Response to HGC Literature Review by John Harrison

Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine NoiseGuideline for Acoustic Assessment and Measurement

Response to “Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine Generator Systems – A Literature Review”  by John Harrison

Introduction
The low frequency report, prepared by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Ltd. was commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), released in draft form in August 2010, released in final form to MOE in December 2010 and to the public in August 2011.  Why MOE is issuing it now as a press release is a mystery.   This response will address the report itself and the news release from the Ministry of the Environment.

A glaring omission from the report and the news release is the motivation for the commission to HGC.  The motivation of course is that a large number of residents living in proximity to wind turbines are suffering from annoyance, sleep deprivation and resulting adverse health effects.  The root cause of the annoyance is the noise generated by wind turbines. 

The commission focussed on low frequency audible sound and infrasound because at a distance of several hundred metres from a turbine much of the high frequency sound has been absorbed by the atmosphere.
The annoyance associated with turbine noise is considerably larger than noise of a similar sound pressure level generated by traffic or industrial noise.  For instance field studies by Pedersen, van den Berg, Bakker and Bouma (referenced in the report) show 15% and 27% of a population are annoyed[1] by sound pressure levels in the ranges 35 to 40 dBA and 40 to 45 dBA respectively.  These numbers are to be compared to 3% of a population annoyed by traffic noise in the same sound pressure level range.  The present Ontario noise limit is 40 dBA; the noise limit before the Green Energy Act was 51 dBA in a sufficiently high wind.  As noted below the Ontario noise limit is based upon prediction with significant noise contributions to the prediction not considered.

Possible reasons for the difference in response to turbine noise and road or industrial noise is the predominance of low frequencies in the turbine noise and the characteristic amplitude modulation of turbine noise at the blade passage frequency; this amplitude modulation draws continual attention to the turbine noise in the way that a dripping tap does.  The wind industry and its lobbyists make much of the contribution of attitude to wind turbines to the annoyance.  However, it is difficult to think that the attitude to industrial plants or road noise would be any less benign.  In addition, while Pedersen et al. show a linear dependence of annoyance on the turbine sound pressure level there is no similar study showing a linear dependence of annoyance on attitude!

Not only does the report and news release avoid mention of the motivation for the commission, neither MOE, the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health nor HGC made any attempt to interview those suffering from adverse health effects

Not for nothing do the following health and other experts propose setbacks well beyond those allowed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment:
 

The HGC report gives considerable prominence to the Colby et al. health study and to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Arlene King, health study.  The one was commissioned by the Canadian/American Wind Energy Authorities and the other by the Ontario Government which is far from unbiased with respect to wind energy.  Both are seriously flawed, notably in having no interest in the numerous people suffering from adverse health effect and in emphasizing the absence of direct health effects.  Generally the adverse health effects are indirect: sleeplessness and annoyance leading to stress-related illnesses.  This is recognized by the World Health Authority which considers annoyance and stress as adverse health effects.  A recent paper by Dr. Carl Phillips, a noted epidemiologist, offers a detailed critique.  The King report is marred by an erroneous quotation from the 2009 Pederson et al. paper of the number of people annoyed by turbine noise.  Dr. King has yet to acknowledge this error/deception.  

Technical Review

As must be, much of the HGC report concerns technical aspects of noise generation and sound propagation.  Here there is a fairly complete literature review.  However, this section fails to emphasize that the turbine manufacturers are aware that the future of widespread acceptance of wind energy will depend upon reducing noise and low-frequency noise.  To quote:

“The acoustic noise radiating from wind turbines continues to be the dominant design driver that must be incorporated into the design process.  The tip speed of many turbine designs is limited by the amount of noise created by the blades passing through the atmosphere.” Moriarty (NREL, USA) et al., AIAA Conference Proceedings (2005).

“ …noise emission….has become one of the most important environmental impacts of wind energy.”  (Romero-Sanz and Matesanz (GAMESA Spain), Wind Engineering, 32, 27-44 (2008))

As stated in the report a major cause of turbine noise is aerodynamic trailing-edge vortex creation.  There has been theoretical and wind-tunnel research to investigate the effect of different blade cross-sections on TE noise. 

Perhaps of far more importance for low frequency and infrasound noise is the work on inflow turbulence.  HGC, the Ministry of the Environment and CanWEA continue to bury their heads in the sand concerning this issue.  This important noise source has been brought to the attention of MOE and the Canadian acoustics community by bringing to light the early work at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the USA.  This work demonstrated through theoretical work based upon the mathematical modelling by Amiet and through experimental work with the NREL CART up-wind test turbine that turbulent inflow considerably enhances the low frequency noise emitted by turbines.  More recently, Dr. Moriarty has brought to my attention their continuing work, in collaboration with Dr. Guidati, well-known as a co-author of the Wagner et al. treatise on wind turbine noise. 

On July 8th, 2011, The National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Risø, Denmark placed the following description in an advertisement for a scholarship: “Noise is an interesting concern for wind turbine manufacturers and communities living near wind turbines.  These concerns are exacerbated by the constant increase of wind turbine sizes and the cost advantages of placing turbines close to the consumers.  The design of low-noise turbines requires the use of validated and accurate engineering models.  The main sources of noise generated by a wind turbine have been identified as turbulent inflow noise and trailing edge noise”

If still not convinced then Figure 32 of a recent report by K.D. Madsen and T.H. Pedersen should be enough (“Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines” DELTA report AV-1272/10 (2010)).

Other work not referenced concerns measurement of turbulence intensity.  This work is being done because turbulence increases dramatically low frequency noise, because it puts stress on the turbine blades and because, with associated wake loss, it decreases the capacity factor of downwind turbines.  A list of references that needed to be addressed is as follows:

Lange et al., “Modelling of Offshore Wind Turbine Wakes”, Wind Energy, 6, 87 (2003).

Barthelmie et al., “Modelling and measured Power Losses and Turbulence Intensity …”, Wind Energy, 10, 517 (2007).

Wagner et al., “Influence of Wind Speed Profile on Wind Turbine Performance Measurements”, Wind Energy, 12, 348, (2009).

Barthelmie et al., “Off-Shore Wind Turbine Wakes Measured by Sodar”, J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., 20, 466 (2003). 

Bertaglio, “NACA0015 Measurements in LM Wind Tunnel and Turbulence Generated Noise”, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy (2008) (report # Risø-R-1657(EN))

 In Europe, the European Commission is supporting turbine research through the SIROCCA Project:  ( http://www.ecn.nl/nl/units/wind/projecten/sirocco/ ). 

Propagation of Low Frequency Noise (Section 3.2)

The report makes important points concerning the propagation of turbine noise:  The cylindrical decrease in sound energy, the acoustically hard character of ground for low frequency sound, the low absorption by the atmosphere for low frequency sound and the ready penetration through residence walls.  These points needed to be emphasized in the executive summary, the conclusions and the recommendations.  At present they are not acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment.  This is especially important as guidelines are drawn up for off-shore wind energy. 

Noise Annoyance (Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.8)

Laboratory studies have their place.  Nevertheless, for reasons that Dr. Leventhall gives, as referenced in section 3.6, far more weight needs to be given to field studies in comparison to laboratory studies.  Missing from Section 3.6 is consideration of the amplitude modulation.  This is typically 5 dBA but higher values have been reported.  Dr. Leventhall himself has written: “A time-varying sound is more annoying than a steady sound of the same average level and this is accounted for by reducing the permitted level of wind turbine noise”.  As we are well aware, the Ministry of the Environment refuses to do this.

Section 3.8 quotes the work of Pawlaczyk and Luszczynska.  It was only fair to have quoted also the work of Persson Waye et al. (“Low Frequency Noise “Pollution” Interferes with Performance”, Noise Health, 4, 33, (2001)).  This paper comes to the opposite conclusion for low frequency noise at the 40 dBA level.

Health Effects (Section 3.11)

The Colby et al. and King reports were dealt with above.   Turning to the discussion of Dr. Pierpont’s work, the report is bizarre.  There is no mention of the bulk of the work on the medical study of a large number of people suffering adverse health effects resulting from wind turbine noise.  This work analyses the range of symptoms and finds reason to treat them collectively as a syndrome.  Separately, there are hypotheses for the cause of the syndrome.  Hypotheses are not proofs; scientifically, the presentation of a hypothesis is reason to study the problem and to demonstrate proof or otherwise.  Whether the hypotheses are correct or not is irrelevant to the fact that there are adverse health effects.  The energy devoted by Colby et al., King, CanWEA to denigrate the medical and diagnostic work of Dr. Pierpont is reminiscent of the methods we saw some decades ago used by the tobacco industry!  Again, I recommend a reading of the Phillip’s report on the power of crossover analysis in understanding the reality of adverse health effects from wind turbine noise.   There is a reference to Leventhall (2010) missing from the bibliography; nevertheless, I know that Drs. Leventhall, Colby and King are not epidemiologists!

Conclusions (section 5.0)

1)      Although turbine noise is broadband, at a distance of 500 metres, much of the high frequency sound has been absorbed.  Distance enhances the low frequency component as does turbulent inflow.

3)      Reference needs to be made to the Salt study demonstrating other pathways for the perception of very low frequency sound.

4)      This conclusion is wrong and is a red herring.  Turbine noise in the range 35 to 45 dBA causes annoyance and sleep disturbance.  These are adverse health effects and in turn lead on to other adverse health effects.  100 people reporting adverse health effects and more than a dozen families abandoning their homes in Ontario alone gives the lie to this conclusion.

5)      Non-trivial (a derogatory and unworthy expression) has no place in a professional report.  It should be replaced by about 20% being annoyed.

Recommendations (Section 6)

Given that the review of current technical literature in the HGC report has missed completely research dating back to Amiet and forward to detailed comparisons between theory and experiment on turbulent inflow noise, the first recommendation needs to be revised.  MOE does need to revisit its guidelines to include turbulent inflow noise, to treat the ground parameter as hard for low frequency sound, to reconsider spherical spreading, particularly for off-shore sound propagation, to address the uncertainty in the prediction of sound at a residence and, given the accepted enhancement of annoyance due to amplitude modulated noise, to apply a penalty for amplitude modulation.

Response to Backgrounder: Low Frequency Sound and Infrasound Report

 What kind of noise do wind turbines produce?  Turbines do indeed produce a wide range of frequencies. However, the noise 550 metres or more from the turbine is skewed towards low frequency noise because of selective absorption of the high frequencies by the atmosphere.

Is wind turbine sound harmful? The Minister of the Environment writes that there is no direct health risk.  However, field studies have demonstrated that 15 to 27% of people exposed to turbine noise at the Ontario regulated limit will suffer annoyance.  This is an adverse health effect and in time leads on to other adverse health effects such as stress, tinnitus, headaches and sleep disturbance.

Are Ontario’s rules to control wind turbine sound stringent enough?   

The minister writes that at the Ontario regulated setback much of the sound that turbines produce lays outside the range that people can hear.  This is untrue.  Field studies show that at the regulated setback, 80% of people can hear the turbine noise.  Also, the minister fails to note that Germany, with its more extensive experience with wind energy, has a lower night-time noise limit than Ontario. 

John Harrison  harrisjp@physics.queensu.ca


[1] Pedersen et al. consider five reactions to turbine noise: do not notice; notice but not annoyed; slightly annoyed; rather annoyed; and very annoyed.  They group rather and very annoyed together under the heading “annoyed”.

 

14 thoughts on “Response to HGC Literature Review by John Harrison

  1. Extremely well written article!
    “Non-trivial (a derogatory and unworthy expression) has no place in a professional report. It should be replaced by about 20% being annoyed.”
    Absolutely! This government can stop calling their citizens “non-trivial”.
    “Pedersen et al. consider five reactions to turbine noise: do not notice; notice but not annoyed; slightly annoyed; rather annoyed; and very annoyed. They group rather and very annoyed together under the heading “annoyed”.”
    Thank you for pointing out all their errors.
    Our government is not working in our best interest, it is working against the health and safety of its citizens. How much poison in the water would our MOE consider safe?

  2. Just an FYI
    There are an enormous number of families reporting headaches, nausea, dizziness ears, and head plugged up, inability to sleep, stomachaches after the projects start up. This includes small children that don’t know anything about any Kings, Colbys, McGuintys or Bradleys.
    People do not connect the word “annoyance” with these symptoms. This is a clinical term that does not well explain the various symptoms that are being reported. The cyclical audible and low frequency noise is an assault on the body and it should be a criminal offence to continue to subject families (many with no means of escape) to these emissions.
    Shame on these people. Were it their own family suffering we know they would be looked after somehow. Those with the funds to hire a lawyer have been able to escape and that can take years itself because of the coverup. What about those who cannot afford a lawyer?

    The author of the LFN report Brian Howe is an engineer who should lose his license for leaving families suffering in the homes he has investigated.
    The Ministry of the Environment awarded this Request for Proposal to report on low frequency noise to Brian Howe, HGC a long standing memeber of CanWEA (a huge moneyed lobby group advocating for wind projects). He has also done much work directly for wind developers, has denigrated victims and their experience at municipal meetings and the MOE has the gall to call him independent! Are you kidding me?
    He’s about as “independent” as the research chair they are funding with 5 years to play their part in this game, just enough time to get all their turbines up and harming before the so-called report comes out. The report will be no different than any of the other provincial or industry funded reports and anyone who thinks any different is sadly being duped. They all play in the same sandbox and have loads of cash and time to conspire.
    And if you are wondering why I would say that… or what is the truth?…then give me a good and logical reason why this government will not stop erecting even more turbines until an independent epidemiological study has been completed? (It could have been long completed by now.)
    Think on that for a while…..

  3. PS, It is on 2 years now that the research chair has had funding and they failed to deliver the interim report they should have had submitted. Wonder what they’ve been doing all this time?
    Time dragging comes to mind………..

  4. As one living next to turbines and knowing that they the MOEers know there is a problem but will not address the other non audible noises that can and will affect people need to be responsible for there lack of actions to allow these polluting noises from harming us and to stop any more from being built as a precautionary principle. Therefore under this principal and not following our concerns for our health we should reverse what they would do to polluters or violators after MOE being warned properly is to give them a notice of failure of job duty and to write up a bill for every day we live next too these dam turbines until they do the third party study and find out what and if we can find a remedy for this matter of great concern. Please understand that they are our paid public servants and they are our servants not the other way around. they are not doing there job correctly and they should be fined or billed because this is what it is all about the green cash. This is my spin on it as I grow more and more upset about getting this cleared up as time is ticking away and in the meantime they are allowing more and more being erected and more of us being tortured and harassed by these turbines. Cheers

  5. Comment to John Harrison:-

    I have been sent the HGC engineering LFN review and your commentary through the ‘Ontario Wind Resistance web site.

    All of the researchers referred to in the HGC engineering literature review seem to have missed the key correlation between annoyance and the ‘truncated intensity’ of the emissions. Nor therefore is intensity mentioned directly in your review:-

    1. Sensitised observers ‘hear’ similar fluctuations in the impacting sound, even when they have been sensitised by different sources. My observations suggest that the annoyance induced by an intermittent annoyance inducing sound have the same start, stop, peak and trough timings. This indicates that the annoyance sensation is totally dependent on the physical characteristics of the impacting sound.

    2. I have now been sensitised for at least 10 years (from building vibrations) and have survey results from several ‘LFN’ sites. My principal site produces annoyance of a wide variety of magnitudes and textures but I have not been able to correlate the magnitude of the monotone annoyance response to any particular pattern in the spectra (the suggested assessment using the U.K. reference curve).

    3. My conclusion is that the quality in the sound which induces annoyance is not averaged sound pressure level. Nor is it solely related to any particular peaks in the implied frequency spectrum.
    All that is necessary is that there should be isolated peaks of sufficient magnitude at between one and eight Hertz with or without secondary emissions with peaks spaced at precise intervals of something of the order of 7 to 10 milliseconds.

    4. Sound, as measured by a microphone, produces an output voltage pattern. This varies instantaneously to give magnitude values (say Leq lin). This gives sound pressure levels. The problem is that annoyance levels do not correlate at all with sound pressure. If sound pressure is not responsible for annoyance then some other dimension in the sound emission is. Intensity, or the rate of change in intensity, are the most obvious measures.
    • The ‘Instantaneous Intensity’ proxy value is given by the product of pressure and rate of change of pressure.
    Thus, the dominant factor changes, with rate of change becoming relatively powerful at very low sound levels.
    • Also it is worth noting that these ‘Instantaneous intensity’ values are masked by the addition of other audible or inaudible sound.
    • And these intensity values tend to increase as background sound levels fall- as does Annoyance.
    All of these factors point to intensity, as the determinant of annoyance.

    5. There are crude correlations established between ‘Annoyance’ and both (a) amplitude modulation and (b) ‘prominence’. Both of these are akin to the intensity of the impacting sound. If intensity determines annoyance, then the skin touch receptors (e.g. Pacinian Corpuscles) are a possible detection mechanism. The monotone ‘pseudo sound’ which accompanies annoyance is also induced by a vibrating stimulus applied to sensitive areas, e.g. fingertip and lip vermillion.
    Pacinian corpuscles can be activated by physical vibration and perhaps by high intensity sound. They ‘fire’, discharging to the neural system when disturbed by a stimulus above a threshold level and once active give repetitive discharges if subjected to lesser stimuli if these occur regularly with spacing of between seven and ten milliseconds. (Various papers, Werner R. Loewenstein,1957).
    These discharges then are capable of producing transient and steady state responses in the ‘somatosensory cortex’.(Nangini et al; Neuroimage. 2006 Oct.15).

    It has been suggested to me that the ‘pseudo-sound’ component of annoyance is likely to be a sympathetic response effect. I am no neurologist, but I assume that it might equally well be an accumulated response sensation associated with these steady state responses. Either way, the ‘diesel engine like’ magnitude pattern is similar to that of the instantaneous (here 20ms.) intensity of the impacting sound.
    From other (5ms) survey results I infer that the energy pulses need to exceed threshold for a duration of some 15-20 milliseconds to cause the initial ‘firing’.
    The 100 -160 Hertz secondary stimulus can then cause the repetitive discharges.

    6. My acute sensitisation annoyance was and is caused by the impact of a neighbour’s concrete frame house on our flank wall. The disturbances contain little audible sound. Impacts occur in a wide range at between zero and about eight Hertz and the impacting concrete has a resonant frequency somewhere in the 163 and 200 Hertz bands. My sensitisation was established by skin resistivity test to be to 185 Hertz (i.e. 5.5 Hertz peak separation).
    So this impacting sound meets (almost) the ‘Loewenstein’ conditions for repetitive discharges from the Pacinian Corpuscles.

    7. Wind Turbines. The peak intensities occur as the emissions from each rotor blade become screened from a down-wind observer by the tower and as the blade then re-emerges. The attached graph shows a ten second record of the [p* dp/dt] proxy measured some 350 metres from the nearest of a group of three towers. On that occasion both I and my wife (who has a lesser level of sensitisation) were very aware of annoyance for apprioximately 250 milliseconds precisely as each blade passed behind the supporting tower. The 20 second leq lin value was .582 Pa. against the A weighted .007 Pa and the impacting energy ranged over values from half to two and a half times the average values.

    Note:
    I have been using the values of [p*(dp/dt)] measured using a G.R.A.S. 40AN/12AR microphone and the auxiliary ‘ 0dB Symphonie’, PC based analysis system to obtain a series of 5ms samples giving Leq lin and peak levels. It is then possible to infer values for this ‘truncated intensity’ as a proxy for the total intensity of the source emissions.
    I see no justification for any weighting to the microphone output. Nether the decibel scaling nor the frequency analysis are involved in obtaining the impacting energy pattern, but the frequency spectrum of the allocation of the physical unit output is useful to see where the power allocation of the emissions lie.

    The 1.25 Hertz modulation in intensity reflects the 800 millisecond intervals between blade passes and is considerably better defined than is the modulation in the straight Leq lin values.

    • Hello

      It would be good to speak with you sometime about your good measurment techniques.
      I use the new GRAS 40AZ with a SINUS soundbook to measure infrasound. SINUS made the hardware for your Symphonie & Harmonie analysers. I know the 01dB product well.

      Are you in Canada?

      How can I reach you?

      Andy

      • I am in London, U.K. and frustrated by the lack of a reasonable annoyance Standard for the assessment of Infrasound. I have no doubt that our ‘sound experts and neurologists’ here do understand the problems but no guidelines for broadband infrasound have emerged. The lawyers and courts understandably retreat behind an assumption that annoyance is always ‘tinnitus’ and internally generated.

        I would prefer not to broadcast my address or phone number. Perhaps Ontario wind resistance could arrange an exchange of e-mail addresses. Given your interest I would be happy for them to give you mine.

        Henry.

  6. I wonder if the provincial partners in the wind industry, our government, put another lit review out at the same time as they and another wind developer were dismissed in trying to stop the Zephr ERT to review another turbine infestation, from moving forward. Absolutely Ontariwoe, the term ‘annoyance’ does not, for many, describe the hell people are going through. Nosebleeds, sores that won’t heal, constant nausea, heart palpitations and high blood pressure upon waking up in the middle of the night with the turbines vibrating in your walls and bed, headaches that meds don’t touch, pressure on the chest, in the ears and the head; this IS assault on our bodies.

  7. HGC prepared their report for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The PDF document is available at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/stdprod_092086.pdf
    HGC also prepared a report for CanWEA, and it is available at http://www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/CanWEA_Infrasound_Study_Final.pdf

    Notice the similarities in the two reports. Perhaps this is not surprising since CanWEA and the Ontario government lie in the same bed with respect to Ontario’s wind turbines/farms. Perhaps we could say there is a conflict of interest in HGC being a third party (presumeably unbiased) company, in being commissioned to prepare reports for the two organizations. I will have to go back and see if I can find the mandate to HGC from the MInistry of the Environment, or the Ontario Government. At any rate, I certainly agree with John Harrison’s assessment, that there are glaring omissions, and for the same reasons.

    HGC likes to use the term “minor annoyances” to the sounds / infrasounds from wind turbines. I wonder how long HGC would liken the drip from a Chinese? water torture, to a minor annoyance after a constant exposure over a period of time. [The water torture is a constant drip of water on the forehead. At first it seems like nothing, but after some period of time, the effect has been described as thunderous, making your head feel like it’s ready to explode] Lets see what percentage of HGC and Government people are just “extra sensitive” to that minor annoyance. I wonder what HGC’s report would have been like, if they had done their research from portable offices set up in a wind farm area instead of their ivory tower.

    If future legitimate studies do indeed back up the complaints from residents living in the shadows of turbines and wind farms, could Premiere McGuinty be charged with crimes against humanity? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And his failure to show due diligence, seems to be intentional in order to promote his political agenda. As our elected officials, Liberal MPP’s, and some from the NDP, are not looking out for the best interests of their constituents when they back their political platforms in support of “Green Energy”. Could they also be charged with crimes against humanity, knowing how they voted in Queen’s Park, when different private members’ bills have been introduced to reign in wind turbine development?

    It seems to me that an independant study needs to be done, one that does a much more thorough and scientific job than HGC prepared. This study needs to be done in Ontario, with our current day wind turbines, and the effects on our residents. What would it take for Ontario Wind Resistance to hire a competent firm to do proper research. Could we muster up the financing? Perhaps Mr. McGuinty would take a very small percentage of money out of the wind turbine subsidies, and dedicate it to us. He could then use something substantial in his defence for failure to show due diligence. He could reinforce his defence, with a moratorium on wind turbines until a realistic study and report becomes available.

    • Agreed, but all tribunals and courts can do is to make recommendations and not decisions as to which side is right in arguments among experts.
      So the “noise” issues remain in the political realm and as long as the parties supporting IWTs are in control nothing will be done. The investments of developers and those who seek to make money from IWTs will be protected at any cost. Political careers as well need to be protected.

  8. Dave Bartlett has hit a key point with his question “I wonderwhat HGC’s report would have been like, if they had to do research from portable offices set up in a wind farm area…..”

    I know from ten years’ personal experience that the main debilitating responses of my body to infrasound and/or physical vibration (collectively known as Annoyance) are :-
    (a) Acute sleep deprivation and headaches;
    (b) the continuous ‘pseudo sound’ which reflects the intensity of the impacting sound and vibration
    (c) the interference in motor control and ,most importantly
    (d) The intrusive impact of the annoyance generally on the ability to think consecutively.

    This last point is the most debilitating. The “sound and the neurology experts” say that annoyance ameliorates over time. After a decade, my sensitisation high intensities of low frequency sound still seriously affect my ability to think or write.

    Henry.

  9. Crimes have been committed here for sure! Whether it be “misappropriation of funds to actual causing bodily harm” we all know what the direct and indirect actions of this Government has wrought upon it’s citizens!
    What amazes me now as much as it did 4+ years ago that we are supposed to living in a Free and Just area of the world and I’m sure there are more Lawyers that are well educated here than in most countries, but where the people who know the Law, see this destruction to people’s lives happening on a daily basis and haven’t stepped up to plate and offered at least an “opinion” on what WE can do to proceed with charges against these tyrants!
    Of course in the legal profession has sold out to the political “elite” then I guess we’re in trouble. They wouldn’t have done that would they?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *