“Industrial wind turbine infrasound is not the best weapon, but it is a weapon. This German video documents the harmful effects of d the infrasound produced by industrial-sized wind turbines. The dangers of infrasound have been known since the 1980s when the U.S. military heavily invested in infrasound (below 20 Hz) as a weapon. It looked like it had great promise, according to Col. John B. Alexander who was involved in weaponizing it.. The military gave up on infrasound as its effects on people were too random: some potential targets were seriously debilitated; others not so much. This video presents various studies by acoustical engineers and other scientists showing infrasound’s affect on the ear, the heart, the brain and other organs.”
And then consider this…
Canadian diplomats sue their government over mystery illness in Cuba
CNN – excerpt: “The Canadian government continues to investigate the potential causes of the unusual health symptoms experienced by some Canadian diplomatic staff and their family members posted in Havana, Cuba. To date, no cause has been identified. The statement said that after the last confirmed case of unusual health symptoms in November, a number of Canadian diplomatic staff in Cuba underwent additional medical testing.And in April, Canada pulled all nonessential staff and diplomats’ family members after testing concluded that their diplomats also suffered from mystery symptoms including dizziness, ringing in the ears and memory loss.”
Diplomats from the US experienced similar symptoms
CNNexcerpt: “A number of US diplomats and their families in Cuba reported hearing bizarre noises in 2016 and 2017 and experienced a range of symptoms such as dizziness, vertigo, and pain and ringing in the ears. US State Department officials initially feared they might have fallen victim to an “acoustic attack” by sonic devices that emitted a powerful beam of energy causing neurological problems. The United States said that 26 American diplomats and family members were affected.There have been a number of studies looking into the possible causes and symptoms of the noises heard by US officials. According to a study published in the medical journal JAMA in March, a majority of 21 affected patients reported problems with memory, concentration, balance, eyesight, hearing, sleeping or headaches that lasted more than three months. Three people eventually needed hearing aids for moderate to severe hearing loss, and others had ringing or pressure in their ears.
Dear Honourable members of the 42nd Parliament of Ontario;
I am writing to urge you to cancel all wind turbine contracts in Ontario immediately and I hereby provide you with reasons for doing so.
First; introducing myself. I am a Professional Engineer having been schooled in Ontario and worked and payed taxes in Ontario all of my life. I have a B.A.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Waterloo in 1976, and a Master of Engineering degree in Chemical and Nuclear Engineering from the University of Toronto in 1992. I have worked for Ontario Hydro, now OPG, for 31 years in positions of engineering and management, and have spent the past ten years teaching nuclear and other engineering courses at Georgian College, UOIT, including eight years of teaching engineering at the University of Toronto. For example my teaching duties at the U of T include teaching in classroom as well as oversight of senior year student capstone engineering design projects. From my perspective of over 40 years of work in industry and academia, I find that the most important aspect for success of students, corporations, and members of government, and collectively the government is making science based decisions, creating trust, and being ethical. Engineers need to write an exam on ethics. What other groups of people are required to write an exam on ethics? It is from this point of view that I feel well justified to write this email to be submitted to you the Honourable Members and to the public for consideration.
The Green Energy and Economy Act of 2009 was at that time touted to be the panacea and growth opportunity for Ontario in terms of jobs and quality of life and a future for the children of all citizens. In fact, and as you all, and we all know, after ten years of ‘implementation’ the GEA has been a dismal failure and created the opposite of what was intended; eg. high hydro rates, loss of jobs, businesses closing and businesses moving south, astronomical provincial debt, bleak future for students graduating year after year, life has become much harsher for the average person, and for some in rural areas where turbines are being built and operating, life is impossible due to high energy low frequency noise/acceleration of structures including skeletal and inner ear structures, not just adults, but infants, dogs, cats, cattle, and the other issue is the adverse impact on water quality caused by recent turbine construction involving pile driving and disturbing the ground from which residents need to draw water for themselves and for farming, the water in some of the wells have become brackish and undrinkable and requires expensive filtration systems to be installed, paid for the affected residents. Please see jpeg file of a sample of water. The residents have brought this to the attention of their MOH, and the MOH’s involved are discounting this as a non-issue.
Another issue: This link describes cardiac instability. Of course cardiac instability is high concern for cardia arrest, ie. death. This should come as no surprise that infrasound is dangerous as the military has done experiments on how infrasound may be use as a weapon. The attached JPG file lists some of the links that provide evidence of harm from infrasound.
How did we get into this mess? I have been following the implementation of the GEA since its becoming law in 2009 and have written many submission to ERT’s. Some of you MPP’s also know about this since the beginning. Some of you are just now coming up to speed as the 42nd government. As to how this mess got created, Hansard is the official record of Parliament, and key snippets are presented here in this link.
From the Hansard recording, we observe this was un-parliamentary and involved an incestuous and salacious relationship between the proponent and the government, so much so, that the government actually became one with the proponent by eg. waiving the “Precautionary Principle” that is generically in all legislation where there is introduction of new processes into the public domain. The precautionary principal requires the proponent to bear the burden of proof of ‘no damage’. Waiving of the precautionary principle de-facto requires anyone who is damaged to bear the burden of proof of the damage. This has caused each and every Environmental Review Tribunal to be a failure, a farce, and a ‘kangaroo court’ in favour of the wind turbine developers to be allowed to supersede the rights of citizens, so much so, that Municipal Planning was legislated to not be allowed to be involved in turbine location planning. Another example of adverse impact is turbines placed at the ends of airport runways and pilots being told to fly around as they take off and land.
From the Hansard, we observe the self-dealing by liberal party members accessing the blank cheques of the liberal government, while the government turns more than just a blind eye but actively intervenes to disallow the voice of concerned citizens.
Two additional points; in the attached pdf files, one documents what we knew about adverse health effects of wind turbines in 2009. Please read that and compare to the pdf file HGC report copied from the MOEE website originally published in December 2010 by the principal engineering firm HGC commissioned by the government. HGC is a member of CanWea. For your convenience I have commented on just the Executive Summary showing that this report is not a very good work of engineering, but a report slanted to the needs of the client and the industry represent by the author. Such a report, if produced by a student, would be given a Fail if that occurred in my classroom.
And speaking of classrooms. A student design team did a health study in 2014 that was ignored by the government and the wind industry…actually this piece of student work was well received by Faculty, and then it was squashed and never made it past the walls of the university. Please see attached pdf discussing the results of that study. The message given to students by government and industry is disrespectful and inappropriate. The message that was sent by government and industry was that this project result was not politically correct and therefore invalid and not to be used. As a professional engineer I am outraged. As an educator, I am outraged that government is squashing the freedom of thought, idea exchange and speech because it does not fit the government agenda. Ah yes, examples of this has also been in the news at other universities across Canada.
Wind turbines are insignificant to the overall power needs of Ontario only exist because of a subsidy. I do not subscribe to the theory of global warming requiring reduction of carbon dioxide requiring taxes to supposedly control the thermostat of the earth. That is another topic I am prepared to speak to again in the future. The people who believe wind turbines are a necessary solution to reduce CO2 are wrong based on real data, eg. gas turbines back up wind turbines in Ontario, and coal plants back up the wind turbines in Germany, and not including the CO2 produced by manufacturing the steel and concrete for the wind turbines, wind turbines will never be zero carbon nor environmentally friendly due to the very hazardous chemical processes for mining, refining and manufacturing the rare earth for electronics and magnets for the generators. The wind industry has not created any sustaining jobs, in fact the opposite, closing at least one wind turbine manufacturing facility; but in the bigger picture, the high cost of hydro due to subsidy to wind developers is certainly a factor in closing the General Motors plant in Oshawa as announced this week.
In summary, the wind turbines and their contracts are a house of cards propped up by non-science, miss-information, political correctness, malfeasance and a subsidy via the FIT program to achieve a certain ideological and bigoted feel good feeling about the environment.
After almost ten years now we observe failure and a certain breach of contract to deliver electrical power economically competitively by wind turbines, especially breach of social contract by the previous government in collusion with the wind industry.
In light of the recent announcement by General Motors, high costs has certainly been a factor in the irreversible decision to leave Ontario, Ontario needs to swiftly curtail any further losses.
Of course cancellation will stir up emotions and ire of many. The response to all in this light, this is my recommended response. that they need to:
review Hansard ie. history
review the interaction between government and industry
review the gap between actual vs expected performance of the GEA
review the health impacts, ie. actually listen to citizens
Actions that I recommend for the Minister of the Solicitor General is to communicate with the Professional Engineers of Ontario organization to initiate an engineering investigation into, for example the errors and omissions of the HGC report that I observe is the underlying instrument for the forced installation of wind turbines and the systematic program to ignore citizen complaints.
Another action I recommend is on the Cabinet Ministers for Health and also MOEE, and perhaps in conjunction with the Ontario Medical Association to review culpability of some of the Medical Officers of Health particularly those MOH’s who received complaints for not responding appropriately, ie. what was their response, and was their response appropriate.
And finally, to answer some of the media reporters ‘whinning’; they may be sent away by simply asking them how much money have they accessed from the Trudeau announced $600 million subsidy for ‘trusted journalists’ that would pay them to ask their questions and then write their articles. One of the worst things that the federal liberal government has done is to undermine the independence and credibility of those media who participate in the subsidy and I think we have a good idea of who those are or might be. If those media drown, it is because it is self inflicted. To bad, it becomes so necessary to deal with corruption, and this email about the GEA points to corruption that must be undone, and be undone quickly.
I provide my views for th public good and for the public record. Be advised that for privacy reasons I have also sent blind copies to various folks whom I know are like minded and would support this government in cancelling the contracts for the wind turbines.
Fair notice to all who stand in the way of shutting down the turbines, you are aiding and abetting the continuation of harm.
“Knowing is easy; it is the doing that is difficult. The critical issue is not what we know but what we do with what we know. The great end of life is not knowledge, but action.” Admiral Hyman Rickover
After many years of suffering, residents don’t want to participate in a study that just produces ‘recommendations’. But even more worrisome to them should be when the investigating Health Unit Epidemiologist, Dr. Erica Clark, has a pretty picture of wind turbines at night hanging on her office wall. Seriously. Wanna remain impartial? You better stick a “Stop the Wind Turbines” sign up beside it.
As a service to Ontarians concerned about the use of suspect noise modelling by engineers working on behalf of wind developers to get projects approved it appears concern is warranted. HCG were instrumental in developing the noise regulations for the Ontario government. Recently they conducted a Section D audit test on the Unifor turbine. Highlights of that test are below;
Unifor Wind Turbine (Page 2)
Acoustic Immission Audit January 8, 2018
Table 1: Predicted Sound Levels and UTM Coordinates of Selected Locations
± Sound level taken from ENIR . ( Original CAW modelling ) * Sound level predicted by acoustic model created by HGC Engineering.
NOTE: 2 of the 3 test locations modelled higher by HCG than by CAW’s original engineering consultant.
Receptor location J is a single storey cottage located at 12 Globe Place. Turbine T1 is approximately 210 m to the southeast. The sound level meter was installed on a fence at the northwest side of the Unifor property, approximately 205 m from T1, designated Monitoring Location M1. The microphone was placed at a height of 4.5 m, consistent with the ENIR.
Criteria 45 45 45 45 ( our faulty 45 db semi urban classification – normally rural at 40 db )
Excess – – 2
Closest receptor the Groves home at 12 Gobles Place at 210 m. away from the Unifor turbine was modelled at 42.7 by CAW, predicted at 43.9 by HCG and HCG audit tested it at 47 and 48 dB. An unpublished MOECC approved Section D audit test by CAW engineer on April 27,28,29 2014 had measurements of 45 db at 4m/sec and 57 dB at 6 m/sec. It was later deemed incomplete after found by FOI as CAW called off the test each night as residents unaware of testing being done called in noise complaints.
The HCG 47 and 48 dB illegal noise levels were based on an alternate test track of less than half the normal amount of measuring supposedly due to lack of good data. We had never heard of this optional test track.
Only low wind speeds between 1 to 4 m/sec (max 14.4km/hr) were used in this reduced data testing track for 1 hour averaging. Meanwhile the MOECC chart shows wind speeds from 4 to 10 m/sec. and shows that all wind speeds from 4 to 8 m/sec shall not exceed the max limit of 45 dB.
Where are the noise test results for wind speeds from 5 to 10 m/sec? No good wind for the 3rd time?? Common sense says they would be much higher than the 48 dB HCG measured and could most likely be extrapolated by talented acousticians.
So we have learned that HCG, the architect of Ontario’s noise testing regulations, has just proven how faulty the wind turbine noise modelling scheme is that MOECC uses to approve wind projects in Ontario. And while using low max. wind speeds of 4 m/sec. HCG is off by 5 dB ( 48.7-43.9 ) and that is significant.
Any yet to be approved or built wind projects like those now launching legal challenges based on concern of the adverse effects faulty modelling will have on them appear to be well justified.
Brian Hill, Global News Excerpt: “Over the past two years, officials from the ministry have measured violations of the province’s noise limits at the couple’s home on two occasions, first in August 2015 and again in March 2017. Despite these violations, the couple says the government has done nothing other than order more tests.
The Stachura’s complaints of government inaction are not unique. In fact, Global News has learned that Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change does not respond to the majority of complaints made by residents concerned about wind turbines.
Documents released through Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act and obtained by Global News reveal officials from the Ministry of Environment chose not to investigate or deferred responding to – meaning they did not make immediate plans to investigate – roughly 68 per cent of all noise and health complaints lodged against wind turbine operators in the province between 2006 and 2014. This represents nearly 2,200 individual complaints.
The documents also show limited resources sometimes prevented the ministry from responding to complaints.” Read article
Unaddressed Wind Turbine Complaints Anger Local Group by Miranda Chant, Blackburn News A local group opposed to wind turbines is once again calling on the province to put a stop to the controversial wind power projects, after a new report found many noise complaints related to the turbines are being ignored.
Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines (DDOWT), a group made up people from the rural community southwest of London, has written to Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Glenn Murray demanding he stop any new wind turbine approvals.
Their demand comes in light of documents obtained by Wind Concerns Ontario under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents show the Ministry of Environment chose not to investigate or deferred responding to roughly 68% of all noise and health complaints made against green energy operators in the province between 2006 and 2014.
A list of 3,180 complaints is included in the documents. Of those, more than 1,700 were not investigated by the ministry. In another 446 of the complaints the ministry deferred responding. Complainants reported sleep disturbances, headaches, and dizziness from the wind turbine noise emissions. Read article
By Monte Sonnenberg, Simcoe Reformer
The company that brought a four-turbine wind farm to Port Ryerse last year got an earful about noise levels at a community meeting this week. Boralex officials were on the hot seat Wednesday as 40 people from the Port Ryerse area had at them in a committee room at the Simcoe Recreation Centre. The occasion was a bi-annual meeting Boralex has agreed to have with its neighbours. Also attending were members of the Port Ryerse Community Liaison Committee.
“It’s very loud and it’s very upsetting,” Port Ryerse resident Shana Greatrex told the gathering. “Our whole village has been affected. This is something we warned about a long time ago and no one did anything about it.”
Village residents were surprised when one of the property owners who agreed to host a turbine said his neighbours aren’t imagining things. “I’m surprised I can hear them as loud as I do, and I wear an earpiece,” said Wally Faulkner. “They’re louder than I expected.”
Comments at this week’s meeting are consistent with complaints across the province that wind turbines are noisy, disruptive and interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of property. In telling her story, Gail Lyons started off calm enough. However, the bitterness she feels came through loud and clear in her words. Lyons told the gathering she lives across the road from “one of these pieces of crap that I hate” and that she is often awakened in the middle of the night because her bed is shaking. Read article
Karen Hunter, Huffington Post
The National Day of Mourning sends “a strong message to all governments of their obligation and responsibility to strongly enforce health and safety laws and regulations,” says Unifor, Canada’s largest private-sector union, formerly the CAW.
There’s a “serious lack of commitment,” Unifor says of the provincial government, “to enforce the health and safety protections that we have fought for,” so “unfortunately, the suffering continues.” One of the hazardous dangers flagged by the union on its website notice is noise.
Meanwhile, a new online petition targets Unifor for its failure to comply with provincial health and safety protections, specifically noise regulations.
Unifor owns and operates the controversial CAW Wind Turbine, located on its property in Port Elgin, Ontario on the shore of Lake Huron. The turbine began operation in 2013 to generate money for the union. At the time, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) approved the turbine on the condition that the Union would conduct noise audits within the first two years of operation and provide MOE with the results.
Now, as the turbine begins its fourth year of operation, the tests and results are, at a minimum, two years late.
MOE knew — as did everyone else — how important noise monitoring would be. Unifor’s turbine is located just 210 metres from the nearest home, less than half of the 550-metre distance required by provincial noise regulations. MOE approved Unifor’s turbine after the union had the community’s zoning changed from a rural tourist/recreational classification to city semi-urban to allow for increased noise.
To further address noise levels, the union stated that its powerful 800kw turbine would operate at just 500kw (despite reduced revenue generation) and that it would self-monitor its operation. Since its startup, Unifor and MOE have received hundreds of noise complaints, day and night, from the nearly 200 families who live within the turbine’s 550-metre radius. Still, the noise testing has not been done.
Back in 2013, during the turbine’s first six months of operation, 140 noise complaints prompted town council to pass a motion asking the CAW to honour President Ken Lewenza’s commitment to shut down the turbine if it harmed residents. The union dismissed the request. Read article
BBC Five sperm whales have washed up on beaches in Lincolnshire and Norfolk. They are thought to belong to the same all-male pod as 12 others that were found dead around the Netherlands and Germany last week. Read more
“Impacts of Noise from Wind Farm Construction and Installation on Large Whales A Brief Summary“, by Karen Stamieszkin, Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies
“Wind turbine operation also creates noise that may affect right whales and other cetaceans. Noise from operating turbines can reach a marine mammal through an initially waterborne, airborne, or substrate- borne path. Aerodynamic vibrations caused by the rotating blades travels through the air before reaching the water and then the animal. Vibrations from the structure itself will enter the water directly. Vibrations from the nacelle (the housing for the energy generating components of the turbine) will depend upon mechanical refinement and construction, and will transmit down the structure, becoming waterborne noise, as well as through the air. Vibration from this source may increase over time as the mechanical components wear. Vibrations transmitting from the base of the turbine must propagate through sediment before becoming waterborne; therefore these noise levels also depend upon substrate composition. Generally, sounds produced from operating turbines are harmonics of the rotational frequency of the blades (Nedwell & Howell 2004).”
(If we could add just one more audio to this article – a field, before and after wind turbines.)
New York Times, By Micheal Kimmelman
We talk about how cities and buildings look. We call places landmarks or eyesores. But we rarely talk about how architecture sounds, aside from when a building or room is noisy.
The spaces we design and inhabit all have distinctive sounds. The reading rooms at the New York Public Library have an overlay of rich sound. Your office may be a big room in a glass building with rows of cubicles where people stare into computer screens.
It may be sealed off from the outside, and you may think it is quiet.
Often the sound of a place is so pervasive that we stop noticing what we hear. Or we think the sound could not be otherwise — that is, until we, say, turn off the buzzing overhead lights.
Compare, for instance, the ear-shattering subway platform in New York City with a relatively silent station in Paris, where trains slide into platforms on whooshing wheels: Read article (and listen to the audio)
Seaforth Huron Expositor
During a community liaison meeting in Seaforth at Huron East’s town hall, an engineer who works on several turbines in St. Columban admitted to the public that most statements made by consultants that residents will “never hear” the large fans are dishonesties.
It was a full community conference with almost every chair filled in the council chambers joined by the HEAT group, Veresen Inc., Huron East council members and a few locals. For all those who came, coffee, donuts and a fruit tray were available free of charge. The voice of the HEAT, Jeanne Melady and Gerry Ryan were front-row ready with pens and paper. The two have been present at three out of the last four Huron East council meeting. They expressed their needs to the political gang numerous times, a primary concern was that HEAT did not know who to call. Today was the day to move forward and be heard by the wind turbine company. At a previous council meeting, Huron East was optimistic and sure several questions would be answered at this function.
Dennis Mueller, a representative for the community liaison committee started the two-hour session by directing questions and complaints from members of 14 households that live near these wind turbines. These inquiries were aimed at Veresen Inc. and the senior engineer. Mueller put all these objections on a screen so the public could view these alleged accusations. Read article
Just when you didn’t think it could get worse, the Ontario government shows they are more vicious than imaginable. They want to put LARGER turbines CLOSER to homes, farms and schools! They are looking to do away with the meagre 550m setback to accomplish this.
Comment Period: 45 days: submissions may be made between August 04, 2015 and September 18, 2015
Updates and clarifications to the “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms”
Description of Regulation:
O. Reg. 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act (REA regulation) is intended to support the Ontario Government’s Green Energy initiative to expand renewable energy generation, encourage energy conservation and promote the creation of clean energy jobs, while upholding our commitment to protecting the environment. The renewable energy approval (REA) process is based on clearly communicated complete submission requirements, whereby proponents of renewable energy projects know in advance what studies and reports are expected of them in preparing a complete application for a REA.
The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) is proposing amendments to the REA regulation to reflect the most recent Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 2013 Noise Standard, “Wind Turbine Generator Systems: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques”. The CSA Standard is used by proponents for the purposes of determining the sound power level of wind turbines under the REA regulation. The amendments also address advancements in wind turbine technology, issues related to operational flexibility and continued protection of noise receptors. An amendment is also being proposed that relates to the natural feature protection and assessment sections of the REA regulation to reflect current practices in the province. Additional minor amendments are also being proposed to clarify other aspects of the REA regulation.
The ministry is also proposing updates to the Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms. For more details on the proposed changes to the Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, a link has been provided to the associated Environmental Registry posting.
Descriptions of the key proposed regulatory amendments can be found below.
Adoption of 2013 CSA standard (CAN/CSA-IEC 61400-11, Wind turbines — Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques)
MOECC’s REA Regulation currently references the CSA 2007 Noise Standard, “Wind Turbine Generator Systems: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques”.
An amendment is being proposed to adopt the most recent 2013 CSA standard (CAN/CSA-IEC 61400-11, Wind turbines — Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques) to replace the existing CSA 2007 Noise Standard.
The CSA standard is referenced in the definition of “sound power level” in the REA Regulation and is used by proponents to determine wind facility classification. It is also referenced in the specifications report, which all proponents of Class 3, 4 and 5 wind facilities are required to submit as part of a complete REA application. Proposed Modifications to the Definition of “sound power level”
To reflect the ministry’s conservative approach to dealing with noise emissions from wind turbines and to support the adoption of the 2013 CSA standard, three amendments are being proposed to the definition of “sound power level” in the REA Regulation to provide clarity:
Clarify that the definition of “sound power level” refers to the rating expressed as an “apparent” value.
This amendment would re-affirm MOECC’s current requirement of the use of the “apparent” sound power level when conducting a noise assessment, and is reflective of the value used by other jurisdictions.
Modify definition to require the inclusion of the positive uncertainty value.
The ministry does not currently require the inclusion of manufacturers’ uncertainty values in its definition of “sound power level”. The “uncertainty value” is a +/- value assigned under the CSA standard to account for potential range of uncertainty in the sound power level rating of a wind turbine.
The ministry is taking the conservative approach in requiring proponents to include the positive uncertainty value, given by a manufacturer of the wind turbines under the CSA Standard, as a conservative value to be accounted for in noise assessments for their project.
Clarify that proponents are not required to use a rounded value when conducting a noise assessment in accordance with the ministry’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms.
Proposed Changes to the Classification of Wind Facilities and the Application of the 550 Setback
Due to technological advancements of wind turbines, such that new models are taller and quieter, amendments are being proposed to the wind facility classification table and to the 550 metre setback. The purpose of the proposed changes is to ensure that all wind turbines used on a commercial scale continue to meet all of the comprehensive standards in the REA regulation that were designed to be protective of human health and the environment.
The proposed regulatory amendment is to include a wind turbine hub height of 70 metres as additional criteria to the existing wind facility classification requirements of greatest sound power level (expressed in dBA). Complementary amendments would also be made throughout the regulation including the provisions governing the noise setbacks. Continue reading →
[This paper was to be presented at the Glasgow International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise last week, but Dr. Swinbanks was relegated to only presenting his poster. Typical of this whole wind fraud – silencing the voices that speak the truth. So let’s do our part and share Dr. Swinbanks report far and wide!!]
6th International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
Glasgow 20-23 April 2015
M.A.Swinbanks, MAS Research Ltd
8 Pentlands Court, Cambridge CB4 1JN
The author first became aware of the adverse health problems associated with infrasound many years ago in 1974, when an aero-engine manufacturer approached him to consider the problems that office personnel were experiencing close to engine test facilities. He had been conducting research into the active control of sound, and the question was posed as to whether active sound control could be used to address this problem. At that time, this research was in its infancy, and the scale of the problem clearly lay outside practical implementation. Five years later, however, the author was asked to address a related problem associated with the low-frequency noise of a 15,000SHP ground-based gas-turbine compressor installation, having a 40 foot high, 10 foot diameter exhaust stack. This problem was of a more tractable scale, and the author and his colleagues successfully reduced the low-frequency noise of the installation by over 12dB. He subsequently was requested to address a similar installation of significantly greater size and power, again with accurately predicted results.
As a consequence of this and subsequent work, the author has gained considerable experience of the disturbing effects of low-frequency noise and infrasound. So when he first became aware of the nature of adverse health reports from windfarm residents, they were immediately recognisable as effects with which he had been familiar for as many as 35 years.
Since late 2009, the author has lived part-time within a Michigan community where wind turbines have been increasingly deployed. Consequently he has had significant interaction with residents whose lives and well-being have been damaged, and moreover has experienced the associated very severe effects directly, at first hand. His resultant perspective is thus based on both detailed theoretical analysis, and extensive personal, practical experience. Read full paper
It’s being hailed a world first by some… The study into the Cape Bridgewater wind farm in Victoria’s south west could have far reaching implications for South Australia’s wind energy industry…. A breakthrough that may hold the key to solving a mystery… others however, have labelled it an atrocious piece of research.
A Suncor Energy representative calls Plympton-Wyoming’s noise bylaw “a novel approach” but wants much of the bylaw changed. Suncor Energy is planning a 43-industrial turbine project around Camlachie. It’s the subject of an Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing. But the town has written and passed a noise bylaw to make sure residents aren’t bothered but low-level sound – called infrasound. While the bylaw was passed, under the Municipal Act, people can ask for changes for up to a year.
Chris Scott was at Plympton-Wyoming Council recently to outline the company’s concerns with the bylaw which Suncor says “are concepts that are not well defined and not accepted by the general consensus of (acoustical) industry standards.” While the noise bylaw wouldn’t stop Suncor from building the project, Scott says operating it would be another thing. The bylaw, he says, amounts to an “outright ban on infrasound” and “the testing methods are vague and inadequately defined.”
Scott says everything, including people, emit infrasound, making it impossible to turn on the turbines. And he suggested it would be difficult to measure low-level noise. Scott says there are instruments to measure the lower limits of infrasound as Plympton-Wyoming’s bylaw suggests, but “they are not typically available…and should be struck from the bylaw.” Read article
Richard Mann, at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, said scientists there had arrived at a similar position to Mr Cooper despite working in a different way.
“Our results show that wind turbines emit a characteristic pulsation (change in barometric pressure) that repeats with every blade passage,” Professor Mann said.“This is consistent with the infra sound ‘signature’ you have reported.”
The Waterloo University research did not consider health effects from wind turbine infrasound. But Professor Mann said: “I join the many scientists and experts worldwide requesting a thorough investigation of wind turbine noise.” Read article
A little while back, a Scottish pen-smith posed a little rhetorical on the subtle art of skulduggery:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
There have been few industries that have had more practice, and as much success, in that subtle art, as the wind industry.
STT has popped up 880 posts in the, just over, two years since we cranked into gear – on our mission to destroy the wind industry.
A fair slice of them have concerned the topic of the adverse health effects caused by turbine generated incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound; the woefully inadequate, indeed, utterly irrelevant noise standards written by the wind industry; and the institutional corruption that:
a) allowed those standards to become the “benchmarks” in the first place; and
b) witnesses public authorities, with a responsibility to protect public health, not only sitting on their hands, but barracking in favour of the wind industry, at the expense of the very people these planning and public health agencies and authorities are paid handsomely to protect. Read article
Why natural sounds might be calming to people is unclear, but Fristrup speculates that over millions of years of evolution, we may have come to associate the more tranquil sounds of the natural world with safety. “I suspect there’s something about these intact soundscapes that reminds our ancestral brains of a place that’s safe, where there’s no sense of a predator nearby, and that these more cluttered soundscapes are problematic for us because we know we’ve lost that surveillance capability,” he said.
The tranquil chorus of the natural world is in danger of being lost to today’s generation as people screen out the noises that surround them, a senior US researcher warns. Rising levels of background noise in some areas threaten to make people oblivious to the uplifting sounds of birdsong, trickling water, and trees rustling in the wind, which can often be heard even in urban centres, said Kurt Fristrup, a senior scientist at the US National Park Service.
The problem was exacerbated by people listening to iPods through their earphones instead of tuning in to the birds and other sounds of nature that can easily be drowned out by traffic, music and others noises, he said. “This learned deafness is a real issue,” Fristrup told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Jose. “We are conditioning ourselves to ignore the information coming into our ears.”
“This gift that we are born with – to reach out and hear things hundreds of metres away, all these incredible sounds – is in danger of being lost through a generational amnesia,” he said. “There is a real danger, both of loss of auditory acuity, where we are exposed to noise for so long that we stop listening, but also a loss of listening habits, where we lose the ability to engage with the environment the way we were built to,” he added. Read article
by Harvey Wrightman
In the 6 years and 6 Environmental Review Tribunal appeals we have been appellants to, there has been a bagful of issues connected with wind projects and how they are “imposed” upon ordinary working communities without the express consent of the communities – in newspeak, that would be “social license.” Yet the one issue that drew us to actively oppose wind projects (health effect), remains at the top of the list and all other issues really come as a result of the harm to health that occurs, picking its victims at random, that one cannot say, “It won’t affect me.”
So the recent study done by acoustician Steven Cooper for Pacific Hydro has set a bomb off amongst the….umm, the wind wankers – an all inclusive category for the acousticians, $800/hour lawyers, PR people, the smirking engineers and administrators of the MOECC and the ERT, the clueless politicians, the sleepy investment bankers.
But success leads to outrageous behaviour. Pac Hydro was assured by its “experts” that nothing would be found; so, acting the bit of the good, green corporate citizen it agreed to have Cooper do the study, and agreed to provide the operational co-operation that is essential to producing accurate data. Curiously they refused to have the study submitted to a professional journal for peer review – perhaps an afterthought – what if he does find something??? No matter, peer review can be done by, well, peers in the field. And so two of the most respected names in the American acoustical community, Paul Schomer and George Hessler, have published their review of Cooper’s study. Hessler has done numerous noise assessments for wind companies. Schomer is Standards Director Acoustical Society of America.
None of what is published will come as a surprise to the many individuals I encountered who experienced the same sensations resulting in the same symptomatic responses and the entirely rational response of fleeing the scene. Now your observations have been validated by two of the most prominent acousticians in the US. With an ethical obligation to protect the public, one awaits the stampede of engineers to the exits. Some have already done so.
Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.; Schomer and Associates, Inc.; Standards Director, Acoustical Society of America
George Hessler, Hessler Associates, Inc.
10 February 2015
Recently Cooper has completed a first of its kind test regarding the acoustical emissions of wind turbines. His is the first study of effects on people that includes a cooperating windfarm operator in conjunction with a researcher that does not work exclusively for windfarms. This study makes three very simple points:
There is at least one non-visual, non-audible pathway for wind turbine emissions to reach, enter, and affect some people
This is a longitudinal study wherein the subjects record in a diary regularly as a function of time the level of the effects they are experiencing at that time
This periodic recording allows for responses as the wind-turbine power changes up and down, changes not known by the subject
Sarnia Observer, Paul Morden
Suncor Energy and the Town of Plympton-Wyoming are at odds again over a wind turbine bylaw. Jody Hood, a manager of development and engineering with Suncor Energy, raised concerns at a recent town council meeting over a bylaw passed in 2014 to regulate wind turbine noise. Some 27 of the 46 wind turbines Suncor plans to build as part of its Cedar Point wind project would be located in Plympton-Wyoming.
“The noise limits related to our wind operations are regulated by the province,” said Suncor spokesperson Jason Vaillant. “We certainly intend to operate within those limits.” Vaillant said “from a technical perspective” the bylaw would prevent wind turbines from operating in the municipality. “Although, it’s not the bylaws that govern our project,” he added. “That approval comes from the province.”
Ontario granted environment approval in August for Suncor’s wind energy project in Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township. Appeals of that approval are currently being heard by Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal. Plympton-Wyoming Mayor Lonny Napper said the noise bylaw was written in consultation with a lawyer, and added that it follows the province’s regulations. “But, we added the low level sounds,” Napper added. Read article
Stop These Things
Earlier this week, a small, but very effective, nuclear device was detonated at Cape Bridewater, which – before Union Super Funds backed Pacific Hydro destroyed it – was a pristine, coastal idyll in South-Western Victoria.
The bomb that went off was a study carried out by one of Australia’s crack acoustic specialists, Steven Cooper – and some typically solid journalism from The Australian’s Graham Lloyd – that put the Pac Hydro initiated pyrotechnics in the International spotlight.
Over the next few posts, STT will analyse just what the detonation, its aftermath and fallout means for an industry which, in Australia, is already on the ropes. And we’ll look at what it means to the thousands of wind farm victims here – and around the world.
We’ll kick off with the front page story that has sent the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers into a state of terror filled panic.
Turbines may well blow an ill wind over locals, ‘first’ study shows
The Australian, Graham Lloyd, 21 January 2015
PEOPLE living near wind farms face a greater risk of suffering health complaints caused by the low-frequency noise generated by turbines, a groundbreaking study has found.
The study by acoustics expert Steven Cooper is the first in the world in which a wind turbine operator had fully co-operated and turned wind turbines off completely during the testing. Read article
Grimsby Lincoln News
WEST LINCOLN — After an exhausting search, township officials have turned up at least one way to protect residents from industrial wind turbines. Staff was directed by the previous council to undertake a review of township bylaws, as well as those of other municipalities, to determine if any additional regulations can be put into place that would protect residents from wind turbines.
As far as the township’s existing bylaws go, there is little that can be done. But a look to Plympton-Wyoming may have turned up one way to protect residents from the nuisance noise associated with turbines.
The Municipality of Plympton-Wyoming, near Sarnia, Ont., has passed a bylaw that requires an expert in decibel reading to deal with noise complaints. Should a noise exceed the allowable limits of the municipality’s noise bylaw, a fine can be applied. The municipality’s CAO confirmed to township staff they have a sound engineer on retainer to address complaints under the bylaw, should any occur. Read article
Sun and Wind Energy, Torsten Thomas
By using longer blades and fine-tuning them into more aerodynamic shapes, manufacturers are squeezing more and more performance out of their wind turbines. But the background noise caused by stalling continues to grate on some people’s nerves. The phenomenon requires more than just a psychologist.
The wind power industry has grown accustomed to conflicts with environmentalists and groups of local residents. Noise pollution in particular has long been a hot issue. Whenever this topic arises, the debate quickly moves into the broad field of psychology. Noise pollution always seems to have a subjective component, and there are very few really empirical studies regarding the possible health effects on local residents.
The ongoing debates about airborne noise or the possible effects of low-frequency noise have continually led to calls for the distance between wind farms and buildings to be increased. Finland is a case in point: Jari Keinänen, Director of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, has just declared noise to be the single biggest danger to people residing near wind farms. In June, he called for the current minimum distance of 500 m to be increased to 2,000 m. “It may be possible to go closer, but only when there are reliable figures for an impact assessment”, he said. Read article
As noted in the second installment of this series, Dr. Geoff Leventhall, a co-author of the 2009 AWEA/CanWEA report, attributes the health complaints of people who live near industrial wind turbines (IWTs) to psychological stress, but does not acknowledge that IWTs can be detrimental to health because infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN) emitted by wind turbines are largely inaudible to humans. He stands on the argument, therefore, that what we can’t hear can’t hurt us.
We know that things we cannot see, touch, taste, or smell can hurt us, so why is it unreasonable also to believe that what we can’t hear might also hurt us?
Dr. Nina Pierpont, in describing Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), has expressed her belief that many of the symptoms comprising WTS are mediated by overstimulation of the vestibular system of the inner ear by ILFN. Recent evidence supports the general view that the functioning of both the vestibular and cochlear components of the inner ear, and their interconnections with the brain, mediate the type of symptoms that Pierpont and others have described.
Infrasound: More of a Problem Than We Thought? Industrial-scale wind turbines generate peak sound pressure levels at infrasonic frequencies, especially between 0.25 and 3 Hz, as the blades pass in front of the tower. Most of us do not experience the energy in this lowest of low-frequency regions as sound; instead, we perceive a variety of other sensations. When present, infrasound can be more of a problem than audible sound. Read full article