Tag Archives: infrasound wind turbines

New wind turbine noise guidelines fail to address problems

26 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Ontario wind turbine noise compliance protocol falls short

Way short.

As in, little or no understanding of the problems with wind turbine noise emissions.

New noise protocol misses all the problems

 

On Friday, April 21, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change released a new protocol document intended for “assessing noise from wind turbines that have already been built. It is used by industry and ministry staff to monitor compliance.”

While in the absence of guidance for staff, and the complete lack of compliance audit information from wind power developers and operators, this is a step forward, the truth is, the protocol doesn’t change much.

Here’s why:

  • the protocol still relies on audible noise only, when many of the complaints registered with the MOECC concern effects that are clearly linked to other forms of noise
  • the protocol does not take into account lower wind speeds, which is where problems are being experienced, particularly with newer, more powerful turbines
  • there is no comment on any sort of transition between the protocol that existed before and this one

Improvements:

  • the Ministry’s action in producing this protocol is an indication that they know they have a problem
  • the description of Ministry response is a good step forward
  • requiring wind power companies to actually have, and to publish, compliance audit documents could be a sign of expectations of greater accountability among the power developers/wind power project operators.

This table outlines the critical gaps in the new protocol document.

 

Issue     Protocol Requirements Actual Experiences
Wind Speeds Assessment of noise at wind speeds between 4 m/s and 7 m/s MOECC testing indicates problem noise starts below 3 m/s which is outside of wind speeds involved in the protocol.
Ambient Noise Narrow time period assessed Wide seasonal variations while wind turbine noise constant
Location Only test outside of home Very different inside noise conditions
Tonal Assessments Uses criticized techniques Narrow band analysis shows tonal noise present.
Resident Input None Resident concerns drive other MOECC procedures
Frequencies Excludes Infrasound Elevated levels of infrasound in homes

 The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change needs to acknowledge that there is a problem with wind turbine noise, and accept that it must play a role as a government agency charged with protecting the environment and people in it — preparing an industry-led document may look like a positive step, but this document does not meet the needs of the people of Ontario forced to live with wind turbines, and their noise emissions.

Wind Concerns Ontario

Advertisement

Wind turbines found to exceed legal noise levels

12 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to conduct more tests on homes near Goderich; wind corporation says it is confident the power project is operating legally

April 11, 2017

CTV News London is reporting that several residents living near the K2 wind power project have received notification from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) that the turbines near their homes, and causing them to report excessive noise, are in fact out of compliance with provincial noise regulations for the power generating machines.

In the conclusion of the “Acoustic Recording Quantitative Screening Measurement Report” of testing performed by the MOECC recently, the MOECC states

… it is acknowledged that sound from the wind turbines was audible during the measuring campaign at levels that appear to exceed the applicable sound level limits, and based on C3 measurements conducted at a nearby receptor (the distance is about 1250 m from R876; where the same turbine(s) within 1500 m distance impact both receptors) it was further concluded that there is a possibility that sound from the nearby turbines could be tonal.

The use of the word “tonal” is key as the MOECC–and the wind power industry–have up to now refused to admit that the noise emissions from turbines are tonal, or producing vibration.

The complaints voiced by people living near turbines, however, seem to indicate that pressure or vibration is a key feature of the emissions being experienced.

See the CTV London video here:

http://london.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1098781&binId=1.1137796&playlistPageNum=1

K2 wind is located in Huron County and is operated by a consortium of Capital Power, Pattern Energy, Manulife, and the Alberta Teachers pension fund.

Residents near the South Branch project are reminded that they should report any adverse effects from wind turbine noise to the MOECC Spills Action Centre by calling 1-800-268-6060. Callers should provide their name and telephone number, location, location relative to the nearest wind turbines, direction of the wind and wind speed if available (this can be noted from weather data on your cellphone), and a rating of the noise/vibration on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most severe.

Callers should be sure to get an INCIDENT REPORT reference number at the time of their call, and keep a record of their call(s) together with the reference numbers.

 

Noise emissions from wind turbines cause adverse health effects: scientific paper

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Hearing Health & Technology Matters

October 5, 2016 — A new paper from acoustician Richard James and audiologist and professor emeritus Jerry Punch, just published in the journal Hearing Health Matters, confirms support for the idea that “acoustic emissions from IWTs [industrial wind turbines] is a leading cause of AHEs [adverse health effects] in a substantial segment of the population.”

The authors deal with 12 commonly held beliefs about wind power and health effects, promoted by the global wind power development industry, that do not support a connection between wind turbine noise and health problems. They conducted a comprehensive literature review, and review the findings of the most up-to-date studies, including the Cape Bridgewater study by acoustician Steven Cooper, which changed the language of wind turbine noise research.

A paper by Paul Schomer of the U.S. is quoted for example, and the authors conclude “some people affected by WTN [wind turbine noise] may be responding directly to acoustic factors, rather than to non-acoustic factors, as argued by Leventhall.” (page 21)

Canada figures in the paper with references to work done by Dr Roy Jeffery, Dr Robert McMurtry, and researcher Carmen Krogh, among others.

The authors wrote a ccovering letter for windaction.org in which they said,

Finally, let it not be said that either of us believes in making any less than the best possible effort to develop clean and efficient sources of energy. Rather, we hope that our article will be instrumental in promoting public health through a better understanding of the issues underlying the potentially harmful effects of audible and inaudible noise from industrial wind turbines when the turbines are sited too close to where people live and work.

Jerry Punch

Richard James

Read the paper here.

Proof of health problems from wind turbine noise, say public health doctors

11 Monday May 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn, together with several associates, have now published a peer-reviewed article based on their literature review of studies on wind turbine noise and health impacts.

Their conclusion: we have demonstrated the presence of reasonable evidence (Level Four and Five) that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans. The existence of a dose-response relationship (between distance from wind turbines and distress) and the consistency of association across studies found in the scientific literature argues for the credibility of this association.

Read the complete article here.

The wind power development lobby insists there is not relationship between wind turbine noise, inaudible noise/low-frequency noise/infrasound, and often implies that people who claim such effects are actually ill-informed or not receiving money. A spokesperson for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture told an audience at this year’s Rural Ontario Municipalities Association meeting that anyone claiming to experience health impacts from turbine noise had questionable mental health stability and that the listener should “just cough on them.” His remarks were withdrawn by the OFA with an apology shortly thereafter.

Ontario’s Not a Willing Host communities meet today

20 Tuesday Aug 2013

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Coalition of ‘Unwilling Host’ Municipalities

Press Advisory August 20, 2013, Ottawa

Representatives of the 62 municipalities that have declared themselves ‘unwilling hosts’ to wind turbines are coming together during the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) meeting currently underway in Ottawa to discuss ways to bring their concerns more forcefully to the government.

According to Kevin Marriott, Mayor of Enniskillen, ‘the government has not addressed the concerns of these communities’.  In the Throne Speech and other statements by the Premier, they talked about wanting to locate projects in willing host communities, but there has been no substance to these announcements in terms of municipal input will be incorporated in the process.  Meanwhile, the government continues to approve wind turbine projects without consideration of municipal concerns according to Marriott.

Some municipal officials represented at AMO have already experienced the impact of wind turbines on their communities.  Complaints start once when they become operational with people being forced from their homes by noise and low frequency noise vibrations.  These municipalities are looking for the MOE to actually start enforcing the noise standards that they have set and to follow up on the health complaints being filed with Medical Officers of Health.

Mayor April Jeffs of Wainfleet wants the government to start applying learning from these early projects and apply increased set-backs from people’s homes to new projects before they are approved.  Wainfleet adopted a 2 kilometer set-back by-law that was challenged in court by the wind developer.

Municipalities are looking for the government to return real local planning authority for wind turbines to local municipalities.  These powers were taken away by the Green Energy Act. Municipalities are better placed that a Queen’s Park civil servants to identify local issues that need to be addressed in reviewing wind turbine projects.  They also have processes in place to review and approve other complex or controversial projects building projects that take place in their municipalities.

The municipal representatives at AMO will be meeting Tuesday August 20 at 4:30 pm. in the Governor-General 1 on the 4th floor of the Westin Hotel in Ottawa.

For further details contact, Kevin Marriott at 519-383-9170 or April Jeffs at 905-658-7890.

Prowind: we want you to be “comfortable”

19 Friday Jul 2013

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the article on the proposed wind power project for North Gower-Richmond appearing in today’s Ottawa Citizen (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Wind+power+projects+harmful+cancelled+plants+critic+contends/8678755/story.html), wind power developer Prowind (based in Germany) representative Rochelle Rumney says the project is “on hold” until the new application process is announced by the Government of Ontario.

Taking a cue from the province, which is making lots of noise about “community engagement” while still NOT returning local land-use planning powers removed by the Green Energy Act, Rumney told the Citizen writer that Prowind wants to work with the community to “try to have everybody be comfortable with the project.”

Comfortable.

Really.

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that Prowind has concealed the true locations of the turbines and to this date, does not depict the turbines just north-west of a housing subdivision on its website?

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that by conservative estimates (and this has been accepted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) property values could decline by 22-50% ?

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that, again by conservative estimates, if only 10% of the residents within 3 km of the turbines were to experience sleep disturbance and other health problems, that would mean over 100 people could be affected?

How do we get “comfortable” with the fact that a few people who live here can do this to the rest of their community?

This community has options, none of them comfortable, but they will be pursued.

Just a reminder of who we’re dealing with, here again is the photo of Prowind’s stunning Head Office in Hamilton, Ontario.

Prowind HQ-Hamilton

Donations welcome to cover costs including legal fees: PO Box 3, North Gower ON   K0A 2T0

Ottawa Wind Concerns Inc. is a corporate member of Wind Concerns Ontario.

Wind power project siting process needs to be replaced, says Ottawa Wind Concerns

18 Thursday Jul 2013

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by the Ottawa Citizen:

Wind-power projects as harmful as cancelled gas plants, critic contends

By Elizabeth Payne, OTTAWA CITIZEN July 18, 2013 6:04 PM
 OTTAWA —The same process that led to Ontario’s “gas plant fiasco” is being used for wind-generation projects with disastrous results, says the head of a group concerned about a proposed wind farm in rural southern Ottawa.

“The gas plants got all the attention, but the wind-power projects are more widespread — and causing real problems for communities in terms of health problems, social disruption, lost property value and harm to the natural environment,” wrote Jane Wilson in a submission to the Ontario Power Generation and the Independent Energy System Operator as part of a “dialogue” about the way the province locates large power projects.

The consultation process stemmed from the political controversy around the location, and cancellation, of planned gas plants in southern Ontario. The Liberal government’s handling of the costly gas plant issue is the subject of an inquiry and a criminal investigation.

Ottawa Wind Concerns, which Wilson heads (in addition to Wind Concerns Ontario) wants a new system for planning and siting all large energy projects, including wind, that gives local communities more control. The Liberal government’s Green Energy Act gave the province control over location of wind energy projects. In May, the provincial government announced changes that will make developers work more closely with municipalities.

Ottawa Wind Concerns says, however, that the province needs to go further and give municipalities full control over projects as well as treating them the same way an industrial project would be treated. So far 60 municipalities across the province have declared themselves not willing hosts to wind power projects.

“Local land use planning needs to be returned to communities as a start and power projects should be treated as any other sort of infrastructure, with residents having full input to decisions that will affect their community, their financial futures and their health.”

Although many people living near wind turbines complain about health effects, research into the issue is limited. Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, in a 2010 report, concluded that “the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.” It also concluded that sound from wind turbines with common setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing problems, although people might find it annoying. It also said there is no scientific evidence that vibrations from low-frequency wind turbine noise causes health issues. The report also said that “community engagement at the outset of planning for wind turbines is important and may alleviate health concerns.”

Health Canada has launched a major study into the effect of wind turbines on health. Meanwhile, federal cabinet minister Pierre Poilievre and Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod, both of whom represent the riding where the project is planned, are calling for a moratorium on the North Gower project until the Health Canada study is completed.

A spokesman for the company that is proposing to build the project, Prowind Canada Inc., said it is temporarily on hold until the province determines what the new process for awarding wind power contracts will look like.

Rochelle Rumney, environmental co-ordinator with the company, said — environmental coordinator said Prowind would “like to work with the community and try to have everybody be comfortable with the project.”

Meanwhile, during an ongoing July heat wave that has strained the power grid, wind power contributed less than one per cent to Ontario’s power needs this week, something that Wilson says underlines the need for a cost-benefit analysis of wind-power projects.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
OWC notes: despite community opposition, and opposition from elected representatives, despite clear evidence this project will cost taxpayers/ratepayers $4.8 million a year for power we don’t need, it looks like Prowind is still prepared to proceed with the North Gower-Richmond project…or sell it to someone who is. That means, we need even more help and especially funds for legal counsel. Donations welcome at PO Box 3, North Gower ON   K0A 2T0 Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Impact of Ottawa wind power project would be ‘staggering’

16 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Community group Ottawa Wind Concerns has filed a formal comment with the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator as part of the “dialogue” process on siting large power projects in Ontario.

Placing a huge wind power project as proposed in the North Gower and Richmond communities, part of the City of Ottawa, would have “staggering” effects, the group says, in terms of negative health impacts and on property values.

On a day when wind power is contributing considerably less than one percent to Ontario’s power needs during the current heat wave, OWC’s chair Jane Wilson said that a thorough cost-benefit analysis, including comparison to other forms of power generation and the impact on communities, should be done for this and every wind power project.

“Ontario needs a new process,” she says. “That starts with a return of local land use planning and the recognition that wind power projects should be treated as any other type of infrastructure.”

MP Pierre Poilievre, MPP Lisa MacLeod and Ottawa City Councillor have all expressed opposition to the wind power project.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Read the full comment document here: OPA-commentJuly11

Donations welcome, please mail to PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Environmental Review Tribunal wraps up: evidence shows harm to human health ‘probable’

24 Monday Jun 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County
P.O. Box 173
Milford, Ontario K0K 2P0

APPEC Appeal Shows Probability of Harm to Human health

Milford, ON  June 24, 2013.   The Environmental Review Tribunal hearings on the Ostrander Point wind project concluded in Toronto on June 21.   The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) has presented evidence that indicates the probability of harm to human health from wind turbines.

Summations by counsel for APPEC, Gilead Power, and the Ministry of Environment (MOE) focused on three important issues:  the relevance of the Erickson appeal (2011), the medical evidence presented, and the standard of proof required.

APPEC lawyer Eric Gillespie argued that reliance on the Erickson decision avoids an onerous and unmanageable process of re-litigation on matters already addressed by 25 expert witnesses. The present ERT has to consider the principal findings in Erickson because they relate to a wind project, like Ostrander Point, approved to operate with 40 dBA noise limits and 550-m setbacks.

Mr. Gillespie urged the ERT panel to accept the testimony of 11 witnesses who reported adverse health effects from living near currently-operating wind projects.  All of them have suffered a range of symptoms known to result from exposure to audible noise and low-frequency sound. Expert opinion has related these to the proximity of wind turbines as far as 2 km away.

Gilead’s and the MOE’s own witnesses, said Mr. Gillespie, have testified that there are always “some people,” or a “non-trivial percentage of the population,” affected by wind turbines. APPEC’s case has shown the probability, not just biological plausibility, of serious harm to human health.  There is enough evidence on the “balance of probabilities” for the ERT to make a decision.

 

“People are obviously suffering despite the MOE’s regulations,” said APPEC President Gord Gibbins. “There will be more victims if Ostrander Point and other wind projects go ahead.”

The ERT panel also questioned the location of the wind project on Crown land.  The public will have access to the site via 5.4 km of maintenance road and would be exposed to the risks of ice throw, blade breakage, nacelle fire, and tower collapse. 

“These concerns are another sign,” said Gord Gibbins, “that public health and safety appear to be secondary to wind power development.”

The ERT’s decision is due by July 10.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Henri Garand, Chair, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, 613-476-4527, hgarand@xplornet.ca

The Ostrander Point power project appeal: winnable!

28 Sunday Apr 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As you know, two community groups have appeal the Ministry of the Environment’s approval of a wind power project on the South Shore of Prince Edward County at Ostrander Point. The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) have both filed appeals, PECFN’s on the basis that the project will cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and APPEC on the basis of harm to human health. Wind Concerns Ontario was granted status as a participant and presented evidence on the potential harm to bats, and the resulting economic effects if this expensive and unnecessary power development were to be built. County Coalition for Safe Affordable Green Energy (CCSAGE)  is also assisting with fund-raising and other activities.

The Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) is continuing in the County and a great deal of evidence on the environment has already been presented.

Last week, the community groups hosted a fund-raiser Town Hall, which featured excellent speakers. Local humourist Steve Campbell was the MC for the event, a packed hall at the venerable Regent Theatre in Picton, said he regularly reads of strife for city dwellers in the form of crime, and gang wars, etc. “Here in the County,” he said, “we only have two enemies: the provincial government, and the federal government.”

For more details on the event, please read the story here (and note the new mascot Angry Bird!):  http://www.freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/04/ccsages-town-hall-event-on-wind-turbine.html

One of the most stunning pieces of information presented that evening was from business owner Carlyn Moulton who noted that the arts and services sectors bring in $400 million in revenue annually to the County while the proposed wind power development will bring–get this–$1-2 million in tax revenue. “Huh?” she said. “How does that make any sense?” Tourism to the County will be drastically affected by the Ostrander Point project, and another proposed wind power project the “White Pines.” A study done recently in the U.K., Moulton said, showed that 75% of the visitors to an area where wind turbines had been installed said they would “never come back.”

Among the handouts that evening (we were there) was a flyer on why the Ostrander Point ERT is “winnable.” The environmental testimony has been damning—botanist Paul Catling said the damage to the rare alvar environment will be irreversible and he scoffed at developer Gilead Power’s claim to be able to re-create the environment elsewhere—but this ERT is the first opportunity for a Tribunal to hear actual testimony from people already living with wind turbines and the environmental noise and infrasound they produce.

“APPEC’s appeal is the first in which Ontario wind victims will present evidence demonstrating that wind turbines cause serious harm.This proof meets the test required in order to WIN  and ERT appeal,” APPEC wrote in the flyer. “By invalidating 550-m setbacks the appeal will set a precedent that applies to every proposed industrial wind project. The Ministry of the Environment would have to determine a new standard to protect the health of Ontarians, and it could not continue to rubber-stamp projects in Ontario.”

Worth supporting, wouldn’t you say?

Go to www.appec.ca to donate or send a cheque to

APPEC Legal Fund

PO Box 173

Milford ON   K0K 2P0

If the government actually approves this wind power project in a “globally significant” important bird area, and where the destruction of a rare environment is assured, there is no hope of using the government’s process for any project.

FIGHT IT.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

p-o-bird-gb-pt-pec(A grey-blue gnat-catcher, photographed by a Prince Edward County resident)