Health impacts of wind farms?

fclauson · 21-01-2014 4:49am #1

Read http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,35130,en.pdf

Expert on wind farm noise

Also make a submission to DOE of your views

fits · 21-01-2014 7:44am

Could you give a synopsis of the findings?

AngryHippie · 21-01-2014 7:56am

can create debilitating symptoms

Christ, It's only 3 pages.

It says the measures put in place are not based best science available, will not work for every situation, are the highest thresholds out of all comparable countries and don't adequately protect residents.

Unless I read it wrong.

Either way, good to see some direct expert opinion on the situation without dragging shergar into it:rolleyes:

Grudaire · 21-01-2014 11:30am

can create debilitating symptoms

AngryHippie wrote: »

Christ, It's only 3 pages.

It says the measures put in place are not based best science available, will not work for every situation, are the highest thresholds out of all comparable countries and don't adequately protect residents.

Unless I read it wrong.

Either way, good to see some direct expert opinion on the situation without dragging shergar into it:rolleyes:

While he does point out that 40db is the highest of the comparable countries - he doesn't actually specify whether it should be acceptable based on actual evidence.. (40db is not particularly loud, and it will only be 40db at it's loudest?)

It's an interesting peice of analysis though.

Oldtree · 21-01-2014 12:07pm

I do not want to vote

40db isn't that loud but at a constant drone it is enough to drive you mad when you cannot escape it. I had an experience that went on for years where the low drone of a digger went on 12 hours a day every day, and it is not a pleasant experience and will drive you to distraction.

fclauson · 21-01-2014 5:46pm

I do not want to vote

Grudaire wrote: »

While he does point out that 40db is the highest of the comparable countries - he doesn't actually specify whether it should be acceptable based on actual evidence.. (40db is not particularly loud, and it will only be 40db at it's loudest?)

It's an interesting peice of analysis though.

You need to understand the physics of it 40dbA depends if its LEQ, LA90 or what

Read http://www.masenv.co.uk/press/?page=press
and http://www.masenv.co.uk/publications

Mike is one of the most informed people on this topic

You need to write and point out that ETSU-R-90 is wrong in that it takes all of its calcs from the wind speed at the turbine

Why is this wrong:
Have you ever noticed at in the evening - overnight and early morning the wind drops off - ETSU-R-90 does not take account of this. For and understanding of wind shear see http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45455.pdf

fclauson · 21-01-2014 5:48pm

I do not want to vote

Oldtree wrote: »

40db isn't that loud but at a constant drone it is enough to drive you mad when you cannot escape it. I had an experience that went on for years where the low drone of a digger went on 12 hours a day every day, and it is not a pleasant experience and will drive you to distraction.

True and 40db at night is worse

plus a building will "attenuate" sound - that is get rid of the higher frequencies dues to windows and walls being in the way and leave the lower frequencies to enter properties

Turbines create a wide spectrum of noise and its these low ones (all be they very low in decibels) which can be very irritating

Oldtree · 21-01-2014 10:26pm

I do not want to vote

fclauson wrote: »

True and 40db at night is worse

plus a building will "attenuate" sound - that is get rid of the higher frequencies dues to windows and walls being in the way and leave the lower frequencies to enter properties

Turbines create a wide spectrum of noise and its these low ones (all be they very low in decibels) which can be very irritating

That sort of effect was really noticeable with the rock breaker. It was much louder inside the house than outside, I had put that down to a shared bedrock even though the works were over 500m distant.

I did admire a local (smallish by industrial standards) turbine put up adjacent to a farm and stopped to look at it and it wasn't until I turned off the engine that I noticed the woosh clearly from over 150m away. Would drive me nuts if I lived next to it.

fclauson · 22-01-2014 12:08am

I do not want to vote

Go and read what people are saying

and make sure you have your say - otherwise you will have no excuse to complain later http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/

fclauson · 25-01-2014 9:58pm

I do not want to vote

fclauson wrote: »

Go and read what people are saying

and make sure you have your say - otherwise you will have no excuse to complain later http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/

BUMP - make sure you at least read the draft

fclauson · 30-01-2014 9:46pm

I do not want to vote

Attached is a letter from the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer to the Department of Environment on the health implications of wind turbines

Please vote - given the WHO definition of Health are Wind turbines

a) no threat to public health
b) can create debilitating symptoms (definition http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/symptom

WHO definition of Health (http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html)
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

In her review. the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health. However there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risk factors for this syndrome and people with these risk factors experience symptoms. These people must be treated appropriately and sensitively as these symptoms can be very debilitating".

This information was received following an AIE request to the department of health

BrenCooney · 30-01-2014 9:58pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Thanks for that.
A correction, the letter is from the "Deputy" Chief Medical Officer.

AngryHippie · 30-01-2014 10:12pm

can create debilitating symptoms

IF you read it in it's entirety it does state that it poses no health risk if planning regulations are followed.

By the way, its a lit review. There is no new information there, the most recent peer reviewed information being from 2009. That's why I have had to poll for no risk to public health.

It is interesting the note the results from that dutch study, indicating that those who directly benefit from the turbine, have a lower probability of lodging complaints about it, or from suffering the phenomenon described as wind turbine syndrome in the US (not peer reviewed and highly criticized)

fclauson · 30-01-2014 11:48pm

I do not want to vote

AngryHippie wrote: »

IF you read it in it's entirety it does state that it poses no health risk if planning regulations are followed.

Yes - but the exam question was -
"we are re-writing the guidance - what input do you have" not
"do wind turbines have an associated health risk"

The wrong exam question got answered (with a very paradoxical answer)

BrenCooney · 31-01-2014 12:17pm

can create debilitating symptoms

the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"

says it all.

fclauson · 31-01-2014 1:14pm

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer concluded that:
"wind turbines do not represent a threat to public health"

says it all.

"there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines."

where
symptom = "a physical or mental feature which is regarded as indicating a condition"
condition = "a person’s state of health or physical fitness"
syndrome = "a group of symptoms which consistently occur together"
Health = http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

Surely does - as clear as mud

BrenCooney · 31-01-2014 3:23pm

can create debilitating symptoms

The first bit of the statement is unambiguous.
The second bit is fairly clear also.

Greensleeves · 01-02-2014 2:10pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

It is interesting the note the results from that dutch study, indicating that those who directly benefit from the turbine, have a lower probability of lodging complaints about it, or from suffering the phenomenon described as wind turbine syndrome in the US (not peer reviewed and highly criticized)

Here is an interesting case in Texas...

"In what may be an unprecedented move, 23 Texans who host wind turbines on their property have filed suit against two different wind farm developers, claiming that companies “carelessly and negligently failed to adequately disclose the true nature and effects that the wind turbines would have on the community, including the plaintiffs’ homes.”

This court challenge stands apart from most previous nuisance suits, nearly all of which been filed by non-participating neighbors of wind farms (ie, local residents who are not hosting turbines themselves). Most annoyance surveys suggest that wind farm hosts are less likely to be bothered by turbine noise than non-participating neighbors, and many wind projects make an effort to spread the financial benefits to include some non-host neighbors, because of suggestions that broader project participation will increase community acceptance. In this case, however, the plaintiffs are receiving lease payments and tax benefits that will exceed $50 million over the life of the projects."

http://aeinews.org/archives/2538

quentingargan · 02-02-2014 10:54am

can create debilitating symptoms

A lot of illness is psychosomatic. That doesn't mean it isn't real, but if I hated wind farms (which I don't) and one was built near my home, I would probably find it depressing and frustrating to look out on them each day, and the anger associated with this would be debilitating and may affect my health. You could also argue that such effects are self-inflicted. If you have lost a campaign to block any development in your neighbourhood, it is difficult to live with that loss, but it has to be done. Cities are full of householders who have to live beside a development they objected to.

But here's the rub from that letter "Wind energy is associated with fewer health effects than other traditional forms of energy generation, and in fact will have positive health benefits". Acid rain? radioactive isotopes? climate change? I have to vote no for that reason. Most industrial developments have some health effect, but some are less than others.

Personally I find the prospect of climate change much more debilitating, and I am sure some climate sceptics will dispute any association claimed links between climate change and the series of exceptional storms that have swept our coastal communities. But the IPCC and the vast majority of the scientific community are agreed that the planet is in extreme danger if we do not massively curtail our use of fossil fuels. Wind, solar and hydro are all required in the mix across Europe, and Ireland has some of the best wind.

Markcheese · 02-02-2014 12:32pm

Fear is the big thing, fear can make you bitter and angry and sick ... fear of noises you can't hear,vibrations you cant feel, radiation
So take the fear away , put sensible testable limits on noise , vibration radiation, whatever , at set distances 4/500 meters , and write it into the planning permission or licence or what ever... If the company breaches these limits they fix it or shut down ...
If fear is a good enough reason to stop things you might as well close the country cos nothing can be done anywhere..
The same doomsayers and fearful franks who are terrified of infrasound , use their phones, drive cars,drink, smoke eat red meat ,climb ladders all risks of some kind but that's different ... They bought into that ??

BrenCooney · 02-02-2014 12:43pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Interesting read on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628850.200-the-sickening-truth-about-wind-farm-syndrome.html

fclauson · 02-02-2014 2:32pm

I do not want to vote

Markcheese wrote: »

.....
So take the fear away , put sensible testable limits on noise , vibration radiation, whatever , at set distances 4/500 meters , and write it into the planning permission or licence or what ever... If the company breaches these limits they fix it or shut down ...

Totally agree - but enforcement is the key
A) a planning authority should follow due process , consider the impacts, and agree a clear set of controls in the conditions of planning

the wind farm should build within those parameters , demonstrate compliance and continue to monitor
C) enforcement control must then be operated with military procission to ensure compliance

But a failure at.A) and ignoring culture at (b) and an ineffective (c) is where we are today

That is why the populous is so against wind farms

Compare that to say gas safety we have clear regulation, responsible fitters and draconian non compliance implications and it woks - so many industries are very well controlled but in the case of wind it's like the building regs up until recently - "self regulation works - doesn't 'it!!!!"

fclauson · 02-02-2014 2:41pm

I do not want to vote

Markcheese wrote: »

... set distances 4/500 meters ,

The Irish distance from turbine problem and why the industry is so against it - look at how much land is available based on distance

http://airo.ie/news/airo-mapping-asking-questions-new-wind-turbines-bill-0

BrenCooney · 02-02-2014 4:49pm

can create debilitating symptoms

With regard to setback distances it should be scientific based, not some random distance plucked out of the air or based on a "feeling".
Agree with compliance, self regulation is no regulation and it does turn people off any industry when they appear to not play by the rules. But that works both ways and if an emission is within a limit then that should be that, or if above a limit then there should be a set time frame for compliance to be met.

Markcheese · 02-02-2014 5:47pm

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to setback distances it should be scientific based, not some random distance plucked out of the air or based on a "feeling".
Agree with compliance, self regulation is no regulation and it does turn people off any industry when they appear to not play by the rules. But that works both ways and if an emission is within a limit then that should be that, or if above a
limit then there should be a set time
frame for compliance to be met.

What does set back distance matt
er if there are set noise /vibration limits ..
If someone puts up a small noisy turbine it'd have to be further away from houses than a large relatively quiet one , thing is though how do you decide background noise .... When does a sound become nusance ... I can hear road noise at 4 am (if I'm awake) doesn't bother me, nor the hum from my fish tank, but a fly buzzing round drives me nuts !! .

BrenCooney · 02-02-2014 7:18pm

can create debilitating symptoms

Sorry if my first sentence confuses. The set back distance should be the noise limit contour. In some places it will be big, in some places it could be smaller. If the topography is complex then the noise counter will be accordingly wiggly!

fclauson · 02-02-2014 7:21pm

I do not want to vote

Makechees - sort of agree- noise & flicker should be the primary with others secondary

The only other criteria is amenity and material asset impact - http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?article=l5

fclauson · 02-02-2014 7:39pm

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

Sorry if my first sentence confuses. The set back distance should be the noise limit contour. In some places it will be big, in some places it could be smaller. If the topography is complex then the noise counter will be accordingly wiggly!

Yes if these maps are actually accurate - ETSU-97-R has proved is self incapable in forecasting the correct predictive noise levels and is becoming seriously discredited.

Interesting on wind shear - and how it cannot be predicated by the standard log law method
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43150.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45455.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32492.pdf

fclauson · 03-02-2014 7:42am

I do not want to vote

BrenCooney wrote: »

Interesting read on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628850.200-the-sickening-truth-about-wind-farm-syndrome.html

and to keep the balance here is some people of have critiqued the above article
http://acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/health/AEI_ExpectationsAndHealthEffects.pdf
and attached document

sawdoubters · 03-02-2014 7:47am

heres the health defects

http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full

fclauson · 03-02-2014 8:25am

I do not want to vote

Following an interesting lunch over the weekend with a selection of UK legal folk they proposed that I should push the view that now Irish government has formally recognised the presence of "Wind Turbine Syndrome" by way of the DCMO annotating such a point in her letter that every planning application as part of its EIA will nee have to address this point so as to comply with Article 3 if the AIE

"The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 12, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:
(a) human beings, fauna and flora;"

Where a planning authority has failed to identify and assess how many people have this syndrome within the area of a turbine installation they would have failed their statutory duty to fulfil their obligations under the AIE directive.

Health impacts of wind farms?

Are wind farms 39 votes

Comments