Residential buffer zones for wind turbines:The Real Evidence

This month sees the wind farm evangelists at RegenSW go into overdrive in an attempt to
derail any implementation of residential buffer zones (stipulated set-back distances)

The RegenSW report "Residential buffer zones for wind turbines:The Evidence" is Here.

While there are many aspects to this report that need challenging the most serious involves the health effects from building turbines too close to residential property.

Ironically only a couple of weeks ago I blogged (here) on a new paper published by a group of world leading scientists (including Dr Hanning BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD - the world renowned expert on sleep disturbance). This paper calls for minimum 2Km setback.

Here is the full citation for this new paper::
Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 24];14:237-43. Available from:
http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2012/14/60/237/102961

This paper has been available in draft for months and was first presented at a major scientific conference in 2011. But, you will find no reference to it in the RegenSW  "The Evidence".

Maybe they missed it. Funnily though, you will not find any reference to these either:

Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill  Noise & Health, September-October 2011, 13:54,333-9 DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.85502
www.noiseandhealth.org 

or this

Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans Alec N. Salt and James A. Kaltenbach
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 296,  DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412555
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

or this

Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of  Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents Carl V. Phillips Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 303, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412554,
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303

I could go on and on.

In fact, look at this sample - (Look Here) you will find 25 peer reviewed and published scientific papers on the ill effect of wind farms being sited too close to local communities. Almost all either directly or indirectly endorse a set back of 2 KM. They are all by world leading scientists and are published in world leading scientific journals.

None are even mentioned in RegenSW's "Evidence"

Regen SW do however, attempt to do a hatchet job on a case study series report by Dr Nina Pierpont. This report is now several years old and due to it's simplicity (it is a set of case studies not a paper) it is an open target. Dr Nina Pierpont is a highly qualified and much respected epidemiological scientist and practising paediatrician in New York. Her self published report, though using a small sample, was ground breaking at the time and  had a star chamber peer review.

In their attack, Regen SW cherry pick  from the NHS website (Look Here) The NHS actually does a fair evaluation of Pierponts simple case study. The points the NHS raise (about sample size etc.) Pierpont freely acknowledges herself. But this is old data. Even the NHS commentary dates back to 2009.

Just to even things up I'll do a little cherry picking myself from the NHS commentary. The NHS website's commentary on  [Pierpont] case study ALSO states the following:

[quote]
" ..it is physically and biologically plausible that low frequency noise generated by wind turbines can affect people, and the author puts forward several possible theories regarding this."
[unquote]

[quote]
"The author acknowledges some of the study’s weaknesses and states that the next step would be an epidemiological study. One possibility would be to compare "wind turbine syndrome" like symptoms in people who live near wind turbines with those who don’t. This would show how common these symptoms are in the different groups."
[unquote]

[quote]
"she [Peirpont] also adds that “further research is needed to prove causes and physiological mechanisms, establish prevalence and to explore effects in special populations, including children”."
[unquote]

In fact the whole reason Nina Pierpont called this a "Syndrome" was exactly because she freely acknowledged that at that time (several years ago), more work was needed.

This is work that has now been done by the scientists referenced above. Work that clearly shows there must be a set back of 2 KM.

In their cherry picking of historical research, Regen SW also appear to have "forgotten" about an earlier case study report that triggered Pierpont to do her report.This report was by Dr Amanada Harry. (Available Here).

Of course Dr Harry is somewhat more problematic than Nina Pierpont (who is a remote New Yorker). Dr Harry is a highly respected and well known local Devon G.P and is known and respected by thousands of people in the South West.

Perhaps RegenSW  might also be somewhat embarrassed that the first detailed scientific study on the damaging effects of wind turbines on local communities was actually conducted in the SW England and  vigorously ignored and denied by wind farm camp followers from then on.

In their "Evidence" RegenSW are obsessed by terms like "legally binding commitments". They are though, apparently far less interested in the latest research into set back distance on the health of local residents.

Now, I have to ask why is that?

Could it be the piper calling the tune? (you know the ugly one - labelled Carpet Bagger)

Or perhaps even more disgracefully, could this simply be a group of obsessed fanatics putting their own political agenda before the health and safety of the local population?

You decide.

Wind Turbines: A Major New Noise Report

Just a quick post about a new peer reviewed study, published in a leading academic journal on the effects of wind turbine noise on nearby residents. It has been written by three leading academics. (including Dr Chris Hanning - arguably the worlds leading expert in sleep deprivation)

The study (quicklink) is Here

Full Citation:

Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 11];14:237-43. 
Available from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2012/14/60/237/102961

Basically this study reinforces the the now well founded opinion that wind turbines should be no
nearer than 2Km to residential dwellings.

Needless to say, this report will be vigorously ignored and then denied by the money hungry wind turbine cartel and by their brown nosed apologist fashion loving followers. No doubt we will also hear the hysterical slurs and accusations against the researchers in due course. As has happened before.

Do you seriously think there is a difference between the wind cartel and the tobacco industry? Dream on. If there is one, it is as thick as a cigarette paper.

But at least there are signs that these greedy corporate monsters, who are imposing immense misery on an untold number of communities across our country are now meeting some resistance.

Wiltshire County Council has set a minimum setback distance of 2Km (3Km for large turbines).
(See Here). Good for them. Standing up for your community is exactly what local democracy should be all about. Wiltshire County councillors deserve out applause.

But most of all we should salute Dr Chris Hanning and his colleagues for having the courage to publish.

The opinions and scientific findings of Dr Chris Hanning, Dr Mike Nissenbaum and  Dr Jeff  Aramini should cause anyone with the slightest moral conscience to pause in of building these useless monsters anywhere near residential dwellings.

Will that happen?

Don't hold your breath.

Turbine, Turbine, Burning Bright

A turbine burns. No doubt the bearings in the gearbox on the doubly fed induction generator failed.

An unattended machine suffering a catastrophic failure.

One turbine. Among many. For the rich and influential owners, an easy and occasional sacrifice.

With the new Neodymium gearboxes, you may argue, even the flaming turbines will be a thing of the past. The horrendously complex gearboxes that fail so frequently  will soon be replaced.

Maybe that is true.

Maybe.

But if you are an avid windy supporter, you need to understand why so many people will be cheering as the flaming monster burns.

You need to understand that those cheering and applauding will inevitably be the bog standard average folk who live nearby.

Those whose lives are ruined, impacted, or maligned by a useless gesture to a Luddite clique.

Meanwhile those reading through the clauses in the insurance policy, the owners of the burning monster, will be the rich and the well connected. The likes of Sir Reginald Sheffield (see who he is related to) would no doubt, be getting one of their minions to sort out the mess.

That is what it comes down to.

Are you with the rich and well connected? As they make their enormous profits while carelessly ruining the lives of many?

Or are you with the common folk, those whose lives and welfare are impacted by these pathetic totems to greed and ignorant stupidity?

The decision is yours.

I hope that you, like me, you are celebrating the burning of the monster.

Peer Reviewed Papers on Turbine Noise

A short while ago Billothewisp was tipped off that a considerable number of scientific papers relating to the harmful effects of wind turbines were going through peer review.

Now the August edition The Bulletin of Science, technology and Society (BSTS)  has published no less than nine peer reviewed papers on wind turbines, noise and health consequences.

This though is only the start.

Unfortunately unless you are a university department or (example) an NHS trust, a mere plebian (like Billothewisp) has to fork out the best part of £500.00 to subscribe to the BSTS, or at least pay $25.00 per paper. Ouch!

Luckily, the National Wind Watch Site Here has published the abstracts

I expect that after initial publication these papers may well become more accessible, so  a google search may well find them. Alternatively, if you have what is known as an "Athens" account (i.e. you work for the NHS or an academic institution) you should be able to get at them on-line now.

These particular papers are:

Professor John P Harrison, Dept Physics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada,
Paper: Wind Turbine Noise

Dr Bob Thorne Phd. Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia
Paper: The Problems With “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment

Dr. Arline L. Bronzaft Phd.GrowNYC, New York, New York, USA
Paper: The Noise From Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being

Dr. Alec N. Salt Phd, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Dr. James A. Kaltenbach Phd, Lerner Research Institute/Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Paper: Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans

Dr. Carl V. Phillips Phd, Populi Health Institute, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA
Paper: Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents

Dr Robert Y. McMurtry MD FRCSC FACS, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis

Carmen M. E. Krogh BScPharm, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Industrial Wind Turbine Development and Loss of Social Justice?

Carmen M.E. Krogh BScPharm, Killaloe, Ontario, Canada
Lorrie Gillis, Flesherton, Ontario, Canada
Professor Nicholas Kouwen, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Dr. Jeff Aramini Phd, Intelligent Health Solutions, Fergus, Ontario, Canada
Paper: WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring

Dr Martin Shain Phd, University of Toronto, Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Paper: Public Health Ethics, Legitimacy, and the Challenges of Industrial Wind Turbines: The Case of Ontario, Canada

That, my grubby little Englanders, is the tip of a very dirty iceberg that is about to hit the fan (or windmill - so to speak)

You have to ask: How long does this have to continue before somebody actually does something other than sit on their hands hoping it all goes away?

Billothewisp may well oppose wind turbines simply because they are bloody useless. But before that he vehemently opposes building the things anywhere near peoples homes.

There must be a set-back of at least 1.5 Km instituted NOW.

Anything else is criminal negligence.

Wind turbines and the kidney Seller

I was just listening to Radio 4 "Thought For The Day". On it the narrator described how, in China a young man sold one of his kidneys so he could buy an iPad.

The commentator described what an bizarrely unequal transaction it was. He described what pitiful return the kidney seller got for compromising his body and his health.

It occurred to me that this really is not that far from what is going on with the wind turbine gold rush. The way we are mortgaging our children's future,
scarring our landscapes and ruining the lives of those who are forced to live near these things. All for a pitiful return.

No doubt the Kidney buyer, some immoral medic who despoils the name of medicine, makes huge sums of money.
No doubt he or she is as sharp suited and corporate as our own wind turbine developers

Wind turbines are ludicrously ineffective, costly and ugly. They produce ridiculously small amounts of energy which may or may not arrive
at any time day or night (when it is unwanted). The return to the community for the damage done is inevitably pitiful.

The only thing in their favour is that they are highly fashionable.

Pity the stupidity of the Chinese kidney seller.

Then pity the stupidity of the blinkered people who avidly promote wind turbines.
They avoid the truth about wind turbines simply so they can have heir ugly expensive fashion statements polluting our country-side.

At least the Chinese kidney seller only compromised his own life.

Unfortunately wind farm supporters can compromise the lives of many others.

Usually to a greater extent than their own lives are affected.

Vestas V90 Turbine - Safety Instructions

OK. What is a Vestas V90?

No! My Dorset Dinlows.  It is not a box of 90 red matches

A Vestas V90 is a Wind Turbine.
A very large Wind Turbine.
Dimensionally similar to the ones earmarked for East Stoke in Dorset.

Now, for some reason, people have go the impression that Billothewisp dislikes wind turbines. Which is only partially true.

Billothewisp certainly has reservations about wind turbine cost/efficiency/effectiveness etc.

But what Billothewisp really hates, is gold digging anti-social carpet baggers building wind turbines too close to peoples homes.

So how close is too close?

Well,

• Dr Christopher Hanning  (UK world renowned sleep disturbance expert)  suggests 1.5 KM
• Académie Nationale de Médecine (French BMA) recommend 1.5KM ( translation here )
• Dr Nina Pierpont  (USA Consultant pediatrician) recommends 1 mile
• Dr Amanda Harry (UK  GP and E.N.T specialist) recommends 1.5 Km
• UK Noise Association  recommends 1 Mile

Incidentally these highly skilled medics and scientists did not arrive at these recommendations over a pint down the pub. They have each done considerable research into wind turbine distress before arriving at their conclusions.

But I digress.

Vestas, the manufacturer of the V90, is a Danish company. They come across as nice wholesome Danish people. You know the type, good bacon, nice yellow Gouda, and a fine line in fashionable clogs.

They are certainly not festering two headed monsters fresh from the Gates of Hades.

Unfortunately though, some of their customers probably are. Even if they appear to lack the two heads.

But, lets get back to the V90.

Being Danish, Vestas is thorough.

Vestas is concerned for the safety of the operators of their huge industrial machines. To be fair they are also concerned for the well being of nearby children (I kid you not).

Take this quote from one of their handbooks for the Vestas V90 ( Full copy available here )

So,in summary Vestas say that the operators of these turbines should stay 400m away from them, unless absolutely necessary. They say that children should be kept well away from them (I surmise they mean considerably more than 400 meters)

So someone please tell me why in Dorset we are potentially going to allow four of these monsters to be erected 275 meters from a scout camp and 800 meters from a residential home for people with ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) and, as I understand it 350 meters from the homes of local residents.

I suppose as part of the local Dorset friendliness, the scouts and locals within the 400 meter exclusion zone, will be able to wave to the technicians as they leg it up the road after doing whatever they have to do first thing in the morning. Then from their place of safety the technicians can benignly look down on the peasants as they play in the danger zone.

Seriously, if Vestas reckon the technical staff should stay at least 400 meters away from these things, how the hell can Purbeck council, or the Operator say that it is "safe" for local residents to actually live in a area closer than this?

All answers please, to Billothewisp, Dorset.  On a £50 note marked ROC subsidy.

Wind Power, Asbestos and Tobacco

Asbestos is a natural substance. It has been used since antiquity. Believe it or not, the Vestal Virgins in ancient Rome used Asbestos fibres in their lamps. As you know, it was heavily used as a building material 19th and 20th centuries . Initially, it was regarded as benign and was used extensively around the world.

But in the 1920's an epidemiological link was established between Asbestos and illness.

Instead of doing the decent thing and helping the medics with their research, the Asbestos companies formed a cartel to defend their markets from regulation. For the next 50 years they fought an effective rear guard action to block legislation..

The discovery of the health consequences of smoking were concurrent with that of Asbestos. Yet, like the Asbestos industry, the tobacco industry sought to block restrictions on their trade. People who called for regulation were pilloried as anti-social eccentrics, out of touch with modern society.  The vilification the tobacco industry poured on its detractors often succeeded in ruining careers.

So how does this relate to Wind Turbines?

Today, there are growing concerns about the the health effects of forcing people to live too close to wind turbines. Research studies has been produced that suggest that people are being made ill by this close proximity. The credentials of the researchers are impeccable. Regrettably the response for the wind turbine industry and their supporters ( with One notable and honourable exception) is almost identical to the methodology of obfuscation, character assasination and denial presented by the Asbestos and Tobacco industries before them.

The real irony here is that the mitigation being proposed by the researchers and medics ( as well as bodies such as the French equivalent of the BMA) is trivially simple.

Do not build wind turbines within 1 mile of Human habitation.

Simple.

I don't believe wind turbines are effective or reliable. But those arguments are one wholly different level to the risk of causing harm to people who live too close to these wind farms.

We need a full epidemiological survey to be done before we risk making this problem worse. Either the Wind Industry should build no more turbines within 1 mile of human habitation or at the very least let us get a full epidemiological survey before proceeding.

Any industry or group that puts their profits and ideology before the health of the general public deserve our utter contempt

How ever green they claim to be.

Canadian Green Party Leads the Way

Like the Friends of the Earth in England, the Canadian Green Party is an avid supporter of Industrial Wind Turbine technology. But at least the Canadian Greens are acting responsibly and putting people before their ideology

Due to the growing mountain of evidence  regarding the damaging effects these turbines have on people living near them, the Canadian Greens have requested Canada Health (the Canadian National Health Authority) to undertake an epidemiological survey on what has become known as Wind Turbine Syndrome. ( See their Resolution Here - passed with 66% majority)

It is refreshing to see politicians seeking to defend the  people they represent, even though the outcome may be against their ideological preferences.

Perhaps the Canadian Green Party could give a little moral  instruction to the Friends of the Earth here, who, with every passing day appear to be more in the pocket of the wind industry.

It is a shame that while their cousins in Canada give moral leadership, the Greens in this country seek to overwhelm local objections and rail-road their demands though. They seek to  ride rough-shod over any local objection, how ever valid. Today it appears that the FOE is so wedded to its doctrinaire ideology it would go to almost any lengths, destroy and trample over anyone, to get its way.

The people who the FOE sneer at and disparage will remember how the FOE preferred to side with rich developers.

One day the FOE will find this will come back and haunt them.

A Wind Turbine Malaise

Do you know that 6000 people die in the UK every year from Asbestos related illnesses?

Back in the sixties and seventies, did you ever clean out your brakes using an air hose? Ever smashed up an old asbestos roof and seen all those little fibres floating in the wind? Maybe you even tossed around some of the murderous Blue Asbestos. Yet Asbestos looks so benign, harmless even. A wonder material with so many uses. Today our older schools, hospitals and public buildings are still full of the stuff.

Makes your blood run cold doesn't it?

If someone had told you back then, that emerging research had shown that there might be a problem, maybe you would have taken a few more precautions. Certainly those responsible for the safety of the community would have been expected to put people first. Maybe that yearly death toll would not now be 6000 (that is in this country alone).

But we were not told. Vested interest saw to that. There was too much money involved. It took independent and often disparaged researchers to prove the ill effects of Asbestos. By then for many, it was too late.

Today wind turbines are increasingly being implicated in causing illness in people forced to live in their proximity. There are an increasing number of reports and studies raising concern about the hidden consequences of living next to wind turbines.

The response from the wind industry is one of denial. Funded research from the wind industry reaches the unsurprising conclusion one would expect from such reports: There is no problem. Their current masterpiece “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects” which did a non systematic review of existing literature did not even have an epidemiologist on the panel. Commenting on this review, the highly respected NHS website ( HERE ) disparages the lack of an epidemiologist and makes some very scathing observations on both the methodology of the review and its conclusions.

I am reminded of another industry and how it manipulated the truth through paid research. Remember Big Tobacco? Remember how nobody has ever proved a link between smoking and lung cancer? Remember how they routinely disparaged honest researchers and even ruined careers to hide their dirty little secret? How many millions of lives has that cost?

There should be no more land based turbines. Especially anywhere near where people live (as is the case now in Denmark). This is after all, only a cautionary approach. It should be adopted at least until these urgent medical issues have been resolved. People must come before wind turbines. Especially when the only plus side is pitiful amounts of highly expensive and intermittent electricity.

Finding out there really is a problem in 5 years time will be too late. There will be no excuses. Especially for those making the decisions today.