Cuomo-backed plan would dump “treated” frack effluent into Lake Ontario

Tens of millions of people, including those living in Rochester and Toronto, draw their drinking water from Lake Ontario
.

Ignore the red lines on the map

.
—James Hufnagel, Sierra Atlantic, vol. 38, fall 2011

The motto of the City of Niagara Falls should be, “Give us your toxins, your carcinogens and poisons, the wretched waste from your teeming industries.” Because we make it go away. Itís big business here:

Chemical Waste Management (CWM), Love Canal, and other Superfund sites too numerous to list. Don’t eat more than one fish a month out of the Niagara River or Lake Ontario, because they’re lousy with dioxin and mercury, the legacy of toxic landfills that have been slowly leaching into our water supply for decades.

Despite all the cancer deaths, birth defects, the detrimental effects on our tourism and agricultural industries, the Niagara Falls Water Board is poised to accept “frack” water from Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York for treatment and discharge into the Niagara River. The river empties into Lake Ontario, from which tens of millions of people, including those living in Rochester and Toronto, draw their drinking water.

The water board has been paying a public relations firm, E3 Communications of Buffalo and Albany, $4,000 a month to develop a campaign to persuade us to open wide for the frack wastewater.

Meanwhile, a high-level source has confirmed that Paul Drof, executive director of the water board, was summoned to Albany in July by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to finalize plans for the importation of toxic “frack” water.

It was also revealed that the Cuomo administration and the water board are jointly considering implementation of a massive new transportation scheme to facilitate this latest effort to capitalize on the Niagara area’s willingness to shoulder the toxic waste disposal burden for the entire state.

If plans move forward, a Buffalo Avenue facility will be receiving scores, possibly hundreds, of tanker trucks on a daily basis laden with the frack water, which is awaiting an official determination by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as to whether it should be classified as “hazardous waste” due to its radioactivity and carcinogens. Cuomo is said to be heavily advocating for railcar transport as well

In a related matter, an internal state government report recently leaked to the Ithaca Journal estimated the huge transportation infrastructure costs associated with fracking. Intended only for the eyes of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the Department of Transportation and Cuomoís executive staff, it stated bluntly, “The potential transportation impacts are ominous … the Marcellus region will see a peak year increase of up to 1.5 million heavy truck trips … it will be necessary to reconstruct hundreds of miles of roads and scores of bridges and undertake safety and operational improvements in many areas. The annual costs to undertake these transportation projects are estimated to range … from $121 million to $222 million for local roads.”

Not to worry, though, the Cuomo administration and the water board will surely pay those costs, not us taxpayers.

The supposed advantage the Niagara Falls water treatment plant holds over those of Ohio and Pennsylvania – or elsewhere in New York, for that matter – is the use of activated carbon to remove contaminants. However, the ability of the facility to remove the hundreds of chemical additives, radioactive substances and petrochemical waste contaminants is highly open to question.

The DEC lists on its website some of the components of “frack” water: potassium chloride to reduce friction; glutaraldehyde, which is a “biocide” used to kill plants and microorganisms; hydrochloric acid to prevent drilling mud damage; N-dimethyl formamide to prevent well corrosion; various petroleum distillates to reduce friction; and ethylene glycol, better known as antifreeze

Energy in Depth, an industry group, also lists polyacrylamide, a potent neurotoxin. In addition, the millions of gallons of frack water returning back up the average gas well bring to the surface heavy metals, arsenic, and radioactive radium and uranium from deep rock layers.

There are no national or state standards for what gas drillers can add to frack water before injecting it into a well, since Congress exempted frack water from regulation by the 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act.

A 2011 report released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee listed 750 additives, 29 of which are known carcinogens, that are routinely used by the scores of gas drillers who are poised to ship their toxic frack wastewater to Niagara Falls for treatment and discharge into the Niagara River.

A nationally recognized expert in the field of municipal water treatment and wastewater management is deeply skeptical about the ability of the water boardís plan to effectively remove contaminants from gas drilling frack water.

Walter Hang is president of Toxic Targeting, Inc., an Ithaca-based consulting firm. Toxic Targeting is not some tree-hugger organization dedicated to advancing burdensome regulations and killing jobs. Using cutting-edge mapping and database technologies, Toxic Targeting supplies information to business, government and private individuals engaged in property evaluation, regional planning and mortgage risk management with respect to proximity to superfund, toxic dump and brownfield sites.

With over 40 years of experience evaluating the efficacy of wastewater management processes and facilities, Hang has served as a consultant for 60 Minutes and The New York Times on the subject of water pollution, and is the author of The Ravaged River: Toxic Chemicals in the Niagara River, published in 1981.

Hang contends that the Niagara Falls treatment facility is incapable of effectively filtering many of the toxic compounds, which vary according to the unique recipes of scores of different drillers.

“There is no place in the country as lax as Niagara Falls with respect to regulatory violations involving water quality,” Hang told me. “The granular activated-carbon process is inadequate for filtering and removing the frack constituents.”

Pretreatment of wastewater, which is ordinarily performed by the industrial source, is designed to remove 85 percent of contaminants. But pretreatment of frack wastewater is inadequate or nonexistent when it is delivered by the drillers, most of whom are headquartered in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

Hang also described how toxic waste from Niagara Falls landfills is easily detected in the drinking water of Niagara River communities such as Canadaís Niagara-on-the-Lake, and how these compounds primarily transport and concentrate along the south shoreline of Lake Ontario.

.
James Hufnagel, a member of the Atlantic Chapter’s Niagara Group, writes for the Niagara Falls Reporter, from which this article is adapted.

.

.

.

Prof. Gavreau and his “Wind Turbine Syndrome” machine

.
—Calvin Luther Martin, PhD

The following video is worth watching.  (Ignore the annoying 15 sec. ad at the beginning.)  It gives you an appreciation for why people get seriously sick when they’re around wind turbines.

The video is a dramatization of work done in France in the 1960s by an electrical engineer named Vladimir Gavreau, who stumbled upon “infrasound” in his laboratory, and, once he recognized its formidable properties for causing debilitating illness, began developing an “infrasound” weapon for military use.  (It’s unclear how far Gavreau’s “weapon” progressed, in terms of further development and use.  Yes, it’s well known that infrasound is used as a weapon; what’s unclear to me is how much of the current technology was pioneered by Gavreau.)

Be that as it may, notice the symptoms experienced by Gavreau and his assistants.  Their symptoms are the result of vestibular dys-regulation—the saccule and utricle (inner ear organs of balance, motion, and position “sense”) sending misinformation to the brain.  A phenomenon described perfectly and explained pathophysiologically half a century later by Dr. Pierpont in her book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome:  A report on a natural experiment.”

“Luckily,” wrote Gavreau in his journal, “we were able to turn it off quickly.  All of us were sick for hours.  Everything in us was vibrating:  stomach, heart, lungs.  All the people in the other laboratories were sick, too.  They were very angry with us.”
. 

.
Gerry Vassilatos, a high school science teacher and writer of popular science, describes Gavreau’s experience as follows.  While I can’t vouch for the point-by-point accuracy of his narrative, Vassilatos does accurately convey that Gavreau and his team blundered upon infrasound, which they then worked to adapt to military purposes.

Basically, Gavreau and his team fortuitously discovered a Wind Turbine Syndrome Machine which they tried to harness as a weapon.  Except for one insurmountable problem:  They couldn’t control its deadly emissions.

This puts Gavreau about 40 years ahead of the wind developers, with their Industrial Wind Turbine (IWT) Machine—1600 feet from your front door, dear reader.  Like Gavreau, they, too, can’t control its deadly emissions.  Unlike Gavreau, they are dishonest about that inconvenient truth.

The central research theme of Dr. Vladimir Gavreau was the development of remote controlled automatons and robotic devices. To this end he assembled a group of scientists in 1957. The group, including Marcel Miane, Henri Saul, and Raymond Comdat, successfully developed a great variety of ro­botic devices for industrial and military purposes. In the course of develop­ing mobile robots for use in battlefields and industrial fields, Dr. Gavreau and his staff made a strange and astounding observation which not only interrupted their work, but became their major research theme.

Housed in a large concrete building, the entire group periodically experienced a disconcerting nausea, which flooded the research facility. Day after day, for weeks at a time, the symptoms plagued the researchers.

Called to inspect the situation, industrial examiners also fell victim to the malady. It was thought that the condition was caused by pathogens, a “building sick­ness.”  No such agencies were ever biologically detected. Yet the condition prevailed. Research schedules now seriously interrupted, a complete exami­nation of the building was called.

The researchers noticed that the mysterious nauseations ceased when cer­tain laboratory windows were blocked. It was then assumed that “chemical gas emissions” of some kind were responsible for the malady, and so a thor­ough search of the building was undertaken.

While no noxious fumes could be detected by any technical means, the source was finally traced by building engineers to an improperly installed motor-driven ventilator.

The engineers at first thought that this motor might be emitting noxious fumes, possibly evaporated oils and lubricants. But no evaporated products were ever detected.

It was found that the loosely poised low speed motor, poised in its cavernous duct of several stories, was developing “nauseating vibrations.”

The mystery magnified for Dr. Gavreau and his team, when they tried to measure the sound intensity and pitch. Failing to register any acoustic readings at all, the team doubted the assessment of the building engineers. Never­theless, closing the windows blocked the sense of nausea.

In a step of bril­liant scientific reasoning, Gavreau and his colleagues realized that the sound with which they were dealing was so low in pitch that it could not register on any available microphonic detector. The data was costly to the crew.

They could not pursue the “search” for long time periods. During the very course of tracking the sound down, an accidental direct exposure rendered them all extremely ill for hours. When finally measured, it was found that a low intensity pitch of a fundamental 7 cycles per second was being produced. Furthermore, this infrasonic pitch was not one of great intensity ei­ther.

It became obvious that the slow vibrating motor was activating an infra­sonic resonant mode in the large concrete duct. Operating as the vibrating “tongue” of an immense “organ pipe,” the rattling motor produced nauseat­ing infrasound. Coupled with the rest of the concrete building, a cavernous industrial enclosure, the vibrating air column formed a bizarre infrasonic “amplifier.”

Knowledge of this infrasonic configuration also explained why shutting the windows was mildly effective in “blocking the malady.” The windows altered the total resonant profile of the building, shifting the infrasonic pitch and intensity.

Since this time, others have noted the personally damaging effects of such infrasonic generation in office buildings and industrial facili­ties. The nauseating effects of exposure to a low intensity natural or manmade infrasonic source is now well appreciated.

Dr. Gavreau and his research team now carefully investigated the effects of their “infrasonic organ” at various intensity levels and pitch. Changing the spring tension on shock mounts, which held the fan motor, it was possible to change the pitch. Various infrasonic resonances were established throughout the large research building. Shutting the windows blocked most of the symptoms. When the window was again opened, however weak as the source was made, the team felt the nauseating effects once again.

In the business of mili­tary research, Dr. Gavreau believed he had discovered a new and previously “unknown weapon” in these infrasounds. Aware of the natural explosives by which infrasonics are generated, Dr. Gavreau began to speculate on the ap­plication of infrasonics as a defense initiative. The haphazard explosive ef­fects of natural infrasound in thunderclaps were quite effective in demon­strating what an artificial “thunder-maker” could do. But, how could a thun­derclap be artificially generated in a compact system? These thoughts stimu­lated theoretical discussions on the possibility of producing coherent infrasound: an infrasonic “laser.”

The first devices Dr. Gavreau implemented were designed to imitate the “accident” which first made his research group aware of infrasonics. They designed real organ pipes of exceedingly great width and length. The first of these was six feet in diameter and seventy-five feet long. These designs were tested outdoors, securely propped against protective sound-absorbent walls. The investigators stood at a great distance. Two forms of these infrasonic organ pipes were built. The first utilized a drive piston, which pulsed the pipe output. The second utilized compressed air in a more conventional manner.

The main resonant frequency of these pipes occurred in the “range of death,” found to lie between three and seven cycles per second. These sounds could not be humanly heard, a distinct advantage for a defense system. The effects were felt, however. The symptoms come on rapidly and unexpectedly, though the pipes were operating for a few seconds. Their pressure waves impacted against the entire body in a terrible and inescapable grip. The grip was a pressure which came in on one from all sides simultaneously, an enve­lope of death.

Next came the pain, dull infrasonic pressure against the eyes and ears. Then came a frightening manifestation on the material supports of the device itself. With sustained operation of the pipe, a sudden rumble rocked the area, nearly destroying the test building. Every pillar and joint of the massive struc­ture bolted and moved. One of the technicians managed to ignore the pain enough to shut down the power supply.

Dr. Gavreau and his associates were dangerously ill for nearly a day after these preliminary tests. These maladies were sustained for hours after the device was turned off. Infrasonic assaults on the body are the more lethal because they come with dreadful silence. The eye­sight of Dr. Gavreau and his fellow workers were affected for days. More dangerously were their internal organs affected: the heart, lungs, stomach, intestinal cavity were filled with continual painful spasms for an equal time period.

.
—from Gerry Vassilatos, Lost Science, chap. 8, “Deadly Sounds:  Dr. Vladimir Gavreau” (1999).

.

.
.
“At least eight families in Shirley, WI, in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010.

“Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes.

“STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines.”

—from the producers of the video

Australian medical doctor blasts Infigen salesman for misleading the community about infrasound.  Offers medical opinion on, er, the man’s anatomy.

“If you check his fingernails, you’ll see that they are blue because his head is so far up his ass they are cyanosed.*

“This project is certain to succeed because it complies with the three needs of any wind farm project: greed, ignorance and subsidy. It has all three.”

—Dr Alan Watts OAM

*Cyanotic:  A bluish discoloration of the skin and mucous membranes resulting from inadequate oxygenation of the blood.

.

.

Click here for related article, We oppose the project “in the strongest possible terms” (Australia).

.

.
Click here to read the report shown in the video.

Image did not accompany the original article

.
“Why the Wind Industry Is Full Hot Air and Costing You Big Bucks”

—Robert Bryce, FoxNews.com (12/20/11)

.
The American Wind Energy Association has begun a major lobbying effort in Congress to extend some soon-to-expire renewable-energy tax credits. And to bolster that effort, the lobby group’s CEO, Denise Bode, is calling the wind industry “a tremendous American success story.”

But the wind lobby’s success has largely been the result of its ability to garner subsidies. And those subsidies are coming with a big price tag for American taxpayers. Since 2009, AWEA’s largest and most influential member companies have garnered billions of dollars in direct cash payments and loan guarantees from the US government. And while the lobby group claims to be promoting “clean” energy, AWEA’s biggest member companies are also among the world’s biggest users and/or producers of fossil fuels.

A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.

An analysis of the 4,256 projects that have won grants from the Treasury Department under section 1603 over the past two years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine companies — all of them are members of AWEA’s board. To put that $3.37 billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration, the total of all “energy specific subsidies and support” provided to the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 billion in oil and gas subsidies is being divided among thousands of entities. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates the US now has over 14,000 oil and gas companies.

The renewable energy lobby likes to portray itself as an upstart industry, one that is grappling with big business and the entrenched interests of the hydrocarbon sector. But billions of dollars in 1603 grants – all of it  exempt from federal corporate income taxes – is being used to fatten the profits of some of the world’s biggest companies. Indeed, the combined market capitalization of the 11 biggest corporations on AWEA’s board – a group that includes General Electric and Siemens — is about $450 billion.

Nevertheless, the clock is ticking on renewable-energy subsidies. The 1603 grants end on December 31 and the renewable-energy production tax credit expires on January 1, 2013. On Monday, AWEA issued a report which predicted that some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the US could be lost by 2013 if the production tax credit is not extended.

But the subsidies are running out at the very same time that a cash-strapped Congress is turning a hard eye on the renewable sector. The collapse of federally backed companies like solar-panel-maker Solyndra and biofuel producer Range Fuels, are providing critics of renewable subsidies with plenty of ammunition. And if critics need more bullets, they need only look at AWEA’s board to see how big business is grabbing every available dollar from US taxpayers all in the name of “clean” energy. Indeed, AWEA represents a host of fossil-fuel companies who are eagerly taking advantage of the renewable-energy subsidies.

Consider NRG Energy, which has a seat on AWEA’s board. Last month, the New York Times reported that New Jersey-based NRG and its partners have secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees to build solar-energy projects. NRG’s market capitalization:  $4.3 billion.

But NRG is not a renewable energy company. The company currently has about 26,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. Of that, 450 MW is wind capacity, another 65 MW is solar, and 1,175 MW comes from nuclear. So why is NRG expanding into renewables? The answer is simple: profits. Last month, David Crane, the CEO of NRG, told the Times that “I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”

Or look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural gas company, which also has a seat on AWEA’s board of directors. In 2010, the company emitted 116 million metric tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that of the Czech Republic, a country of 10.5 million people. And last year, the company – which has about 2,000 MW of wind-generation capacity in the US — produced about 14 times as much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did from wind.

Despite its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has been awarded $542.5 million in section 1603 cash so that it can build wind projects. And the company is getting that money even though it is the world’s largest investor-owned utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion.

Another foreign company with a seat on AWEA’s board: Spanish utility Iberdrola, the second-largest domestic wind operator. But in 2010,  Iberdrola produced about 3 times as much electricity from hydrocarbons as it did from wind. Nevertheless, the company has collected $1 billion in section 1603 money. To put that $1 billion in context, consider that in 2010, Iberdrola’s net profit was about 2.8 billion Euros, or around $3.9 billion. Thus, US taxpayers have recently provided cash grants to Iberdrola that amount to about one-fourth of the company’s 2010 profits. And again, none of that grant money is subject to US corporate income taxes. Iberdrola currently sports a market cap of $39 billion.

Another big winner on AWEA’s board of directors: NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) which has garnered some $610.6 million in 1603 grants for various wind projects. NextEra’s market capitalization is $23 billion. The subsidies being garnered by NextEra are helping the company drastically cut its taxes. A look at the company’s 2010 annual report shows that it cut its federal tax bill by more than $200 million last year thanks to various federal tax credits. And the company’s latest annual report shows that it has another $1.8 billion of “tax credit carryforwards” that will help it slash its taxes over the coming years.

The biggest fossil-fuel-focused company on AWEA’s board is General Electric, which had revenues last year of $150 billion. Of that sum, about 25 percent came from what the company calls “energy infrastructure.” While some of that revenue comes from GE’s wind business, the majority comes from building generators, jet engines, and other machinery that burn hydrocarbons. The company is also rapidly growing GE Oil & Gas, which had 2010 revenues of $7.2 billion. GE Oil & Gas has more than 20,000 employees and provides a myriad of products and services to the oil and gas industry.

GE has a starring role in one of the most egregious examples of renewable-energy corporate welfare: the Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt project is coming from federal taxpayers. Not only is the Energy Department providing GE and its partners – who include Caithness Energy, Google, and Sumitomo — a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

On December 9, the American Council on Renewable Energy issued a press release urging Congress to quickly extend the 1603 program and the renewable-energy production tax credit, because they will “bolster renewable energy’s success and American competitiveness.”

But time is running short. Backers of the renewable-energy credits say that to assure continuity on various projects, a bill must be passed into law by March 2012. If that doesn’t happen, they are predicting domestic investment in renewable energy could fall by 50 percent. A bill now pending in the House would extend the production tax credit for four additional years, through 2017. The bill has 40 sponsors, 9 are Republicans. The bill is awaiting a hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee.
.

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

The Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group, Inc. has produced a 258-page response to Infigen’s proposed wind plant, giving the project a grade of “F.”

The following is the cover letter included in their 258-page response.

The Director General
Major Development Assessment
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Australia

Dear Sir,

Re: Proposed Flyers Creek Wind Farm, Blayney Local Government Area

Application reference: MP 08_0252

The Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group Inc. (FCWTAG) is comprised of a large group of concerned residents of the Blayney Local Government Area.

We object to the Proposed Flyers Creek Wind Farm (“the proposal”) in the strongest possible terms. We believe this development [by wind energy giant, Infigen] is totally inappropriate.

This submission details our objections.

The FCWTAG requests that representatives of the group be given the opportunity to speak at the Planning Assessment Commission hearing related to this proposal.

Yours faithfully,

 

.
Dr. Colleen J Watts OAM
On behalf of the FCWTAG Inc

.
Click here for the full report.  (Note:  It’s a large file, 27 MB.  It will take approx. 50 seconds to download with high speed access.  Longer for DSL and longer yet with a dial-up connection.)

.
The report insists that the World Health Organization’s “Precautionary Principle” must be followed.  (In fact, the WHO’s Precautionary Principle is being ignored by governments and wind developers the world over.)

8. Berglund, B., Lindval, T., and Schwela, D. (Eds) (2000). Guidelines for community noise. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

.

“The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study:  Adverse Health Effects Produced by Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed”

—Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.) & Robert W. Rand, INCE Member

Executive Summary  (click here for the full report)

The idea that infrasound doesn’t or can’t affect the ear is just flat-out wrong.”
.
—Dr. Alec Salt, Dept of Otolaryngology,
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri

This study was commissioned through a private philanthropic grant created to determine why there were so many strong complaints about the loss of well-being and hardships experienced by people living near large industrial wind turbines operating in Falmouth, Massachusetts.

The purpose of this study was to investigate and confirm or deny the presence of infrasonic and low frequency noise emissions (ILFN) from the “WIND 1”, a municipally-owned Vestas V82 industrial wind turbine.

In March of 2011, after many months of vigorous neighborhood complaints and strong appeals to the town, selectmen voluntarily decided to curtail WIND 1 operations when hub height wind speed exceeded 10 m/s. This required that this study focus on noise emissions from the nearby “NOTUS” wind turbine, an identical make and model..

Acoustics

This study was conducted at a representative neighbor’s home in Falmouth and confirmed that there are dynamically modulated low frequency acoustic amplitudes and tones produced by the nearby wind turbine.

Dynamic amplitude modulations occurred at 1.4 second intervals that were consistent with the blades rotating past the wind turbine tower (the blade pass rate).

Dynamic amplitude modulations below 10 Hz were stronger indoors than outdoors. Modulations measured indoors were 0.2 Pascal peak to peak, consisting mostly of energy below 20 Hz. Two tones were detected from both the NOTUS and the WIND 1 turbines, at 22.9 Hz and 129 Hz, and are considered signatures of the wind turbines’ acoustic profile.

Outdoors, the A-weighted sound level decreased at a predictable rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the nearest turbine.

The linear unweighted sound level decreased according to cylindrical spreading at 3 dB per doubling of distance and was controlled by acoustic energy below 20 Hertz. A-weighting does not reveal this low-frequency information. Sound-level averaging with Leq for any time length hides the low-frequency dynamic amplitude modulations.

Health effects

The investigators were surprised to experience the same adverse health symptoms described by neighbors living at this house and near other large industrial wind turbine sites.

The onset of adverse health effects was swift, within twenty minutes, and persisted for some time after leaving the study area. The dBA and dBC levels and modulations did not correlate to the health effects experienced. However, the strength and modulation of the un-weighted and dBG-weighted levels increased indoors, consistent with worsened health effects experienced indoors.

The dBG weighted level appeared to be controlled by in-flow turbulence and exceeded physiological thresholds for response to low-frequency and infrasonic acoustic energy as theorized by Salt.

The wind turbine tone at 22.9 Hz was not audible, yet the modulated amplitudes regularly exceeded vestibular detection thresholds. The 22.9 Hz tone lies in the brain’s “high Beta” wave range (associated with alert state, anxiety, and “fight or flight” stress reactions). The brain’s frequency following response (FFR) could be involved in maintaining an alert state during sleeping hours, which could lead to health effects.

Sleep was disturbed during the study when the wind turbine operated with hub height wind speeds above 10 m/s.

It took about a week to recover from the adverse health effects experienced during the study, with lingering recurring nausea and vertigo for almost seven weeks for one of the investigators..

Further epidemiological and laboratory research needed

The research is more than just suggestive. Our experiencing of the adverse health effects reported by others confirms that industrial wind turbines can produce real discomfort and adverse health impacts. Further research could confirm that these ill effects are caused by pressure pulsations exceeding vestibular thresholds, unrelated to the audible frequency spectrum but are instead related to the response of the vestibular system to the low frequency noise emissions. The vestibular system appears to be stimulated by responding to these pressure pulsations rather than by motion or disease, especially at low ambient sound levels.

Dysfunctions in the vestibular system can cause disequilibrium, nausea, vertigo, anxiety, and panic attacks, which have been reported near a number of industrial wind turbine facilities. The study emphasizes the need for epidemiological and laboratory research conducted by medical health professionals and acousticians working together who are concerned with public health and well-being.

This study underscores the need for more effective and precautionary setback distances for industrial wind turbines.

It is especially important to include a margin of safety sufficient to prevent inaudible low-frequency wind turbine noise from being detected by the human vestibular system..

Acknowledgements

This study was initiated by the concerns of a private citizen, Bruce McPherson, who enjoyed the many quality of life benefits of living on Cape Cod. He was disappointed that there were no efforts being made by developers or government agencies to determine the real cause for the many complaints from Falmouth residents living near three new industrial wind turbines. He knew that neighbors were constantly complaining to town officials about receiving excessive noise, adverse health effects and the loss of well-being. Thanks are given by so many for the generosity of Mr. McPherson, who initiated and funded this independent investigation.

To the residents of Falmouth who welcomed us into their homes and lives, extended us their hospitality, told us their stories, and gave us their time and assistance, our deepest appreciation.

Sincere appreciation is given to Dr. Alec Salt, Dr. Timothy Hullar, Mr. Richard James, and Mr. Charles Ebbing for their insightful correspondence, professional reviews and comments.

.
Click here for the full report.

.

.
Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines

August 2011

.
Carmen Krogh, Carmen & Brett Horner (Canada)

Click here for the full document

.

In previous communications, evidence has been provided regarding the risk of adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines (IWTs). Up to now, the siting of IWTs in Ontario is based on predictive computer modelling. While there is ample evidence regarding adverse health effects, the conduct of human health studies to determine regulations for setbacks and noise levels that protect health is still lacking.

The purpose of this document is to inform authorities and decision makers of new evidence, including articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals which advance knowledge on the topic of adverse health effects of IWTs.

Based on the evidence compiled in this document, no further IWT projects should be approved in proximity to humans until human health studies are conducted to determine setbacks and noise levels that will ensure the health and welfare of all exposed individuals.

Furthermore where there are reports of adverse health and/or noise complaints IWTs should be decommissioned until the human health studies have been conducted to determine regulations for setbacks and noise levels that protect health.

This summary may be used and submitted by other individuals.

No financial compensation has been requested nor received for this summary.

Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm

Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA

Click here for the full document
.

Contents:

» Denial of adverse health effects

» July 2011 Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) Decision, Ontario

» August 2011 peer-reviewed articles published in a scientific journal

» Industrial wind turbine low-frequency noise and infrasound

» Wind Turbine Noise, Fourth International Meeting

» The need for research

» Inappropriate use of literature reviews

» Conclusion

.

Based on the best available evidence, the following conclusions can be made:
.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association–sponsored statements that industrial wind turbines do not pose a risk of adverse health effects in humans are scientifically incorrect.

Experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm that industrial wind turbines can harm human health if they are not sited properly.

Acknowledged adverse health effects include: annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep. Other adverse impacts include reduced well-being, degraded living conditions, and adverse societal and economic impacts. These adverse impacts culminate in expressions of a loss of fairness and social justice.

The above impacts in conclusion 3 represent a serious degradation of health in accordance with commonly accepted definitions of health as defined by the WHO and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.

It is expected that at typical setbacks and with the noise study approach currently being used in Ontario to approve the siting of industrial wind turbines, a nontrivial percentage of exposed individuals will experience serious degradation of health.

Harm to human health can be avoided with science-based regulations based on research conducted on human response to industrial wind turbine exposure.

Experts who have conducted original research and/or published peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals confirm that research is required to establish science-based industrial wind turbine regulations to protect human health.

Until science-based research has been conducted, industrial wind turbines should not be sited in proximity to human habitation.

.

.
—Kelly Johnson-Eilola (St. Regis Falls, NY), in the Watertown Daily Times (12-15-11)

.
On the night of Dec. 7, I drove through some very thick fog. As I traveled state Route 190 from Ellenburg to Brainardsville, my fog lights illuminated one of the grizzliest scenes I have experienced. I counted 15 bloody, mutilated corpses of snow geese spread out over several miles.

I counted only those on the road, because those were the only ones I could see due to the heavy fog. I do not know how many more were spread across the yards and crossroads.

Shortly after passing state Route 374, I noticed there were no more dead birds. I only saw the dead birds as I drove near the wind turbines.

The big corporation and landowners who stand to make large sums of money putting up wind towers of monstrous heights in the towns of Hopkinton and Parishville, NY, keep telling us that the towers are safe.

The wind industry propaganda says that windows kill more birds than wind turbines. How many geese have flown into your windows? I can’t say I have ever known that to happen.

But I do know that last night a whole flock of geese flying over the woods and farms their ancestors have always traveled were smashed, battered and thrown to their death.

I can only pray that no humans were injured when the falling dead geese struck them or their vehicles.

.
Editor’s comment:  I posted this letter with misgivings.  It happens that I live near this wind plant.  I know the road Kelly traveled.  I am familiar with those turbines.  I am also a close watcher of geese and their ways.  

We have had thousands of snow geese here this autumn.  Last week they seemed to be starting their migration south.  (They stop-over in Franklin & Clinton counties for weeks, tanking up on corn.)  

Back to Kelly’s account.  It’s nighttime.  (Geese are not walking across roads at night, at least not in Franklin & Clinton counties.)  It’s foggy.  (I drive these roads all the time; I’ve never seen geese walking across roads at night in a fog.  Deer, yes.  Not geese.)  Fifteen mutilated corpses over several miles—miles of 2-lane road corresponding to the location of the turbines, which are several hundred feet from the road.  

Considering the size of a snow goose, the height of the blade above ground at impact, the tremendous speed of the blade (approaching 200 mph at the tip), the geometry, aerodynamics, width of the blade and how the blades happened to be “feathered” that night—and considering that turbine blades can hurl chunks of ice approx. 1700 feet—turbine collision is in fact a reasonable explanation.  

I had Dr. Pierpont read Kelly’s account, and she is adamant that turbine “strikes” are a reasonable explanation for what Kelly witnessed.  (Pierpont did a PhD at Princeton in Behavioral Ecology, studying bird behavior, then writing a doctoral thesis and publishing on the same.  She followed that with a year post-doctoral fellowship in Ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History, NYC.  She & I spend our vacations “birding” hither and yon across North America, from the Pribilofs to Newfoundland to the Everglades to New Mexico’s Bosque del Apache.  In sum, she’s pretty savvy about birds and bird behavior, and she’s got a good sense of wind turbines.)

.

From “Mary,” in South Australia:  “Horrible isn’t it? And these pictures only show about 40 of the turbines, which are Suzlon S-88 V3 2.1 MW.”

Click here for larger image.

.
Editor’s note:  The following “cry from the heart” arrived in response to “The Carnage Was Mesmerizing.”  It’s worth acting upon.
. 

.
To:  You and me, dear reader

From:  Friends of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)

Regarding:  Turbines slaughtering migrating birds

Date:  12-15-11

.
If anyone reads this and you really care about these beautiful creatures, we desperately need help in eastern North Carolina.

Invenergy, a wind energy company based out of Chicago, has been secretly planning to site a 49-wind turbine facility right in the middle of the foraging grounds of 70-80 percent of the migratory waterfowl popluation that make their annual trip from Canada and Alaska.

The decision was recently annouced after contracts from farmers were signed and govt. agencies were in place.

The NC legislature has given this company a free pass to place the turbines anywhere they please, without any enviornmental studies and, although they have received numerous letters from various agencies questioning their location choice, they have not stopped, nor do they plan to.

Please check out our website, Friends of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, and help us.

The local commissioners (Beaufort Co.), NC Utilities Commission, and other govt. agencies can see only the “green” for dollar signs; they don’t care that these birds are in serious jeapordy.

Below are some numbers to call.  If we don’t put pressure on the people who can make a difference, there will be mass destruction of these birds, as their habit is to fly peacefully, at low altitude, from one field to another without any obstruction (wind turbines) turning them into pâté de foie gras and feathers.

This is a red alert!  Pass this email on to anyone you believe would care in preserving what has been called the Serengeti of the East.
.

Who to call:

(1) Pete Jerome, Regional Director of the US Fish & Wildlife Service, in Atlanta, Georgia (404) 679-4000.  (Leave a message, as you will not talk to him, although we know he monitors the calls.)  Also call the Fish & Wildlife Service “Migratory Bird Program,” (404) 679-7206.

(2) Secretary Ken Salazar, US Dept of Interior, (202) 208-3100. This is the main number.  The switchboard will direct you to Salazar’s office.

(3) US Dept. of Interior Public Affairs Office, (202) 208-6416, and ask why they are approving the destruction of the Serengeti of the East?

(4) North Carolina Governor, Beverly Purdue, and ask for Veronica at (800) 662-7952 or (919) 733-2391.

.

.
Editor’s note:  Watch this 20-minute video of an outrageous town meeting in Fairhaven, Mass.  What’s outrageous is the conduct of the Board of Selectmen.

What is fabulous is the refusal of townspeople to put up with the board’s behavior.

Listen carefully, folks:  You are going to have to be just as vociferous as these people—and just as angry and adamant about not “shutting up”—if you are going to stop wind turbines from coming to your town.

Three cheers for the citizens of Fairhaven!  Visit their website, Fairhaven Wind Project.
.

.
Press Release
.

·

Wind Turbines and Public Health: It’s Time to Act¹

·
Waubra Foundation (Australia)

12-11-11

.
It is now 6 months since the Australian Federal Senate inquiry Report into Rural Wind Farms was tabled.² This Inquiry made 7 recommendations, including to:

(1) “Initiate as a matter of priority thorough adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies” (recommendation #4).

(2) Develop noise standards which “calculate the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings” (recommendation #1)

There has been no action on any of the recommendations.

Since then, the Clean Energy Legislation has been passed, which will inevitably result in many more rural residents being driven from their homes and farms, as “wind farm refugees.”

Governments in Australia have been warned about these consequences with the Explicit Cautionary Notice issued by the Waubra Foundation on 29^th June, 2011.³

There is willing blindness on the part of the politicians and the bureaucrats, and fraudulent denial on the part of the wind developers who know only too well about the adverse health problems which are being reported globally.

These rural residents are being openly referred to as “collateral damage” or “policy roadkill” by developers, and their supporters, some admitting they know people are becoming ill, but state it is “for the greater good.”

It is yet another lie that “there are no problems anywhere else in the world,” and that “things are fine in Denmark.”  Distinguished Danish acoustician, Professor Henrik Møller, has been driven to speak out publicly at the current collusion between the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the wind developers and the Danish Government regarding the proposed new low frequency noise guidelines.⁴

Lousy photo of Dr. Henrik Møller

All is not “fine” in Denmark, nor anywhere else where wind turbines have been built too close to homes.

On the eve of the commencement of the Australian Wind Industry’s “talkfest” in Melbourne (Australia), where no doubt the usual denials of any health problems will be evident, it is time for the Australian Federal and State Governments to address these serious and growing health problems in rural residents living within 10 km of current wind developments.

The latest victims are from the Daylesford region, casualties of Hepburn Wind’s community wind farm, and AGL’s wind development at Glenthompson, not yet commissioned.

The time for denial of serious health problems is over.

The time to act is now.

References

1. http://www.youtube.com/user/WaubraFoundation

2. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_far ms/report/index.htm

3. http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/caution.pdf

4. http://www.epaw.org/media.php?lang=en&article=pr4

.
Media Enquiries:  Sarah Laurie, MD, Medical Director, Waubra Foundation,  sarah@waubrafoundation.com.au

… from the diary of a Tibbetts Point resident, Wolfe Island, Ontario (Canada)..

On Friday morning, September 30^th, it was surprising to witness the destruction of a flight of Canada geese by one of the Wolfe Island turbines.

.
.
I watched geese lift off and form up along the shore of Wolfe Island.  At about a hundred feet altitude they wheeled into the wind, heading in a west/southwesterly direction.  As their climb into the headwind slowly took them over Wolfe, the wind gauge at our house read a strong, steady 22-25 mph.  It was overcast.  The river rolling.

Crossing Wolfe, they flew into the plane of spinning turbine blades. (This one turbine is directly across from our home and closer to us, about 1.5 miles away.)

Through 8X binoculars the carnage was mesmerizing.

Imagine a scene of blade impacts repeatedly knocking dark puffs of feathers against a grey sky. With such a strong wind, limp bodies seemed to be blown backwards out of the turbine.

Amazingly, the rear portion of the flock followed into the blades; the birds seemed oblivious to the destruction of the flight leaders. With strong headwinds slowing their passage, the period of danger and destruction was prolonged.

After about two-thirds had entered this gauntlet, the flight finally broke off, lost it’s V shape, and scattered.

I called to my wife to run upstairs—but by then it was over. The time was 10, maybe 15, seconds.

It was strange to watch this happen in silence. I heard no honking. It seemed odd to witness movements that suddenly changed from the beauty of ordered, majestic flight to instant, plunging death.

It made such a vivid impression, I entered the details in my log that day.
.

Editor’s note:  The author’s narrative has been lightly edited for clarity, without changing any of the substance or meaning of the original text.

.
“Wind Turbines and Public Health”

.
The Waubra Foundation, Australia
.

.
Editor’s note:  Click here for full documentation of the references presented throughout the above video.

.

.
—Paul Brouha, The Orleans Record (11/29/11)

Sutton, Vermont—I don’t have to wonder what it will be like anymore—now, with 16 wind turbines 420 feet high and their 153 foot long blades rotating, I know.

Much of the time their often pulsating roar is like living near an eight-lane beltway or next to an airport where the planes never stop taking off.  I say to myself, “This is forever.”

The noise leaves me feeling depressed and angry because the value and peaceful enjoyment of our home and property has been taken away.

This past couple weeks, as I sat at my deer stand, my eye has been caught by the movement, not of antlers, but of the blades of eight turbines visible and rotating from our upper field.  Even the deer seem more nervous and have become more nocturnal than in years past.

I’ve received calls from residents from as far away as Lyndon, Kirby, and Westmore complaining about the blinking red aircraft collision avoidance lights at night.  Neighbors are telling me they also can hear the turbines and that they are shocked to see the turbines from “everywhere they go”—from local roads, from I-93 near Franconia Notch (40 miles away!), as well as from nearer ridge lines between Littleton (NH) and St. Johnsbury (VT).

The anger and depression come from the feeling that the State of Vermont and the environmental organizations (with one notable exception) have abetted and supported the desecration of the Sheffield and Lowell ridge lines.  They have simply stood by and assumed we neighbors will bear the uncompensated environmental, social, and economic costs.  “It’s only a few people,” I’ve heard Avram Patt, Washington Electric Cooperative say.  If so, then make it right—the “Vermont Way.”

Avram Patt

In a larger context the anger and depression come from the conclusion that the state, and particularly Gov. Shumlin, don’t care about us and aren’t caring for us.  Why have I reached that conclusion?  Because, in addition to the local damage these projects are causing, the draft state energy plan, Shumlin’s vendetta against Vermont Yankee, and the legislature’s strong “encouragement” that utilities include unreliably available, high cost renewable (wind) power in their portfolios, are all going to ensure that our electric power costs a lot more in the future.

It’s not too late, however, to influence the current and proposed public policy and regulatory decisions as they are not yet fully implemented.  Let your legislators and Gov. Shumlin know they need to find constructive solutions to keep rates low for consumers.  They should not be arbitrarily raising energy costs by requiring our utilities to embed the significantly higher costs of wind energy in their portfolios.

Australia’s most popular radio show host, Alan Jones, doesn’t literally call wind energy a “crock . . . ,” but he comes pretty darn close.

Click anywhere on the image, below, to listen to Jones rip wind energy to shreds.  (Some would say, “rip wind energy another orifice.”)  There isn’t much left of the subject by the time he’s done.

Be sure to turn up your speakers, then sit back, relax, and hear what you’ve been dying to hear over the airwaves for years.  (Has anyone considered asking this man to run for public office?  For Prime Minister, maybe?)
.