages customized to the wind project at hand could not be agreed to, then the standard allocation would be imposed by the UTEP. In Cape Vincent this is 3.59 percent to the town, 56.86 percent to the school district and 39.55 percent to the county. I take exception to forcing this minimal allocation on the town.
Overall I strongly support the self-determination of the taxing jurisdictions. The duty of the town to decide what is right for constituents should not be removed by the new law. In Cape Vincent the State Environmental Quality Review process dealt with zoning issues and hardly at all with economic impacts. Moreover, even if economic impacts had been properly assessed in the SEQR, then the town board would separately have the duty to decide what level of taxation would be appropriate given any perceived negative impacts from the wind turbines.
As to allocation, the supervisor of a neighboring town has advised that he would insist on some 40 percent of revenues. I would support his position.
I am currently on the town board. However, in writing to respectfully draw the attention of interested parties to these issues, I am doing so as an individual only.
Brooks Bragdon
Cape Vincent
Read source on Watertown Daily Times
In discussion back and forth, the developer is pushing for a starting reduction of 85 percent to just 15 percent of full taxation that could be imposed by the UTEP law. The current version of the UTEP, however, would allow towns the right to veto this initial 15 percent amount and insist on a higher level of taxation based on what the town believes is appropriate in their community's unique situation. I support this right.
As to the allocation of tax revenues, if percentages customized to the wind project at hand could not be agreed to, then the standard allocation would be imposed by the UTEP. In Cape Vincent this is 3.59 percent to the town, 56.86 percent to the school district and 39.55 percent to the county. I take exception to forcing this minimal allocation on the town.
Overall I strongly support the self-determination of the taxing jurisdictions. The duty of the town to decide what is right for constituents should not be removed by the new law. In Cape Vincent the State Environmental Quality Review process dealt with zoning issues and hardly at all with economic impacts. Moreover, even if economic impacts had been properly assessed in the SEQR, then the town board would separately have the duty to decide what level of taxation would be appropriate given any perceived negative impacts from the wind turbines.
As to allocation, the supervisor of a neighboring town has advised that he would insist on some 40 percent of revenues. I would support his position.
I am currently on the town board. However, in writing to respectfully draw the attention of interested parties to these issues, I am doing so as an individual only.
Brooks Bragdon
Cape Vincent
Read source on Watertown Daily Times
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Judge questions Ecogen, 2009 Prattsburgh town accord
Rochester, NY — Recent court action could greatly affect the future of wind farms in the town of Prattsburgh.
State Supreme Court Justice John Ark recently ruled the lame-duck Prattsburgh town board must explain its unusually swift, 3-2 passage of an agreement last December allowing wind developer Ecogen to move ahead immediately without standard town agreements.
Ark’s decision gave the board 45 days to submit statements to him, and delays Ecogen’s motion to begin immediate construction of 16 turbines in the town based on the previous board’s action.
The December agreement was passed short weeks after two pro-Ecogen board members were defeated by wide margins in their bid for re-election in November. Within days of the defeats, Ecogen had threatened to sue the town if a settlement was not reached by the year’s end.
In early December, defeated board members Town Supervisor Harold McConnell and Councilwoman Sharon Quigley teamed with current board member Stacey Bottoni to approve the settlement, reportedly drawn up by Ecogen.
Board members Chuck Shick and Steve Kula protested the action and voted against the settlement.
In January, the new board rescinded the settlement 4-1, with Bottoni voting against the measure. Ecogen promptly sued the town, claiming the December settlement was binding.
But Prattsburgh’s attorney, Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King, said Ark clearly wants a closer look at the reasons behind the previous board’s actions.
“He wants to ask the members and Ecogen what was behind this 11th hour settlement that was rammed through,” Hourihan said. “There was no debate. It was pushed through by people who had a particular interest in (the project). This decision was made by Ecogen and a couple board members in a back room. That’s not democracy. He just wants to shed some light on a backroom deal.”
The Ecogen project has been the source of long debate in the town, stretching back to 2002 when the developer announced plans to set up turbines in Prattsburgh, and in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County.
The projects were touted by Prattsburgh board members and many residents as a way to provide green energy, increase needed town revenues and provide income for landowners.
Other residents strenuously opposed the projects on the grounds the turbines could irreparably harm people in the area, the environment, and the landscape.
But in February 2008, reports of intolerable noise at the nearby First Wind wind farm in Cohocton alarmed residents and the board, which considered a moratorium.
Ecogen threatened to sue, saying the ban would hurt the project. The developer assured the board it would work to reduce problems and restrict sites, and the idea of a moratorium was dropped.
Kula and Shick, and a number of residents continued to lobby strenuously for greater setbacks to reduce the problem of noise. Noise has been key issue for residents, with medical studies reported could bring on short- and long-term illnesses. Ecogen refused to redraw its site plan, saying any changes would delay the project.
In November, candidates supporting a cautious view of the project were elected by overwhelming margins, changing the dynamics of the board and resulting in Ecogen’s third threat of a lawsuit in less than a year.
Hourihan said Ark is concerned because the election was a clear public referendum on the project.
“The people have spoken,” Hourihan said. “Ecogen doesn’t care.”
Wordingham said Ark is continuing his plan for both sides to find a way to agree without a court decision. Ark has warned any decision is likely to lead to costly appeals for both sides.
“He’s left a lot of work for us to do,” Wordingham said. “Don’t worry. It’ll get it done.”
State Supreme Court Justice John Ark recently ruled the lame-duck Prattsburgh town board must explain its unusually swift, 3-2 passage of an agreement last December allowing wind developer Ecogen to move ahead immediately without standard town agreements.
Ark’s decision gave the board 45 days to submit statements to him, and delays Ecogen’s motion to begin immediate construction of 16 turbines in the town based on the previous board’s action.
The December agreement was passed short weeks after two pro-Ecogen board members were defeated by wide margins in their bid for re-election in November. Within days of the defeats, Ecogen had threatened to sue the town if a settlement was not reached by the year’s end.
In early December, defeated board members Town Supervisor Harold McConnell and Councilwoman Sharon Quigley teamed with current board member Stacey Bottoni to approve the settlement, reportedly drawn up by Ecogen.
Board members Chuck Shick and Steve Kula protested the action and voted against the settlement.
In January, the new board rescinded the settlement 4-1, with Bottoni voting against the measure. Ecogen promptly sued the town, claiming the December settlement was binding.
But Prattsburgh’s attorney, Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King, said Ark clearly wants a closer look at the reasons behind the previous board’s actions.
“He wants to ask the members and Ecogen what was behind this 11th hour settlement that was rammed through,” Hourihan said. “There was no debate. It was pushed through by people who had a particular interest in (the project). This decision was made by Ecogen and a couple board members in a back room. That’s not democracy. He just wants to shed some light on a backroom deal.”
The Ecogen project has been the source of long debate in the town, stretching back to 2002 when the developer announced plans to set up turbines in Prattsburgh, and in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County.
The projects were touted by Prattsburgh board members and many residents as a way to provide green energy, increase needed town revenues and provide income for landowners.
Other residents strenuously opposed the projects on the grounds the turbines could irreparably harm people in the area, the environment, and the landscape.
But in February 2008, reports of intolerable noise at the nearby First Wind wind farm in Cohocton alarmed residents and the board, which considered a moratorium.
Ecogen threatened to sue, saying the ban would hurt the project. The developer assured the board it would work to reduce problems and restrict sites, and the idea of a moratorium was dropped.
Kula and Shick, and a number of residents continued to lobby strenuously for greater setbacks to reduce the problem of noise. Noise has been key issue for residents, with medical studies reported could bring on short- and long-term illnesses. Ecogen refused to redraw its site plan, saying any changes would delay the project.
In November, candidates supporting a cautious view of the project were elected by overwhelming margins, changing the dynamics of the board and resulting in Ecogen’s third threat of a lawsuit in less than a year.
Hourihan said Ark is concerned because the election was a clear public referendum on the project.
“The people have spoken,” Hourihan said. “Ecogen doesn’t care.”
Wordingham said Ark is continuing his plan for both sides to find a way to agree without a court decision. Ark has warned any decision is likely to lead to costly appeals for both sides.
“He’s left a lot of work for us to do,” Wordingham said. “Don’t worry. It’ll get it done.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)