Documents filed under Noise
This letter by acoustician, Ray Tumney, addresses a consistent resistance by the Australian Acoustical Society to address the problem of wind turbine noise emissions. A portion of his letter is provided below. The entire letter can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page. Mr. Tumney's letter supports comments by acoustician Stephen Cooper's document on this issue (http://www.windaction.org/documents/35844 ).
Audiologist Dr. Jerry Punch (Ph.D) released this critique of a paper published in Health Psychology where Dr. Punch takes issue with the authors' study methodology and conclusion that human health responses to wind turbine infrasound emissions are psychosomatic symptoms resulting from the anticipation that the sound will be harmful.
This study was publish in Health Psychology. The abstract appears below. The full document can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
Vestas recommends relative noise limits that take into account local background noise levels (where new wind turbines are sited near existing ones, already present turbine noise should not be calculated as part of the background noise).
In this important ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the court found that a proposed wind project that was accepted for review by the State prior to more restrictive nighttime sound emissions limits being adopted, would still be subject to the new sound limits. The full ruling can be accessed at the link below.
The US EPA submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the Shu'luuk Wind Project proposed for the Campo Indian Reservation in San Diego County, California. An excerpt of the comments is provided below including EPA's concerns about infrasound and the potential impact on human health. The full submission can be accessed by clicking the link on this page. This project was officially withdrawn from consideration.
The wind developer for Fairhaven Wind, two industrial-scale towers built near residences, has admitted that the sound survey conducted on October 15, 2012 was tainted due to one of the turbines, while still spinning, was not producing power. The developer insists human error was the cause but claims the no intent to artificially reduce the sound levels. The State of Massachusetts has ordered the results be discarded and for further studies to be conducted.
Dr. Steven Cooper, an Australian acoustician with considerable experience measuring wind turbine sound emissions, prepared this important and detailed critique of a study sponsored by the South Australia EPA on low-frequency noise. The SA EPA report insisted that infrasound emitted by wind turbines was not different from infrasound from other sources in the environment. Dr. Cooper exposes the fatal flaws in the EPA's methodology for surveying the sound. Excerpts of his critique are provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking the link at the bottom of this page.
The following speech was given on the floor of the Australian Parliament, House of Representatives, by the Member for Hume, Alby Schultz. Mr. Schultz addresses the failure of the Waubra wind farm and others to operate within the limits of their permits, the high cost and inefficient operation of wind turbines and, what he deems fraudulent issue of RECs to shell companies overseas.
New scientific measurements reveal that industrial wind turbines (IWTs) in Ontario routinely exceed acceptable noise limits set by Ministry of Environment (MOE) guidelines. The data show that when wind turbines are present, the associated sound pressure levels are repeatedly higher than government guidelines permit during the day, evenings and late at night.
This straightforward, easy to understand analysis by acousticians Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand provide insight in to predicting whether wind turbine noise will result in community complaints. The report has four parts. Part 1 is shown below. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
This important study published in the The Journal of Laryngology & Otology found there is evidence to suggest that low frequency noise can affect inner ear function; the outer hair cells of the cochlear respond to sounds at frequencies known to be produced by wind turbines. In comments by the lead author (provided below) the researchers report that infrasound can cause deleterious effects on humans. The abstract with author comments can be viewed below. The full report can be accessed through the links at the bottom of the page.
David and Alida Mortimer host two Vestas 1.75 megawatt wind turbines in the Lake Bonney windfarm. Since the wind project went into service, he and his wife moved into a new farmhouse that they built away from the turbines. The new house is approximately 2.5 km from from a cluster of four turbines situated on his neighbor's property. The problem of noise has been significant. Mr. Mortimer filed this testimony before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal in reference to the Cherry Tree Wind Farm proposal. In his testimony, Mr. Mortimer details the disruptions and health complaints he and his wife are experiencing as a result of the turbines.
This report was the focus of a study requested by, and partly sponsored by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. The purpose was to determine whether infrasound was present in the homes of three families in the footprint of the Shirley Wind project owned by Duke Energy. These families have reported adverse health effects since the wind turbine facility commenced operation. Two have been forced out of their homes. The Shirley Wind project consists of eight Nordex N100 2.5 MW wind turbines. The below excerpt includes important recommendations for avoiding similar noise complaints at future project sites. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
The Ontario government took almost 1½ years to respond to a freedom of information act regarding wind turbine noise emissions and the impact on the public. Despite claims that there were over 300 pages collected, a scant 26 pages were released and many of those pages are heavily redacted. But what was revealed was clear evidence that Ministry of Environment Provincial Officers knew of the adverse health effects of wind turbine noise years ago.
The Melancthon I and Melancthon II wind energy facilities (200 megawatts), known as Melancthon EcoPower Center, began commercial operation in March 2006. Since that time, numerious complaints of turbine noise and other adverse effects were reported; homes were abandoned. The Ontario government took almost 1½ years to respond to a freedom of information act to finally release this document, a draft abatement plan to address the noise. The document was never released to the public and the plan was never implemented. This document exposes that the Ontario Provincial government was well aware of the adverse effects created by the turbines years ago but chose to let people suffer.
These important comments prepared by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum respond to questions raised by the Australian Senate Environment & Communications committee during its inquiry into wind turbine noise. In particular, Dr. Nissenbaum explains how the 'nocebo' effect is not a factor and that health complaints reported by those living near large turbines are real and require attention.
Measurements were undertaken both indoors and outdoors at a typical rural residence approximately 2km from the nearest wind turbines at Waterloo wind farm to determine the appropriate turbine noise limits for rural areas. The abstract and conclusions of the paper are provided below. The full paper can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
This letter was submitted to the Delta County Michigan Building and Zoning Board in reference to noise eminating from the Heritage Garden Wind farm, a 28 megawatt (14 turbine) energy facility sited in Garden Township. The project became fully operational in September 2012 but by October 2012 complaints of noise poured in. The document attached to this page was prepared and signed by 73 residents impacted by the project.