JOIN THE HERD
E-MAIL: info@windcows.com
HEALTH BEFORE PROFITS
PROTECT OUR NON-RENEWABLES......
OUR FAMILIES
Wisconsin's Draft Model Wind Ordinance (click here to read ordinance), after years of complaints from Wisconsin's citizens, continues to recommend inadequate setbacks :
1) From an inhabited structure of a distance no less than the greater of 2 times the its total height or 1000ft"
2) Each wind turbine shall be setback from the nearest property line a distance no less than 1.1 times its total height.
3) Each wind turbine shall be setback from the nearest public road a distance no less that 1.1 times its total height.
Yet, a manual of Safety and Regulations for Operators and Technicians for the Vestas V90-3.0MW/V100-2.75MW states:
"Do not stay within a radius of 400m (1300ft) from the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have to inspect an operating turbine from the ground, do not stay under the rotor plane but observe the rotor from the front.
In case of a fire during an uncontrolled operation, do under no circumstances approach the turbine.
Evacuate and rope off the turbine in a radius of minimum 400m (1300ft).
Make sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine.
HOW, can our state legislators justify allowing these unsafe conditions for residents of this state who will have to live in these conditions 24/7, when the manufacturer is telling its own operators and technicians to stay 1300ft away?
Using the 1.1 times the height from a property line, and the 471ft tall turbines proposed for theTwin Creeks Wind Farms, the turbines would be only 518ft from property lines. According to the Vestas Safey Manual, that is taking 782ft of our property (if we have that much) and making it unsafe, even for it's operators and technicians. This should be considered a takings of property rights.
This in fact means, if a turbine is 518ft from a property line, an operator would have to get permission from a neighboring property owner so as to stay outside of the 1300ft safe setback.
If a turbine catches fire, it is quite obvious that your home located only 1000ft from the turbine would have to be evacuated.
This is more proof that using these inadequate setbacks, makes it impossible for any Wisconsin resident that is forced to live next to a wind farm, to be safe in their home or on their property.
The Vestas manual was submitted with the application for the Roxbury/Stamford
project.
The original application for the project contained the entire O & M manual. The application states use of the V90 3MW with a rotor blade length of 44m (147.6ft), placed on 80m (262ft ) towers, for a total height of 410 ft.
At a Roxbury Planning Board meeting (they are the lead agency for this
project) the issue of the safety set-back recommendations for Vestas
workers was brought to the Board's attention. Of course, the developer,
Invenergy, was also present. Neither had any comment that night.
Within a week, that portion of the Application and DEIS (which was on line)
was removed. (Click here to visit site for DEIS). When asked why it was taken off, Invenergy replied that Vestas
requested it as it was proprietary information. Odd, that safety
regulations are proprietary, but very specific technical data is not!
CLICK BELOW TO VISIT THE WEBSITE FOR
We believe it is quite obvious that a 1300-foot setback from neighboring property lines, roads, etc. should be the absolute minimum for personal safety purposes. This setback however, does not adequatley address noise, signal interference, shadow flicker, strobe lighting, etc., all of which warrant longer setbacks from residences and other sensitive receptors from everything we have seen.
RUTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WIND TURBINE HEALTH IMPACT FORUM PART 4
RUTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WIND TURBINE HEALTH IMPACT FORUM PART 5
RUTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WIND TURBINE HEALTH IMPACT FORUM PART 6
RUTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WIND TURBINE HEALTH IMPACT FORUM PART 7
RUTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WIND TURBINE HEALTH IMPACT FORUM PART 8
IT IS ADMIRABLE TO WANT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT.
BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SACRIFICE HEALTH, SAFEETY, QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY VALUES TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE EFFORT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT, WE ARE FIGHTING TO BE PART OF A BETTER SOLUTION.
WORKING TO EDUCATE COMMUNITIES ON THE TRUTHS AND
REALITIES
OF
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
NOISE AND HEALTH
A BI-MONTHLY INTER-DISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
A thorough investigation of wind turbine noise and its effects on health is important given the prevalence of exposed individuals, a nontrivial number that is increasing with the popularity of wind energy.[29] For example, in the
Netherlands it is reported that 440,000 inhabitants (2.5% of the population) are exposed to significant levels of wind turbine noise.[30] Additionally, policy makers are demanding more information on the possible link between wind turbines
and health in order to inform setback distances. Our results suggest that utility-scale wind energy generation is not without adverse health impacts on nearby residents. Thus, nations undertaking large-scale deployment of wind turbines needto consider the impact of noise on the HRQOL of exposed
individuals. Along with others,[31] we conclude that nighttime
wind turbine noise limits should be set conservatively
to minimize harm, and, on the basis of our data, suggest that
setback distances need to be greater than 2 km in hilly terrain.
New Wind Farm Regulations Could Decrease Property Values By: Tom Larson
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) is proposing new regulations relating to the location of wind turbines and wind farms (a large number of wind turbines located in close proximity to one another) that could have a significant impact on the value of thousands of acres of Wisconsin property. These regulations will determine, among other things, how far wind turbines can be located from neighboring homes, buildings and property lines. Given that wind turbines can be over 500 feet high and the new state regulations will override all local zoning ordinances, REALTORS® and property owners should pay close attention to these regulations.
Background
During the 1970s, the United States experienced an energy crisis due to a decrease oil production in the Middle East. To encourage the use of alternative energy sources, Wisconsin enacted a law prohibiting local governments (counties, cities, villages and towns) from placing any restrictions on the installation or use of solar or wind energy systems unless the restriction is necessary to protect public health or safety. For approximately 40 years, this law has not been a significant problem for property owners.
In recent years, thousands of large wind turbines have been located in Wisconsin and other states to utilize the energy from winds blowing across the landscape. While these turbines are intended to reduce dependence on fossil-based energy sources, they have generated a lot of controversy and complaints from nearby property owners. Some of the complaints from property owners include the following:
Health problems. After wind turbines have been placed nearby, some residents have complained of insomnia, anxiety, headaches and nausea. They have blamed their health problems on the pulsing noise coming from spinning turbines near their homes.
Destruction of natural viewscapes. Turbines can be over 500 feet tall and can be seen from miles away. (As a comparison, the Wisconsin Capitol is 284 feet tall.) Some feel that these turbines detract from the natural beauty of Wisconsin’s farms and rolling landscape.
Noise. Depending on the turbine model and wind speed, wind turbines can create a constant "whooshing" or pulsating noise that can be heard both inside and outside a home (day and night), if located too close. Studies have shown that an average-size turbine (2 megawatts, 100 meters high) located 1,000 feet away can produce the same amount of noise as a suburban area during the day (51 decibels).
Excessive shadows on neighboring property. Depending upon the number of clouds and angle of the sun, wind turbines can create a "shadow flicker" (a term used to describe the shadow of the turning blades as it hits a surface) on nearby property. Some property owners have described the shadow effect on their home as being like "someone turning lights on and off inside the house at a rate of 80 times a minute" and lasting for almost an hour on sunny days.
Property values. A recent study of three Wisconsin wind farms showed that prospective buyers had a negative perception of nearby wind turbines. While the exact impact is difficult to quantify, the study indicated an average decrease in vacant residential property values ranging from 12% to 40%, depending on the size of the lot and the distance from the wind turbine.
Proposed PSC Regulations
In 2009, Wisconsin enacted a wind turbine siting law that directs the PSC to develop specific standards for, among other things, wind turbine setbacks from neighboring homes and property lines. The PSC formed a 15-member wind siting council, consisting of representatives from wind farm companies, local governments, environmental organizations, private property owners and REALTORS®.
After two months of regular meetings, the wind siting council recently completed a report containing various recommendations and submitted it to the PSC for approval. The report is controversial and many critics maintain that the interests of neighboring property owners are not adequately protected due to the makeup of the council, which was weighted in favor of wind energy interests.
The PSC has used this report to create new administrative rules, which are also controversial. Some of the specific concerns with the proposed rules include the following:
Setbacks are too small. The proposed setback from neighboring residences and buildings is 3.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the turbine. For example, if a wind turbine is 300 feet, the setback is 930 feet from a structure. This distance was chosen for safety considerations (in case the turbine falls over) and ignores possible health risks to humans and animals and the potential impact of turbines on neighboring property values. Critics suggest that a setback of 2,640 feet is more appropriate.
Noise standards are insufficient. The proposed rules allow wind turbines to create noise up to 45 decibels at night or 50 decibels during the day, as measured from the outside of a neighboring residence.
Shadow flicker limits are inadequate. The proposed rules allow wind turbines to create a shadow flicker on neighboring residences up to 40 hours per year. If shadow flicker exceeds 20 hours per year, developers must offer mitigation to property owners.
Why This Is Important for REALTORS®
Without question, the number one reason REALTORS® should care about the proposed wind farm regulations is the impact of wind turbines on property values. Numerous studies have shown that wind turbines can have a negative impact on neighboring property values and sometimes that impact can be significant. According to a survey of REALTORS® working in a wind turbine area, the impact on neighboring vacant land ranges from a 43% decrease if the wind turbine is located very close (within 600 feet) to 29% if the turbine is located in near proximity (½ mile away). With respect to the impact on improved property, the impacts are believed to be similar, but slightly lower (39% and 24%, respectively).
While wind turbines are often seen in more rural settings, these regulations do not prevent wind turbines from being located in more urban or suburban settings. Because these regulations override local zoning ordinances, wind turbines can be located almost anywhere there is adequate wind, including next to residential subdivisions and office parkss.
While developing alternative energy sources is important, so too is protecting property values. Without adequate setbacks in place, property values could suffer and property owners could face tremendous uncertainty about whether the neighboring property that is used for open space or farmland today will be used for a wind farm with large wind turbines tomorrow.
What’s Next
The PSC recently approved the proposed administrative rules and now the rules must be reviewed and approved by the Wisconsin Legislature. The PSC rules will likely be completed within the next several weeks, with legislative review occurring shortly thereafter. The legislature will likely hold public hearings within the next several weeks.
The WRA will be meeting with key legislators in an effort to make changes to the rules to ensure that the interests of property owners are adequately protected.
For more information, please contact Tom Larson (tlarson@wra.org) at (608) 240-8254.
Tom Larson is Chief Lobbyist and Director of Legal and Public Affairs for the WRA.
Published: 9/2/2010
WINDCOWS are committed to research and provide the most accurate information possible about industrial wind farms proposed for our communities , to educate about the realities of wind energy, and to research alternative renewable energy options for our area. If there is anything you find on our website that is inaccurate, please contact us immediately at info@windcows.com. We will be glad to verify any information and correct any errors.
The 2010 version retains the recommended noise limits in the 1998 version, which is that
the level of sound from a wind farm should not exceed the background sound level by more
than 5 decibels (dB), or a level of 40 dB LA90(10 min)1, whichever is the greater.
40 dB is typical of a quiet residential area with only light traffic and natural sounds such as the wind
in the trees. In contrast, sound levels along-side an urban road would be around 60 to 70 dB during
the day and about 50 to 60 dB at night. There are some locations that are particularly
quiet at times and so the recommended limit of 40 dB would be considered to be unreasonable.
In recognition of this the 2010 Standard introduces the provision for a lower, more
stringent limit where a local authority has identified in its district plan the need to provide
a higher degree of protection of acoustic amenity. The Standard recommends that when particular
conditions are met, the sound from the wind farm during the evening and night time should
not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dB or a level of 35 dB LA90(10 min), whichever is the greater.
AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THEY WILL PLANT TREES TO MITIGATE SHADOW FLICKER. THESE TREES WERE THERE LONG BEFORE THIS TURBINE. SHOW ME A TREEN THAT WILL GROW TALLER THAN 500FT....
HOW LESS BECAME MORE:
WIND, POWER AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
IN THE COLORADO ENERGY MARKET
BENTEK Energy, LLC
This report, which examines four years of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) hourly operational history, illustrates how coal cycling, which in part results from wind generation, negates the emission benefits of wind energy.
There are national implications as well. Congress and the Obama Administration are considering a national RPS. Before such a national standard is implemented, there is a compelling need tobetter understand how intermittent sources of
energy such as wind can be integrated with existing nuclear, coal and natural gas capacity without producing cycling-induced emissions problems.
Conclusions:
The use of wind energy by PSCO has resulted in increased levels of SO2, NOX and CO2 from coal plants in the non-attainment area. Wind-induced coal cycling in ERCOT has resulted in increased SO2 and NOX, with only minimal savings of CO2.
The mechanism driving increased emissions is the need to cycle coal facilities in order to accommodate wind generation, which is considered a “must take” resource due to the RPS mandates.
When coal plants are cycled, the heat rate rises, resulting in higher emissions
of SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have been the case if the units had not been cycled. This problem can persist for up to 24 hours after cycling the facility, increasing emissions even further.
HOW LESS BECAME MORE:
WIND, POWER AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
IN THE COLORADO ENERGY MARKET
BENTEK Energy, LLC
Wind energy promises a clean, renewable resource that uses no fossil fuel and generates zero emissions. Careful examination of the data suggests that the numbers do not add up as expected.
The “must take” provisions of Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio Standard require that other sources of generation, such as coal plants, must be “cycled” to accommodate wind power. This cycling makes coal
generating units operate much less efficiently…so inefficiently, that these units produce significantly greater emissions.
This study reviews the data that supports this conclusion, outlines mitigation measures which can be used to realize the full potential of wind generation, and provides recommendations for policy makers.
WIND FARM SWINDLE-Tony Elliott -The Cypress Times
The duping of Americans by the environmentalist movement continues, as wind farms use as much electricity from the fossil fuel grid as they produce. This article comes from reliable research derived for what I call the Wind Farm Swindle. The proof that it is a swindle, has been gathered from the very annals of the wind farm movement and from the companies involved in Turbine produced electricity itself.
If you've ever driven close to the huge wind turbine, I'm sure some of you have wondered how long it must take for the wind to start turning such large blades on some of these windmills and how they are stopped, when the wind gets too high for them to operate.
You won't hear anybody in the environmental movement or the renewable energy business tell you this, but as it turns out, all wind turbines use about the same amount of grid electricity as they produce. Large wind turbines require huge amounts of fossil fuel grid electricity to operate. Wind farms have to use electricity from the grid and of course, this large amount of grid electricity is never accounted for in relation to output figures
Wind turbine functions that use fueled derived electricity are as follows:
•yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together, weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
•blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
•lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
•heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
•heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle, must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
•oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
•hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
•thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
•magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft. At the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity in slower winds, possibly much more.
Using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during important site tours.) It surely seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning. Along with the gears which increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind.
What all this amounts to is, each wind turbine actually uses more than 60% of its rated capacity in its own operation. Thus, each wind farm as a whole, produces only less than 25% of its annual rated capacity. This means that wind farms use twice the amount of grid electricity for every amount of wind-generated electricity produced.
I'm sure this is news to most Americans, who thought and naturally assumed that wind turbines only produced electricity and it never occurred to a normal person that these devices would actually require Fossil Fueled electricity to operate. Since no records of electricity usage is ever kept at these wind farms, this alarming fact has never become public knowledge.
Since it is admitted by everyone that wind generated electricity only amounts to around 1% of our total produced electricity, these hidden facts bring that figure down to a negative percentage at best. Using more electricity than it produces, green electricity is the reason for Cap and Trade, since green credits can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Killing perhaps millions of endangered bird species per year, degrading human health in the same manner as is experienced with people living near high voltage power lines. Ruining many of the earth's most scenic spots, with these huge steel monstrosities and above all, doing nothing in alleviating any fossil fuel electricity usage is the reason these expensive and dangerous eyesores must go.
In today's economy, we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a Nigerian like fraud, such as the wind farm swindle.
PENNSYLVANIA WINDTURBINES DEADLY TO BATS.......COSTLY TO FARMERS
Sunday, July 17, 2011
By Erich Schwartzel, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If one turbine kills 25 bats in a year, that means one turbine accounted for about 17 million uneaten bugs in 2010.
The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year -- mostly in the late summer months, according to the state Game Commission. That's an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030.
This is a bad time to be a bat.
It may seem like a good thing to those who fear the flying mammals, but the wind farm mortality rate is an acute example of how harnessing natural energy can lead to disruptions in the circle of life -- and the cycle of business. This chain of events mixes biology and economics: Bat populations go down, bug populations go up and farmers are left with the bill for more pesticide and crops (which accounts for those pricey tomatoes in Kansas).
Wind industry executives are shelling out millions of dollars on possible solutions that don't ruin their bottom line, even as wind farms in the area are collaborating with the state Game Commission to work carcass-combing into daily operations.
Phase 1 Report
Literature and Jurisdictional Review
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIROMENT
Dr. Nina Pierpont
Turbulent Wind Turbine Wakes Studied
SOURCE: Earthtechling.com
Much like the jet engines of a commercial airliner leave “jet wash” in their wake, wind turbines also disturb the air behind them as they spin, if to a lesser degree.
Japanese government plans Wind Turbine Syndrome epidemiological study.
The Environment Ministry will launch its first major study into the influence of wind turbines on people’s health next year, it has been learned.
Much is expected of wind power as a source of clean energy, but people living near wind power facilities are increasingly complaining of health problems. The low-frequency sound produced by the wind turbines at such facilities–sound that is difficult to discern with the naked ear–is suspected of causing such conditions as insomnia, tinnitus and hand tremors.
Due to a lack of substantiating data, the ministry has deemed it necessary to study the matter. It will launch a four-year examination of all 1,517 wind turbines in the country in April.
The study will try to ascertain to what extent health problems are being caused by the low-frequency sound, through such means as questioning local residents.
It will examine the relationship between wind turbines’ operating hours and the times of day when people’s health deteriorates. It also will make continual measurements of such elements as the level of the low-frequency sound.
The study’s attempt to determine the causality between the low-frequency sound and health problems will take into account such factors as weather conditions and the distance between homes and wind power facilities.
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). Vestas believes this
type of regulation is the most effective and flexible, in that it ensures minimal noise disturbance
for wind turbine neighbours while allowing turbines to be located in relatively noisy
areas (areas with industry or roads, for example) that are rich in wind resources. Such
areas are also often close to existing electrical grids, which can minimize the cost of connecting
wind turbines to the grid.
Vestas also recommends that governments supplement relative noise limits with a low
absolute maximum limit in areas of very low background noise (e.g. quiet countryside),
which ensures minimal noise disturbance for turbine neighbours also in these places.
Relative noise limits: turbine noise emission must not exceed the level of background
noise (both turbine and background noise are measured as a function of wind
speed); such limits are often supplemented with a low absolute maximum noise limit
to cover those situations in which turbines are located in areas of very low background noise;
WISCONSIN PSC BACKDOORS HIGHER RENEWABLE FEES DURING DECEMBER LAME DUCK SESSION....
If anyone tries to tell you that industrial wind turbines will lower your rates, here is proof they are not. In the lame duck session in December, Democrats voted to allow rate increases in our utility rates over the next 4 years. Now that is a job killer.
WRITTEN BY A COMMITTEE WITH A MAJORITY OF THOSE PROFITTING FROM WIND TURBINE DEVELOPMENT
CONSIDERING THE NEGATIVE HEATH EFFECTS EXPERIENCED IN THE ENZ FAMILY HOME, AND THE DISTANCE THE HOME IS LOCATED FROM THE TURBINES, EVEN A 1/2 MILE SETBACK IS STILL TO CLOSE FOR SITING INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
NOISE LEVEL BLOW FOR WIND FARMS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS ( Click for link) Australia
Wind farms are coming under increased scrutiny nationally after a Senate committee this week recommended firmer noise limits and urgent research into the turbines' potentially damaging health effects on nearby residents.
WIND ENERGY ADVOCATES CONTINUE TO MAKE FALSE CLAIMS THAT INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES DO NOT CAUSE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS.
CLAIMING THAT COMPLAINTS ARE ANECDOTAL AND THAT THERE WAS NO PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES.
YET INNOCENT LANDOWERS BECOME VICTIMS OF THOSE LIES AS INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ARE INSTALLED TOO CLOSE TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS.
From Ontario
by Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm and Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA
A SUMMARY OF NEW EVIDENCE;
ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AND INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
Leading Scientific
Peer-Reviewed Journal Publishes Special
Edition on WindTurbines
Wind Concerns Ontario
The first peer reviewed scientific journal devoted solely to the impacts of wind turbines on communities was published today by
SAGE Publications Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
AMERICAN TRADITIONS INSTITUTE Video Series Explains :
WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY MANDATES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PROPOSED WIND FARM REGULATIONS
BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) -- A proposal from an area lawmaker will make it even harder for wind farmer developers to build in the state. This after two developers recently pulled the plug on projects in Northeast Wisconsin.
David Enz built his home for his family back in 1978. But last month he and his wife decided they could no longer stay.
"Started feeling pressure in my ears, feeling pressurized, started feeling unstable," Enz said.Enz attributes the symptoms to the eight wind turbines that were built last fall about a half mile from his house.
"It gets to the point where your body just does not want to be here, it just can't be here," said Enz.
Today, State Senator Frank Lasee introduced legislation that would require developers to keep turbines at least 2,250 feet from a person's property unless there's permission to build closer.
Right now, they need to be at least 1,250 feet from homes. Earlier this year, Governor Scott Walker said he wanted to change the law to 1,800 feet.
Senator Lasee says that's not enough.
"Two thousand fifty feet is a reasonable distance that will help preserve their health and safety because of shadow, flicker, noise and I believe there is either magnetic or electric noise that causes health problems for people," Lasee said.
Last month, two wind farm developers pulled out of projects in both Brown and Calumet Counties, saying the current regulations already go too far.
According to Senator Lasee, the strict regulations aren't what's driving companies away from projects here in Wisconsin. He says it all comes down to money.
"Many utilities are no longer paying premiums which drive up our electric costs for wind energy so they're having trouble getting a contract that would pay," Lasee said. "I think they're using this as an excuse."
Enz hopes the Senator's proposal can prevent other families from going through what he has.
"We have a house that we can't live in," he said.
Enz and his wife have been staying with their children for the last few weeks. Senator Lasee is circulating the bill in the senate and assembly.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF THOSE THAT
HAVE VISITED THE ENZ FAMILY HOME.
Bob and I traveled to Shirley and experienced the wind turbines there and visited the Enz home. We both experienced effects which I have emailed to Dave & Rose. After about 20-30 minutes in the home, I started feeling like I had a head cold coming on. My ears began to crack like one experiences when ascending or descending in an airplane. My head felt pressurized and so did my chest with a feeling of anxiety and like I couldn't take a deep breath. Bob spent more time outside and he, too, felt like a head cold was coming on with additional symptoms of a headache and dizziness. We didn't end up spending the recommend one hour there because the urge to leave was so great. I believe it was the physiological "flight" response. We are so glad we made the trip and thank Dave & Rose Enz for allowing us to visit their home. There is no doubt in our minds the unacceptable conditions of living next to turbines. (Brenda and Bob are facing the same fate in Forest Township in St Croix County.
____________________________________________________________________________
You think you can imagine the effects of infrasound produced by six 50-story turbines just west of a home situated in the Glenmore Township part of the Shirley Wind Project.
You can't. Today, Carl and I were invited to visit Dave and Rose Enz's home. These are the folks, as you know, that recently walked away from their home of 30+ years due to adverse health effects since the wind turbines went online. I wasn't sure what would happen; I went really with no preconceived notions -- just a little anxiety.
At first, the house looked lived in. There's the turned over earth of last summer's garden, the old tractors parked under a roof shelter attached to their barn and the call of the large rooster and hens still in a side area of the outbuilding. Then you enter the home given a tour by Dave himself -- what they had built together and what plans they had for the future after building a side sun room last fall.
We each found chairs in the living room and sat down. The house was quiet. It was dark and damp outside, but the family pictures on the walls of nine children and now grandchildren hinted at a life that existed before the huge wind turbines were sited close to their property.
My husband Carl was the first to talk about what he was feeling: after 5 minutes, he said he felt increased poressure in his ears. He could feel " a tightness towards the back of my head and then I began to feel as though a strong drug was beginning to effect me. I began to feel dizzy. After about a half hour in that room, my vision was effected along with my sense of equilibrium. I experienced tinnitus and a sense of nausea ."
I sat in a chair nearby. The first thing I noted was some pressure on the side of my head in the temple area on both sides. Then some pain in my left ear. I mentioned this to Carl. Dave had left the room to retrieve some food from the freezer to take back to his daughter's home where he and Rose were staying. After about 20 minutes, my sense of balance was off and I could not think as clearly when I first walked in that house. I was surprised at how soon we both were feeling ill. We walked out into the back yard facing
the giant wind turbines to the west. Now you could hear the blades turning and the drone sound of the gears. The wind at this point was not very strong.
After about 40 minutes there, I understood why Dave and Rose left their home. He said everyone is different; some people may not be effected, but his granddaughter said she doesn't want to go back there. Dave wants others in his township and others in neighboring areas to experience what is occurring in their house.
As we drove away this afternoon, I felt sick --not just the temporary nausea, but understanding what the Enz family had taken away from them. All those years and memories they made in that farm.
I think they deserve to be heard, and we all deserve to have these problems tested for and addressed by our local, county and state officials. There are more people out there living within industrial wind projects, not really knowing the implications of what they and their children are being exposed to. That's the bottom line here.
I thought it was important for you to hear their story.
Sandra
The Enz's are not the only families suffering the ill effects of
being forced to live too close to industrial wind turbines.
ANOTHER FAMILY, WHO HAS CHOOSEN NOT TO GO PUBLIC AT THIS TIME,
AND WHO LIVES 1-MILE AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST TURBINE,
HAS NOW ABANDONED THEIR HOME.............
After turbines in the Blue Sky/Green Field project went on line near the Town of Marshall in Fond Du Lac county, James Vollmer's chickens began to fail. His hatch rate plummeted and there were a high number of unusual deformities in the chicks that did hatch, including missing eyes, crossed beaks and missing leg bones.
Vollmer has been around chickens his whole life. His grandmother and grandfather raised poultry and he says he took to it right away. He has photograph taken by his grandmother of himself as a toddler in the chicken house with baby chicks nesting on his back. He says, “I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t around chickens.”
A dairy farmer named Kevin Ashenbrenner whose farm is located in the Shirley Wind project (Town of Glenmore, Brown County WI), HAS LOST 17 CALVES AND 15 COWS
since the Shirley turbines began spinning,
which is more than he normally would loose in 5 years of farming and breeding.
The closest turbine to the house is 9/10 mile away as the crow flies. Six turbines total are located near the property. The family is also suffering badly with headaches, anxiety, and insomnia.
Another Wisconsin farmer, Joe Yunk, reported to the Wisconsin PSC, what happened to his beef cattle after the turbines went on line near the farm that was in his family for generations:
Shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue."
Kevin and Joe are not alone. This video interview with Kewanee County dairy farmer Scott Srnka describes similar problems after turbines went on line near his farm. This happened years ago and industrial turbines continue to be sited to close to humans and animals.
The
Shirley Wind
Farm is now
owned by
Duke Renewable
Energy
Their website states:
"It's part of our commitment to doing business in a way that’s good for people, the planet and profits."
ONTARIO RESIDENTS ARE FORCED FROM THEIR HOMES
AUSTRALAINS ARE FORCED FROM THEIR HOMES TO SEEK RELIEF FROM INDUSTRIAL TURBINES:
WISCONSIN FARMER RUES THE DAY
HE SIGNED WIND FARM DEAL
WIND TURBINE NOISE
JOHN P HARRISON
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association for Science, Technology & Society
Source: http://www.sagepublications.com
John P. Harrison has expertise in the properties of matter at low
temperatures with emphasis on high frequency sound waves (phonons).
For the past 5 years he has studied wind turbine noise and its
regulation. He has presented invited talks on the subject at 3 conferences,
including the 2008 World Wind Energy Conference
TOWARD A CASE DEFINITION OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS
IN THE ENVIRONS OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
FACILITATING A CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association for Science, Technology & Society
Source: http://www.sagepublications.com
Robert Y. McMurtry is the former Dean of Medicine for the
University of Western Ontario. He was a member of the Health
Council of Canada for 3½ years and a member and special advisor
to the Royal Commission under Roy Romanow on the future of
health care in Canada. Dr. McMurtry was a visiting Cameron Chair
to Health Canada for providing policy advice to the Minister and
Deputy Minister of Health. He was the Founding and Associate
Deputy Minister of Population & Public Health, Canada. Dr.
McMurtry also sat on the National Steering Committee on Climate
Change and Health Assessment. Presently Dr. McMurtry is Professor
(Emeritus) of Surgery, University of Western Ontario.
ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
A PRELIMINARY REPORT
PRESENTED AT THE 10th International Congress on Noise as a
Public Health Problem
(ICBEN) 2011, London, UK
"We conclude that IWT noise at these two sites disrupts the sleep and adversely affects
the health of those living nearby. The current ordinances determining setback are inadequate
to protect the residents and setbacks of less than 1.5 km must be regarded as
unsafe. Further research is needed to determine a safe setback distance and to investigate
the mechanisms of causation"
Michael Nissenbaum MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, mnissenbaum@att.net
Jeff Aramini PhD, Intelligent Health Solutions Inc., Fergus, Ontario, Canada, jeff.aramini@gmail.com
Chris Hanning MD, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK, chrisdhanning@tiscali.co.uk
Michael Nissenbaum MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, mnissenbaum@att.net
Jeff Aramini PhD, Intelligent Health Solutions Inc., Fergus, Ontario, Canada, jeff.aramini@gmail.com
Chris Hanning MD, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK, chrisdhanning@tiscali.co.uk
2011 PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED STUDIES
BULLETIN OF SCIENCE ,TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
PUBLISHED BY SAGE PUBLICATIONS
JOHN P HARRISON
John P. Harrison has expertise in the properties of matter at low
temperatures with emphasis on high frequency sound waves (phonons).
For the past 5 years he has studied wind turbine noise and its
regulation. He has presented invited talks on the subject at 3 conferences,
including the 2008 World Wind Energy Conference
Robert Y. McMurtry is the former Dean of Medicine for the
University of Western Ontario. He was a member of the Health
Council of Canada for 3½ years and a member and special advisor
to the Royal Commission under Roy Romanow on the future of
health care in Canada. Dr. McMurtry was a visiting Cameron Chair
to Health Canada for providing policy advice to the Minister and
Deputy Minister of Health. He was the Founding and Associate
Deputy Minister of Population & Public Health, Canada. Dr.
McMurtry also sat on the National Steering Committee on Climate
Change and Health Assessment. Presently Dr. McMurtry is Professor
(Emeritus) of Surgery, University of Western Ontario.
