Tag Archives: wind farm environment

New research: wind farm infrasound can cause hearing damage

01 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage

New research published by the Royal Society warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise like that emitted by wind turbines

Camilla Turner, The Telegraph, October 1, 2014

Living close to wind farms may lead to severe hearing damage or even deafness, according to new research which warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise.

The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found.

The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby.

Published today by the Royal Society in their new journal Open Science, the research was carried out by a team of scientists from the University of Munich.

It relies on a study of 21 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 28 years. After being exposed to low frequency sound, scientists detected changes in the type of sound being emitted from the inner ear of 17 out of the 21 participants.

The changes were detected in a part of the ear called the cochlear, a spiral shaped cavity which essential for hearing and balance.

“We explored a very curious phenomenon of the human ear: the faint sounds which a healthy human ear constantly emits,” said Dr Marcus Drexl, one of the authors of the report.

“These are like a very faint constant whistling that comes out of your ear as a by-product of the hearing process. We used these as an indication of how processes in the inner ear change.”

Dr Drexl and his team measured these naturally emitted sounds before and after exposure to 90 seconds of low frequency sound.

“Usually the sound emitted from the ear stays at the same frequency,” he said. “But the interesting thing was that after exposure, these sounds changed very drastically.

“They started to oscillate slowly over a couple of minutes. This can be interpreted as a change of the mechanisms in the inner ear, produced by the low frequency sounds.

“This could be a first indication that damage might be done to the inner ear.

“We don’t know what happens if you are exposed for longer periods of time, [for example] if you live next to a wind turbine and listen to these sounds for months of years.”

Wind turbines emit a spectrum of frequencies of noise, which include the low frequency that was used in the research, Dr Drexl explained.

He said the study “might help to explain some of the symptoms that people who live near wind turbines report, such as sleep disturbance, hearing problems and high blood pressure”.

Dr Drexl explained how the low frequency noise is not perceived as being “intense or disturbing” simply because most of the time humans cannot hear it.

“The lower the frequency the you less you can hear it, and if it is very low you can’t hear it at all.

“People think if you can’t hear it then it is not a problem. But it is entering your inner ear even though it is not entering your consciousness.”

Read the full article and comments here.

Read the full paper published by the Royal Society KugleretalInfrasound2014.

Advertisement

Ontario to allow pollution of streams, rivers from wind farm: at-risk fish species in danger

31 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Ontario says OK for East Durham wind farm to kill at-risk fish

Embedded image permalink

Photo courtesy LSARC: devastation of landscape and erosion into streams from Northern Ontario wind farm construction

What’s a Redside Dace? Well, if you don’t know, don’t worry–it won’t matter for too much longer.

One of the principal points made by the Appellant in the recent appeal of the East Durham wind power project  by NextEra, was the damage that would be done by construction and the alteration of natural waterways. The prime witness testimony was:

[1]           He [Wren] also reviewed the 2004-2005 survey by Streams Ontario for the MNR.  In Dr. Wren’s opinion, the MOE “did not demonstrate due diligence in considering or evaluating sensitive fish and fish habitat in the project study area, with particular reference to the fish species Redside Dace”.

[2]           In Dr. Wren’s view, the sampling of the Saugeen River for Redside Dace was inadequate largely because too few samples were taken over too large an area.  It is his opinion that the MNR should have required the Approval Holder to conduct field investigations for Redside Dace in the Project Study Area to confirm their status.  He relied upon an email from the MNR to the Approval Holder’s ecologist which stated:

The absence of a species at risk occurrence does not mean that they are not present and as a result due diligence is still required … .  It should be noted that from a species at risk perspective this is an understudied area and as a result the MNR will be looking to ensure appropriate due diligence as it relates to field work was conducted to consider these species in further NHA reports for this site.

[3]           Dr. Wren’s opinion is that: “the Upper Saugeen Subwatershed contains an abundance of coldwater fisheries habitat that is unique in Southern Ontario.  Furthermore, the subwatershed is known to contain redside dace, an endangered species, which have a very specialized habitat.”

[4]           Dr. Wren also gave evidence about directional drilling and “fracking”, and soil erosion and sediment, and their likely effects on fish habitat and fish.  “Fracking” in this context is the accidental release of fluids toxic to fish that can occur during drilling to place transmission lines underground at water-crossings.  It is Dr. Wren’s view that a “frack out” could cause serious and irreversible harm to an endangered species such as the Redside Dace.

(Info on the Reside Dace here)

So, once again, the “overall benefit” of wind power supercedes damage to the environment, and to species of wildlife the Ontario government has already committed itself to protect? Ministry of the Environment lawyer Sylvia Davis, speaking in Toronto at the Ostrander Point appeal: “So a few animals get killed…”

The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is Glen Murray, whose ministry is supposed to “ensure healthy communities, ecological protection…”

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind farms in Northern Ontario: massive change

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Northern Hoot

Northern Hoot is a new website run by journalist Steffanie Petroni on all things Northern Ontario. Devoted to “long-form” journalism, Petroni recently published an article on wind power development, of interest now because two very large projects–Bow Lake and Goulais Bay–will be proceeding. Appeals by First Nations groups and residents failed.

Of special interest in this posting are photos by Gary McGuffin, who is renowned for his depiction of Northern Ontario scenery.

Radar

Excerpt:

In Ontario there have been 20 appeals in opposition to industrial wind turbine farms brought before the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and 19 have been dismissed. An appeal by Prince Edward County Field Naturalists to kill the development of an industrial wind turbine farm on Ostrander Point was won before an ERT in July 2013. However, the decision has since been reversed by the Ontario Divisional Court and appellants are seeking an appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

George [Brown, of the Lake Superior Action Research Conservation] commented, “The 240 Bow Lake appeal came close to winning. Based on the Ostrander Judicial Review decision the Tribunal found that in order to prove irreversible harm it was necessary for the appellant to know the size of the populations being harmed. Having found that the 240 appeal failed to prove irreversible harm the Tribunal declined to make a finding on the issue of serious harm, though it agreed with virtually all the arguments on bats submitted by the 240 appeal.

As a result the Tribunal imposed immediate and more stringent mitigation measures on the project – a tacit admission that species-at-risk bats would otherwise be killed, which would be a serious harm.

The Tribunal’s decision is peculiar in that it allows these more stringent mitigation measures to be rescinded should they prove effective. Had the MNR required, or done, a baseline study, or had the 240 appeal had the time and money to do one, to determine the size of existing bat species populations in the project area, we would perhaps have had the final piece of the puzzle required to win.”

For more information, go to http://www.lsarc.ca