October 25, 2014

James McWilliams telling vegans to eat insects

“At the risk of being a total bore, I have a few more thoughts to shake out on the proposition that vegans are morally obligated to eat insects. ...” —The Life and Death of Insects

Insects As Food: Hard Fact Versus Possible Fact
Are Vegans Obligated To Eat Insects?
Starting Over]

Rucio says:
October 24, 2014 at 8:34 am

You are indeed becoming a total bore here. Everything you argue about insects has already been said about other animals to justify their mass exploitation and slaughter. Even about other humans.

And telling vegans what they are “morally obligated” to do is as offensive coming from another vegan as it is from a grass-fed beef proponent.

James says:
October 24, 2014 at 10:25 am

I’ve offered a number of arguments for why cows and crickets do not deserve the same level of moral consideration. I’m open to having those arguments proven wrong. But you need to do that. Rather than make blanket statements without substantiation, I urge you to avoid insults and make arguments.

Rucio says:
October 24, 2014 at 10:52 am

The argument is simply that cows and crickets DO deserve the same level of moral consideration. That is the vegan ethic. It is not a question of sentience or whatever other anthropocentric rationalization you want to apply.

I really don’t have a problem with anyone eating insects, although I don’t see any good coming from “farming” them. It’s just absurd to suggest that it should be a part of veganism. Your very language in this post has devolved into that of “humane meat” advocates.

(As for insult, you set yourself up for the confirmation.)

James says:
October 24, 2014 at 12:39 pm

Your logic is circular. To say that a behavior is wrong because it does not adhere to a preexisting definition (in this case, veganism) is to subsume the demand for a real argument (which you still won’t provide) under the guise of a label that may or may not best accomplish the goal that we both seek–to reduce the suffering of animals who can suffer. My argument is that veganism may not be the best approach to reducing the harm humans do to animals. My previous posts on insects have laid out why I think that is the case. Thus, in the interests of having a genuine and fruitful discussion (and possibly getting me to change my mind), you must do more than say, in essence, “veganism does not allow for eating crickets.” I really don’t care about the insult, honestly, so no worries there. But I do care about logic.

Rucio says:
October 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Any circularity is in your framing the question as one of “animals who can suffer”. In other words, you’ve already asserted the conclusion in the premise.

Furthermore, if, rather than arguing that veganism may not be the best approach to reducing harm to animals (other than insects), you are attempting to redefine veganism to include eating insects, then the burden is yours.

unethical_and_speciesist_vegan says:
October 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm

“It’s just absurd to suggest that it should be a part of veganism.”

Thankfully deontic vegans don’t get to decide who is and is not vegan. Many utilitarian (see vegan action and vegan outreach position on insects and honey) vegans accept the ambiguity of insects and insect products (shellack, honey, silk etc).

Moreover, many deontic vegans are not at all consistent when it come to their own avoidance of insect “suffering”: honey is verboten but shellack is “don’t ask don’t tell”.

Rucio says:
October 24, 2014 at 10:11 pm

“Vegan” is generally understood to mean no animal flesh or products. It is not a “deontic” or utilitarian or pseudo-religious proposition, but just a simple definition. Nobody’s a perfect vegan, but if everybody’s a vegan by their own definitions, than the word means nothing.

unethical_and_speciesist_vegan says:
October 27, 2014 at 3:42 pm

“Vegan” is generally understood to mean no animal flesh or products.

Generally understood as “NO” by deontic vegans but not by many utilitarian vegans:


“Again, it depends on one’s definition of vegan. Insects are animals, and so insect products, such as honey and silk, are not traditionally considered vegan. Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain.”


“This may sound odd coming from a co-founder of Vegan Outreach, but it doesn’t matter what label anyone places on me, or what label anyone places on themselves. For example, if Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation) were to eat a dish that contains hidden dairy when at a colleague’s house, or if Carole Morton (who runs Green Acres Farm Sanctuary and is a humane agent in a rural PA county) were to eat the eggs laid by the hens she has rescued … do I want to cut them off, shun them from our vegan club?”

Rucio says:
October 27, 2014 at 5:11 pm

That’s essentially what I already said. Many vegans fudge the line with invertebrate animals. But asserting that vegans are “morally obligated to eat insects” is a lot more offensive than asserting that they shouldn’t. As I also pointed out earlier, that’s not much different than Alan Savory asserting that we are morally obligated to eat free-range beef to save the planet. Even if his evidence were sound, we are certainly not obligated.

(Regarding evidence, James McW stacks his a bit by ignoring the tremendous land use required for animal agriculture feed. Switching to a vegan diet would reduce that land use to an eighteenth. Whereas farming insects would add a new land use, since it would obviously replace non-insect meat, not plants, in the diet.)

Later post: Consciousness

Rucio says:
November 1, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Moral consideration that relies on the resemblance of a being to oneself would not seem to be very deep.

It may turn a few people away from eating other vertebrate animals, but it’s a shaky foundation to build on. After all, humans easily rationalize brutality towards other humans. The hierarchic ladder of being is an easily manipulated fallacy.

October 24, 2014

Vermont: Vote Liberty Union!

Liberty Union Party statewide candidates —

Governor: Peter Diamondstone, Brattleboro

Secretary of State: Mary-Alice Herbert, Putney

Attorney General: Rosemarie Jackowski, Bennington

State Treasurer: Virginia Murray Ngoima, Pomfret

Liberty Union Party statewide federal candidate —

House of Representatives: Matthew Andrews, Plainfield

Liberty Union Party local candidates —

State Senate:
Aaron Diamondstone, Marlboro (Windham County)
Jerry Levy, Brattleboro (Windham County)
Ben Bosley, Colchester (Grand Isle County)

Sheriff of Orleans County: Thomas Farrow, Orleans

Assistant Judge, Windham County:
Lynn Russell, Brattleboro
Alice Landsman

October 17, 2014

October 9, 2014

Sorry, your health care coverage can't actually be used.


Subject: Important Information About Your Health Coverage
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013
From: vthealthconnect@state.vt.us
To: [ ]@[ ].net

Dear [ ],

Hello! We are writing to let you know that you have a new notice regarding your bill for health care benefits from Vermont Health Connect. To view your notice, please click on the link below and log in to your account.

Your notice is: Premium Invoice


After logging into your account, click on ‘My Account’ and select the ‘My Profile’ tab. Once there, click on ‘View Documents’ from the ‘Quick Links’ box. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please call Vermont Health Connect Customer Support toll-free at 1-855-899-9600, Monday-Friday 8am-8pm and Saturdays 8am-1pm (except holidays and holiday weekends).

Thank you,

Vermont Health Connect


Subject: Re: Important Information About Your Health Coverage
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013
From: [ ] <[ ]@[ ].net>
To: vthealthconnect@state.vt.us

There doesn't appear to be a way to log in. There is a "logout" button, which remains "logout" after clicking it. No "login" button or pane.

In fact, because of the consequent inability to check my account and the lack of reply by telephone [since applying on line], I just sent in a paper application today. Which I guess is now unnecessary as far as setting up an account.

I think I would like a paper notice/statement/bill.



Subject: RE: Important Information About Your Health Coverage
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013
From: AHS - VT Health Connect
To: '[ ]' <[ ]@[ ].net>

Dear [ ],

Thank you for writing.

To log in to your account, please go to https://portal.healthconnect.vermont.gov/ and click on “Start Here” found next to where you see “Are you looking for coverage for yourself or your family?” On the next page, please click either on “Login to your Account” or “Apply Now” as either will bring you to the log-in screen. Once you are logged into your account, you will be able to access your invoice using the directions in your original e-mail.

[Makes sense? Even if you have an account, you have to illogically click "Are you looking for coverage for yourself or your family?" to get to it. But perhaps that was an admission of the truth recorded here.]

As you've requested, we'll send a paper invoice to you in the mail. You can expect to receive this invoice within a week.

Please let us know if we can help you with anything else.

Kind regards,

Vermont Health Connect
Customer Support – 855-899-9600

Check out our website for updated information!

Vermont Health Connect: http://info.healthconnect.vermont.gov/
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/vthealthconnect


Subject: Your Vermont Health Connect Invoice
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013
From: Vermont Health Connect
To: [ ] <[ ]@[ ].net>

Dear [ ],

Thank you for completing your application for health insurance coverage through Vermont Health Connect. You may have received two invoices this month – one for your new (2014) Vermont Health Connect health plan, which begins January 1, 2014, and one for your former (2013) health plan, which was recently given the option of extending up to March 31, 2104.

You only need to pay the bill for the plan you wish to have effective on January 1. You do not need to pay the other bill. If you want help making the choice of which bill to pay, please call our Customer Support Center toll-free at 1-855-899-9600 and reference the code “VHC1215.” A customer service representative will then talk you through your options. Please note that our call volume is high at this time. We thank you in advance for your patience. If you applied through a Navigator, you could consult him or her as well.

Please note that you do not need to take any additional steps to cancel your former plan. Your 2013 health plan will automatically expire after you pay your premium and your 2014 plan takes effect.

We are open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mondays-Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays.


Vermont Health Connect Customer Service


Subject: Starting coverage in February
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014
From: [ ] <[ ]@[ ].net>
To: vthealthconnect@state.vt.us

I set up my account and selected a plan very early and received an invoice by mail (as requested) in December. However, I had already paid my Catamount Care premium for January, so I did not pay the premium for the new plan.

Now I need to make sure that I will get another invoice (by mail, please) for the new plans, to start coverage in February.


Subject: RE: Starting coverage in February
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014
From: AHS - VT Health Connect
To: '[ ]' <[ ]@[ ].net>

Dear [ ],

Thank you for writing. We're so sorry for the delay in replying to your email.

I've reviewed your account and see that you also called and spoke with someone about this last week. As they told you, it is fine for you to just pay your premium for February. Your account has been marked so that your policy will start in February.

Please let us know if we can help you with anything else.

Kind regards,

Vermont Health Connect


Subject: Important Information About Your Health Coverage
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014
From: vthealthconnect@state.vt.us
To: [ ]@[ ].net

Dear [ ],

Hello! We are writing to let you know that you have a new notice regarding your bill for health care benefits from Vermont Health Connect. To view your notice, please click on the link below and log in to your account.

Your notice is: Premium Invoice


After logging into your account, click on ‘My Account’ and select the ‘My Profile’ tab. Once there, click on ‘View Documents’ from the ‘Quick Links’ box. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please call Vermont Health Connect Customer Support toll-free at 1-855-899-9600, Monday-Friday 8am-8pm and Saturdays 8am-1pm (except holidays and holiday weekends).

[Steps to view invoice:
• Click "Are you looking for coverage for yourself or your family?"
• Click "Log in"
• Click "My Account"
• Click "My Profile"
• Find the "Quick Links" box and Click "View Documents"
• Click the listed documents until you reveal the current invoice]

Thank you,

Vermont Health Connect


Subject: Re: Starting coverage in February
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014
From: [ ] <[ ]@[ ].net>
To: AHS - VT Health Connect

Today I received a "Payment past due/Termination Notice" from BCBS [Blue Cross/Blue Shield]. As noted below, this is because I was assured that it was OK to ignore the January premium and that the new policy was to begin in February. This was necessary because the invoice for January coverage under Catamount Care was due (and paid) before the invoice for the new BCBS policy under VHC was available.

According to the BCBS notice, "Vermont Health Connect has reported that full payment has not been received for your health insurance."

Please resolve this.


Subject: RE: Starting coverage in February
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014
From: AHS - VT Health Connect
To: '[ ]' <[ ]@[ ].net>

Dear [ ],

Thank you for contacting us. We're very sorry that you received the past due notice from BCBS. I see that you have paid each of your invoices well in advance of the due dates, and as you noted, the fault is entirely ours for not yet making that change to your coverage start date. Unfortunately, we don't have that functionality to make the change once your plan is in force, but we are working on it and will correct your account as soon as we are able.

You actually have a 90 day grace period, so there is no danger of your plan being terminated as long as you keep paying your monthly premiums as you have been doing.

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.

Kind regards,

Vermont Health Connect


And so I have been paying the monthly premium to Vermont Health Connect, ignoring the monthly "PAST DUE/NOTICE OF TERMINATION" notices from BCBS.

Secure in the knowledge that we do indeed have continuing "affordable health insurance" (which Vermont was already providing for almost everybody, effectively and without major problems: the "Catamount Care" referred to above). Secure, that is, as long as we would never need it, as it turned out.

I had an annual check-up scheduled in early October and was told by the doctor's office that a check of insurance status revealed it to be "pending". For that reason, they would not be able to submit the bill. I learned from a call to BCBS on Oct. 1 that "pending" in this case meant that I was behind in payments, because they still considered my coverage to have begun on Jan. 1 instead of Feb. 1, and therefore still expected an extra month of payment. In other words, despite the reassurance from Vermont Health Connect 8 months before that "we are working on it and will correct your account as soon as we are able", they still had not. Furthermore, the reassurance that "there is no danger of your plan being terminated as long as you keep paying your monthly premiums as you have been doing" turned out to be meaningless, since my regular doctor wouldn't risk billing to a "pending" insurance account. The person I talked with at BCBS helpfully transfered me to Vermont Health Connect, noting that she had heard that they may be "a few months" behind.

Thank goodness we have not been in any emergency situation or in urgent need of a prescription refill.

From Vermont Health Connect I now (!) learned that changing the start date required a new application because it is a "change of status". And so I was transfered to another office to handle that. The woman there, like everyone I have talked with at every step, it should be said, was very helpful and was able to use the original application to make a new one for coverage starting Feb. 1, ie 8 months earlier, to expire Dec. 31, ie in less than 3 months.

Now we were expected to have "new" insurance active in a couple of weeks, a new card in a week after that. Just in time to start the whole charade over again for coverage next year.

We essentially have had no usable insurance coverage since Feb. 1, despite regularly paying monthly premiums for it. What surprises lie in wait for us in the new cycle beginning Jan. 1, 2015, with a promised automatic renewal of coverage? Or in April, when the IRS recalculates everybody's share of their previous year of premiums?

The faster we move to a single payer system the better! Federally, Medicare was supposed to steadily expand in the 1960s to cover everyone, not just the elderly (but then it would have covered draft dodgers and black panthers along with "deserving" citizens like oneself). If the US government can not or will not provide that very basic service to all those who live within its borders, then the states need to go it alone. And I mean not just setting up some mash-up of federal support and state-provided health coverage, although that would be a welcome step despite the likelihood of its being as dysfunctional as the current private-public mash-up — I mean breaking away altogether from the government of Washington. Because health care is just one of its many failures, and war to gain world hegemony seems to be its only goal, war ordnance its only economy, squandering our common wealth as well as our lives, sacrificing them to an end that can only be catastrophic.

[Update:  Two and a half weeks later, we've received no notice about the "new" coverage, but instead a series of premium invoices (up to 4 so far), each one different from the last and none of them reflecting a resolution.]

[Update:  Four weeks later, we haven't received a new insurance card or any notice about the "new" coverage.]

[Update:  A month later, BCBS remains uninformed of the change, which Vermont Health Connect says was "finalized" on Oct. 14 (under a different "service request" no. than the "confirmation no." originally provided).]

[Update:  Five weeks later, the "change of circumstance center" has promised to notify BCBS today, which was supposed to have been done on Oct. 14 but was not. The reason another 2 weeks was required in the first place was because there is a child on S-CHIP, and that "start of coverage" (despite being continually covered under the auspices of the state for some 13 years already) was not supposed to change from January to February, so a new "change of circumstance" (the only change being the system's, not ours) had to be created to disinclude the S-CHIP part — it was done, but then someone neglected to tell BCBS. Oh, and a new "master case" number. Could it be more complicated? More counterproductive (unless, of course, prevention of care is precisely the intention)??]

[Update:  Five-and-a-half weeks later, BCBS remains uninformed of the change, which the Vermont Health Connect "change center" now says was "finalized" on Oct. 29 and confirmed that it was sent to "billing" who would then notify BCBS, which process could take 15 days, likely more as they are busy starting enrollment for next year. Vermont Health Connect customer service confirms the change, that the start date has been changed, billing reconciled, and BCBS informed. However, BCBS finds no change -- and it's not on the latest weekly confirmation list from Vermont Health Connect, waiting to be processed. BCBS suggests checking in another week.]

[Update:  A month and a half later, the "last invoice for 2014" has arrived, showing a "balance forward" of 10 times the new premium amount, presumably representing the charges for February through November of our "new" coverage, ignoring the year of payments for our "old" coverage for those same months. Then, inexplicably, the amount due adds only the SCHIP charge, not the next month's premium. Aieee!]

Further notes from 2015: 

May 13:  "Use this updated form [1095-A] when you complete IRS Form 8962 and file your federal income tax return [last month]."

Premiums due:  January 26: $627.52. February 26: $313.76. March 26: ($2.30). April 26: $311.46. May 26: ($238.36). June 26: $75.40. July 26: $313.76.

June 8:  Notice from Blue Cross–Blue Shield: "Payment Past Due." Go to newly launched Vermont Health Connect web site for any information that might be there: My Health Plans: "No current plans found."

June 25:  "A refund has been issued to you in the amount of $20.00."

July 16:  Notice from IRS: "Our records show that you did not file a 2014 tax return to reconcile advance payments of the Premium Tax Credit. … We received a copy of form 1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, issued to you by your Health Insurance Marketplace showing … You are required to file a a 2014 federal tax return with Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit, to reconcile …" So it seems that filing Form 8962 with the correct information from one's own records — because the 1095-A form originally provided was obviously incorrect — instead of the updated 1095-A that came a month after the tax filing deadline (and which was still incorrect) [see May 13, above] is not recognized as a possibility, is as good as failing to file at all, and in fact nullifies the 1040 and everything as if never filed at all!

See a new report from 2016:  Vermont Health Connect: “Current wait times are 90 minutes”

October 8, 2014

The Breakdown of Nations

A few excerpts from The Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr, first published in 1957 by Routledge & Kegan Paul ...

Compared with the barbaric exploits of the civilized, the savageries of the barbarians seem to lose all significance.


If wars are due to the accumulation of the critical mass of power, and the critical mass of power can accumulate only in social organisms of critical size, the problems of aggression, like those of atrocity, can clearly again be solved in only one way – through the reduction of those organisms that have outgrown the proportions of human control. As we have seen, in the case of internal social miseries, already cities may constitute such overgrown units. In the case of external miseries, only states can acquire critical size. This means that, if the world is to be relieved of some of the pressures of aggressive warfare, we can do little by trying to unite it. We [w]ould but increase the terror potential that comes from large size. What must be accomplished is the very opposite: the dismemberment of the vast united national complexes commonly called the great powers. For they alone in the contemporary world have the social size that enables them to spread the miseries we try to prevent but cannot so long as we leave untouched the power which produces them. … where there is a critically large volume of power, there is aggression, and as long as there is critical power, so long will there be aggression.


In vastness, everything crumbles, even the good, because, as will increasingly become evident, the world’s one and only problem is not wickedness but bigness; and not the thing that is big, whatever it may be, but bigness itself. That is why through union or unification, which enlarges bulk and size and power, nothing can be solved. On the contrary, the possibility of finding solutions recedes in the ratio at which the process of union advances.


The great powers are the ones which are artificial structures and which, because they are artificial, need such consuming efforts to maintain themselves. As they did not come into existence by natural development but by conquest, so they cannot maintain themselves except by conquest – the constant reconquest of their own citizens through a flow of patriotic propaganda setting in at the cradle and ending only at the grave.


The chief danger to the spirit of democracy in a large power stems from [the] technical impossibility of asserting itself informally. In mass states, personal influences can make themselves felt only if channeled through forms, formulas, and organizations. It is these latter rather than the individual who become increasingly the true agents and asserters of political sovereignty, so that we should speak of a group or party democracy rather than of an individualistic democracy. As a result, the individual declines, and in his place emerges the glorified average man of whom Ortega y Gasset writes that ‘he is to history what sea-level is to geography’. An individual can now have his will only to the extent that he comes close to this mystical average, and it is on the strength of his being an average, not an individual, that his desires can be satisfied. …

But who is this mystical, glorified, flattered, wooed, famous, inarticulate, faceless average man? … [H]e can only be one thing, the representative or reflex of the community, of society, of the masses. What we worship in the individualistic fiction of the average man is nothing but the god of collectivism. No wonder that we overflow with emotion when we hear of government of, for, and by the people, by which we express our adherence to the ideals of group or mass democracy, while as true democrats we should have nothing in mind but government of, for, and by the individual.

Thus, however democratic a large power may try to be, it cannot possibly be a democracy in the real (though not original) meaning and glory of the term – a governmental system serving the individual. Large powers must serve society and, as a result, all genuine ideals of democracy become reversed. their life rhythm can no longer depend on the freedom and interplay of individuals. Instead they become dependent on organizations.


As has already been indicated, it is not any particular economic system that seems at fault, but economic size. Whatever outgrows certain limits begins to suffer from the irrepressible problem of unmanageable proportions. When this happens to a community, its problems will not only increase faster than its growth; they will be of a new order, arising no longer from the business of living but from the business of growing. Instead of growth serving life, life must now serve growth, perverting the very purpose of existence. … [T]he more powerful a society becomes, the more of its increasing product, instead of increasing individual consumption, is devoured by the task of coping with the problems caused by the rise of its very power. The more it gains in density, the more is devoured by the process of meeting the problems caused by its increasing density. And the more it advances, the more is devoured by the problems resulting from its very advance.


[S]ince nothing is ultimate in this ever-changing creation, one may safely carry de Tocqueville’s predictions [‘[Russia’s and America’s] starting-points are different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems to be marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe’] or, rather, deductions a step or two further and state that, whatever comes, the ultimate world state will go the road of all other ultimate world states of history. After a period of dazzling vitality, it will spend itself. There will be no war to bring about its end. It will not explode. Like the ageing colossi of the stellar universe, it will gradually collapse internally, leaving as its principal contribution to posterity its fragments, the little states – until the consolidation process of big-power development starts all over again. This is not pleasant to anticipate. What is pleasant, however, is the realization that, int he intervening period between the intellectual ice ages of great-power domination, history will in all likelihood repeat itself and the world, little and free once more, will experience another of those spells of cultural greatness which characterized the small-state worlds of the Middle Ages and Ancient Greece.

October 7, 2014

The last German state has now abolished university fees

A friend writes:

I am trying to step back and care less about everything. But this is so hard to ignore. Germany is now entirely free of college fees, which is wonderful news. But sitting here in the desperate gulag called the US, one can only feel like weeping.

Here, where a college education is the most obscenely expensive necessary "luxury" in the world, the costs inflated far beyond the means of most people anywhere on the planet, Americans are told that they are worthless without a college degree, so they are forced to borrow fortunes which then ruins their futures, ironically. Some parents mortgage or sell their house, practically kill themselves with overwork and go into enormous debt to procure for their children what should be a free and basic human right. And after all that sacrifice and suffering and work and worry, there are few jobs for graduates, of course. People with huge college loans often must take the kinds of jobs that cannot possibly pay enough to repay those loans. And for people who aren't into going to college and/or like to work with their hands, the "blue-collar" jobs which used to provide a fairly secure middle-class life for millions have been stolen by fascists, shipped away to China, Pakistan, the entire third world where people are treated like slaves and paid like them too.

Then people in the NY Times sneer that those "blue-collar" types don't belong in college anyway. They sneer at community colleges. Then they sneer at anyone who took out college loans they can't repay. Then they sneer at people who didn't bother to go to college. The best jobs and most interesting opportunities are reserved for children of the privileged and hyper-connected. There is no way to live in this society any longer, unless you have an exceedingly charmed life and and/or were born into riches. Everyone else is considered to be a waste of space, and ordinary people now must fight for the small morsels of moldy crumbs eked out to them by fascist America, and after all that scrabbling for advantage, can be fired at will with no explanation required and no recourse.

But oh how this dreadful scenario enriches the lenders of college loans; probably debtor's prisons will become legal ... every single goddam thing in this vile "society" is a fucking scam, with college education at the top of the list. But what choice do people have now? To demand a free education as they have in Germany would be laughable to most Americans who feel that you must pay for everything you have. They simply aren't educated enough to understand that they ARE paying -- but instead of their taxes being used to enrich their own lives and of their fellow citizens, it's all being diverted into endless war. Part of the problem is the "their fellow citizens" part -- they don't want anyone they don't absolutely know to be "deserving" to get the same benefits they might get, so they'd rather go without. The real problem with Americans is a knee-jerk penchant for Puritanical intolerance and a love of abject cruelty; this has poisoned the entire nation.


October 5, 2014

How like kingdoms without justice are to robberies

Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book IV, Chapter 4:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”

October 4, 2014

Wind turbine setback and noise regulations since 2010

These changes in and new wind turbine regulations since 2010 do not include moratoria and bans. See also the list at Windpowergrab.

[note:  1,000 ft = 305 m; 550 m = 1,804 ft; 1,000 m = 1 km = 3,281 ft = 0.62 mi; 1 mi = 1.61 km = 5,280 ft;  about decibels (dB)]

  • Piatt County, Illinois, Dec. 9, 2020:  46 dBA noise limit outside of homes [link]
  • Ireland, Nov. 24, 2020 [Wind Turbine Regulation Bill reintroduced]:  10× height setback from any dwelling, no shadow flicker at dwelling, noise limits per WHO community noise guidelines [link]
  • Reno County, Kansas, Nov. 19, 2020:  setback from residence greater of 2,000 ft or 4× height [link]
  • Edgar County, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2020:  increased setback 3,250 ft from primary structures [link]
  • Piatt County, Illinois, Oct. 22, 2020 [subject to county board approval]:  increased setback from greater of 1.1× height or 1,600 ft to nonparticipating structure to greater of 1.3× height or 1,600 ft to nonparticipating property line [link]
  • Gage County, Nebraska, Sept. 9, 2020:  increased setback to nonparticipating residence from 3/8 mile to 1 mile [link]
  • Batavia Township, Michigan, Sept. 1, 2020:  height limit 330 ft [link]
  • Reno County, Kansas, Aug. 2020 [proposed]:  40-dB annual average noise limit at any principal building (participating property or not) [link]
  • Hughes County, South Dakota, Aug. 17, 2020:  setback 1/2 mile or 4.9× turbine height from any occupied structure; 45-dB noise limit [link]
  • North Dakota, Mar. 2020 [subject to Attorney General review and approval of legislative Administrative Rules Committee]:  45 dB noise limit 100 ft from residence [link]
  • Fremont County, Iowa, May 2020 [proposed]:  setbacks 1,500 ft from participating residence, 2,000 ft from nonparticating residence, 1,000 ft from nonparticipating property line, 1 mile from incorporated cities, 3 miles from Mississippi River [link]
  • North Dakota, Mar. 2020 [subject to Attorney General review and approval of legislative Administrative Rules Committee]:  45 dB noise limit 100 ft from residence [link]
  • Honolulu (Oahu), Hawaii, Mar. 2020 [subject to full city council approval]:  setback 5 miles from nonparticipating property lines [link]
  • Matteson Township, Michigan, Mar. 4, 2020:  setbacks 1.25 mile from nonparticipating property line, 4× height to any residence; 328-ft height limit; noise limit 45 dB(A) or 55 db(C) at nonparticipating property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; allowed only in general agricultural, light agricultural, and research industrial zoning districts [link]
  • Farmersville, New York, Feb. 10, 2020:  height limit 455 ft, setbacks 3,000 ft to property line or well, 2,000 ft to roads, 1 mile to churches and schools including Amish homes and home schools; noise limit lower of 45 dBA at property line and 45 dBA outside dwelling or ambient + 10 dB(A), 10 dB added to nighttime (10pm–7am) levels; noise measurement specified, including C-weighted; shadow flicker on nonparticipating property limited to 8 hours/year and 1 hour/month; property value guarantee and decommissioning provisions [link]
  • Seville Township, Michigan, Jan. 13, 2020:  1,640-ft setback from nonparticipating property line [link]
  • Farmersville and Freedom, New York, Jan. 6, 2020:  2019 law revoked, reverting from 600-ft height limit, 1.3× height setback at property line, and 50-dBA noise limit to 450-ft height limit.  Proposed [approved Jan. 30, 2020, by Cattaraugus County Planning Board]:  height limit 455 ft, setbacks 3,000 ft to property line, 2,000 ft to roads, 1 mile to churches; noise limit lower of 45 dBA at property line and 45 dBA outside dwelling or ambient + 10 dB(A), 10 dB added to nighttime (10pm–7am) levels; noise measurement specified, including C-weighted; shadow flicker on nonparticipating property limited to 8 hours/year and 1 hour/month; property value guarantee and decommissioning provisions [link]
  • Fell Township, Pennsylvania, Jan. 6, 2020:  setback 5× total height to property line, minimum 1,500 ft; noise limit at property line 45–55 dB, 42–52 dB 10pm–7am [link]
  • Ireland, Dec. 12, 2019 [subject to public consultation]:  setback 4× total height to residences, minimum 500 m; noise limit (L90,10 min) outside sensitive properties (e.g., residences) lesser of 5 dBA above existing 30–38 dBA background noise or 43 dBA, with penalties for tonal noise and amplitude modulation and a threshold for low-frequency noise; no shadow flicker at sensitive properties [link]
  • Sanford, New York, Dec. 10, 2019: setbacks 3× height from all permanent structures and off-site property lines, rights of way, easements, public ways, power lines, gas wells, and state lands, greater of 1,500 ft or 3× height from all off-site schools, hospitals, places of worship, places of public assembly, and residential structures; noise limits at nonparticipating property line of 45 dBA Leq (8-hour), 40 dBA average annual nighttime level, no audible prominent tone, no human-perceptible vibrations, 65 dB Leq at full-octave frequency bands of 16, 31.5, and 63 Hz, and 40 dBA (1-hour) from substation equipment; maximum shadow flicker 30 min/day, 30 h/year [link]
  • Sherwood Township, Michigan, Dec. 5, 2019:  height limit 330 ft; setbacks 5× height to nonparticipating property, 1 mile from village, 2 miles from environmentally sensitive areas [link]
  • Posey County, Indiana, Nov. 25, 2019 [subject to town and County Commission approvals]:  noise limit greater of 45 dB or 5 dB over ambient (L₉₀) at nonparticipating property line more than 10% of any hour; no shadow flicker at nonparticipating residence [link]; Jan. 3, 2021:  10 mi distance from Doppler radar site [link]
  • Madison County, Iowa, Aug. 8, 2019:  Board of Health recommendation of 1.5 mi setback from nonparticipating property line, 2,100 ft from participating property line [link]; Sept. 8, 2019: County Board approves [link]
  • Montgomery County, Indiana, June 10, 2019:  setbacks greater of 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) or 5× height to property line (Board of Zoning Appeals may increase to 3,200 ft) and 1 mi from towns and schools; 32 dB(A) noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; wells within 1 mi to be tested before and after [link]
  • Jasper County, Indiana, May 7, 2019:  setbacks greater of 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) or 6.5× height to nonparticipating property lines and 1 mile from nonparticipating existing residences, platted subdivisions, “institutional land uses” (e.g., schools), Iroquois and Kankakee Rivers, and confined feed lots; 35 dB(A) noise limit at nonparticipating property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating properties [link]
  • Monitor Township, Michigan, effective Apr. 29, 2019:  change of setback from 750 ft to 2,000 ft to nonparticipating or 1,640 ft to participating property line or right-of-way; no shadow flicker or strobe effect on nonparticipating property; no stray voltage; noise limits (Lmax) 45 dBA and 55 dBC at property line or anywhere within neighboring property, no detectable sound pressures of 0.1-20 Hz [link]
  • Worth, New York, Apr. 3, 2019:  setback 5× height to property lines, structures, and roads; 35 dB(A) noise limit during day, 25 dB(A) at night (7pm–7am) [link]
  • Kansas, introduced Feb. 12, 2019 [subject to legislative approval]:  HB 2273: setbacks greater of 7,920 ft (1-1/2 mi) or 12× height from residential property lines or public building, greater of 3 miles or 12× height from any airport, wildlife refuge, public hunting area, or public park, and minimum 1,500 ft from any property line [link]
  • Nebraska, introduced Jan. 16, 2019 [subject to legislative approval]:  LB373: requires hosting counties to have wind ordinances restricting wind turbines within 3 miles of residence without owner’s permission and addressing noise and decommissioning [link]
  • Redfield, New York, Dec. 11, 2018:  setback 5× height to property lines, structures, and roads; 35 dB(A) noise limit during day, 25 dB(A) at night (7pm–7am) [link]
  • Henry County, Indiana, Nov. 14, 2018:  setback 4 miles from town lines: Blountsville, Cadiz, Greensboro, Kennard, Lewisville, Mount Summit, Springport, Straughn, Sulphur Springs, Mooreland [link]
  • Richland, New York, Nov. 13, 2018:  setback 1 mile from property line; height limit 500 ft; 35 dB(A) (for more than 5 minutes) noise limit at residences [link]
  • Adair County, Iowa, Oct. 24, 2018:  setback 2,000 ft to nonparticipating home, 800 ft to property line [link]
  • Kosciusko County, Indiana, Oct. 16 2018:  setback greater of 3,960 ft or 6.5× height to property line, right-of-way, or power line, 1 mile from community or municipality boundary; 32 dB(A) noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; no detectable vibration in nearby structures or that could damage wells; no interference with TV, radio, GPS, etc.; property value guarantees within 2 miles; notification to all within 5 miles [link]
  • Paint Township, Pennsylvania, Aug. 7, 2018:  height limit 335 ft; setback 1.5&times height to buildings and roads, 2,500 ft to property line [link]
  • Greenwood, Maine, Aug. 6, 2018:  added height limit of 250 ft; lowered noise limits at nonparticipating property lines from 55 dB during day and 42 dB at night to, respectively, 35 and 25 dB; increased setback to nonparticipating property lines from 1.5&times height to 1 mile per 100 ft height [link]
  • Dekalb County, Illinois, July 12, 2018 [approved by Board, 19-3, Nov. 21, 2018 (link)]:  setback 6× total height to property line; height limit 500 ft; noise limit of 35 dBA during day (7am–10pm) and 30 dBA at night; no shadow flicker or flash; no radiofrequency or electromagnetic interference [link]
  • North Dakota, July 1, 2018:  decommission and land reclamation plan, cost estimates, and financial assurance required [link]
  • Ingersoll Township, Michigan, May 14, 2018:  [link]
  • Beaver Township, Michigan, May 14, 2018:  setback 4× total height to property line, public roads, and transmission lines; height limit 500 ft; noise limit 45 dBA Lmax or 55 dBC Lmax (or ambient plus 5 dB if greater) at property line [link]
  • Shiawassee County, Michigan, May 8, 2018 [subject to County Board of Commissioners approval]:  setback 3.5× total height to nonparticipating property line (changed from 1.5×); height limit 450 ft (changed from 600 ft); 45 dB noise limit at property line (changed from 55 dB); no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property (changed from 20 hours/year) [link]
  • Almer Township, Michigan, Apr. 2018:  setback 4× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft; 45 dBA noise limit at property line; no shadow flicker on nonparticipating property; decommissioning bond; all concrete to be removed
  • Tennessee, Apr. 24, 2018:  setback 5× total height to nonparticipating property line; height limit 500 ft [link]
  • Miami County, Indiana, Apr. 11, 2018:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,000 ft to property line [link]
  • DeWitt County, Illinois, Apr. 19, 2018:  change of setback from 1,500 ft to 2,000 ft to houses [link]
  • Pierce County, Nebraska, Mar. 26, 2018:  setback 2,700 ft to houses [link]
  • Maroa, Illinois, Mar. 26, 2018:  setback 1.5 miles from city border [link]
  • Hopkinton, New York, Apr. 26, 2018:  setback 5× total height to property line; 40 dBA noise limit at nonparticipating residence [link]
  • Burnside Township, Michigan, Feb. 26, 2018:  change of sound limit to 45 dBA Lmax (maximum) at property line [link]
  • Yates, New York, Feb. 8, 2018:  change of setback to nonparticipating property line from 3× height to greater of 6× height or 1/2 mi; greater of 6× height or 1/2 mi to residences, public rights of way, and boundaries with other towns; 1 mi to village boundaries, schools, churches, and cemeteries; 3 mi from Lake Ontario shoreline (per US Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation); change of noise limit from 45 dBA during day (7am–8pm) and 40 dBA at night to 42 dBA during day and 39 dBA at night (per Vermont Public Service Board recommendation) [link]
  • Somerset, New York, Jan. 29, 2018:  height limit 150 ft; industrial zones only; setback greater of 1/2 mi or 6× height to public roads, property lines, and residences; 3 mi from Lake Ontario shoreline; 42 dBA limit during day (7am–9pm), 35 dBA at night [link]
  • Wabash County, Indiana, Dec. 18, 2017:  32 dBA limit outside of primary structures; no vibrations detectable on nonparticipant property; no shadow flicker on nonparticipant property; setbacks 3/4 mi to nonparticipant residential structure, 1/2  to nonparticipant business structure, 3/8 mi to participant residence, greater of 1,000 ft or 2× height to public roads [link]
  • Rochester, Indiana, Dec. 4, 2017:  setback 3 mi from city limits [link]
  • North Rhine–Westphalia, Germany, 2019 [subject to public comment]:  setback 1.5 km from municipalities; banned from forests [link]
  • Vermont, Nov. 22, 2017:  42 dBA limit 95% of the time 100 ft to nonparticipating residence during day (7am–9pm), 39 dBA at night (9pm–7am; goal to achieve interior sound level of ≤30 dB) [link]
  • Dixfield, Maine, Nov. 7, 2017:  setbacks 2,000 ft to property line, 4,000 ft to occupied building or scenic or special resource; sound limits at property line of 42 dBA at night (7–7), 55 dBA at day within 4,000 ft; 5 dBA added to any average 10-minute sound level in which a tonal sound occurs, 5 dBA added to any average 10-minute sound level in which ≥5 short-duration repetitive sounds occur [link]
  • Clark County, South Dakota, Aug. 14, 2017 [subject to appeal ruling]:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 3,960 ft (3/4 mi) to residences [link]
  • Antelope County, Nebraska [subject to county commission approval]:  change of setback from 2,000 ft to 2,700 ft to nonparticipating residence; maximum of 2 turbines within 4,000 ft of nonparticipating residence [link]
  • Parishville, New York, June 22, 2017:  setback 5× total height to property line; 45 dBA noise limit at nonparticipating residence during day (7am–7pm), 35 dBA at night (7pm–7am) [link]
  • Bethel, Maine, June 14, 2017:  setback 2 miles to property line; 25 dBA limit at property line 7pm–7am, 35 dBA 7am–7pm; height limit 250 ft [link]
  • Walworth County, South Dakota, May 10, 2017:  setback 2 miles to property line [link]
  • Lincoln County, South Dakota, May 2, 2017 [upheld by referendum, July 18, 2017 (link)]:  setback 1/2 mile to homes; 45 dB limit at property line; shadow flicker limits [link]
  • North Dakota, June 5, 2017:  aircraft detection required to minimize lighting at night [link]
  • Clayton County, New York, Apr. 26, 2017:  own use only; setback 5.5× height to property line [link]
  • Livingston County, Illinois, Apr. 20, 2017:  setback to participating homes changed from 1,200 ft to greater of 3,250 ft or 6× height; setback to property line 1,640 ft; state Pollution Control Board noise limits measured at residential property line [link]
  • County Westmeath, Ireland, Jan. 31, 2017:  setbacks from homes 500 m for heights >25 m to 50 m, 1,000 m for heights >50 m to 100 m, 1,500 m for heights >100 m to 150 m, and >2 km for heights ≥150 m [link]
  • Rush County, Indiana, Dec. 16, 2016:  project approved with setback 2,640 ft to nonparticipating property lines and height limit 200 ft [link]
  • Wayne County, Indiana, Dec. 7, 2016:  zoning variance required for every turbine; large turbines not permitted: >100 ft tall, >50 kW, blade sweep >30 ft [link]
  • Hagerstown, Indiana, Nov. 22, 2016:  no structures over 100 ft height within 2 miles of town (extension of airport regulation) [link]
  • Sand Beach Township, Michigan, Oct. 2016 [approved by referendum, 413-80, May 2, 2017 (link)]:  40 dB limit at hosting residences during day, 35 dB at night; 35 dB and 30 dB for nonhosting residences [link]
  • Wabash County, Indiana, Oct. 17, 2016:  32 dBA limit outside of primary structures; shadow flicker at residential and business structures limited to 15 minutes per day, 4 days per year; setback 1/2 mi to nonparticipating residential or business structure [link]
  • Clayton County, New York, Sept. 27, 2016:  setback 1 mile to any structure, roadway, or property line; developers required to pay property owners for any damages or decreases in property value [link]
  • Palo Alto County, Iowa, Sept. 27, 2016:  setback 1,500 ft to dwellings and cemeteries [link]
  • L’Anse Township, Michigan, Aug. 10, 2016:  setback to nonparticipating property line (without easement) changed from 1,000 ft to 2,540 ft; height limit 500 ft [link]
  • County Laois, Ireland, Aug. 5, 2016 [augmented Mar. 29, 2017, by total ban (link)]:  setback 1.5 km to schools, dwellings, community centers, and public roads [link]
  • Newfield, New York, July 24, 2016:  setback 1,760 ft or 3&times blade radius to property line without lease or easement [link]
  • Letcher Township, South Dakota, June 8, 2016; effective July 1, 2016:  setbacks 1 mile to nonparticipating residence and 1,500 ft to property line [link]
  • Poland, May 2016:  setback 10&times total height of turbine to housing [link]
  • Gage County, Nebraska, Mar. 30, 2016:  45 dB limit at nonparticipating properties during day, 40 dB at night (10pm–7am); setback 3/8 mile to nonparticipating residence [link]
  • New Hampshire, Dec. 15, 2015:  sound limits: greater of 45 dBAL90 or 5 dBA above background level during day (8–8), 40 dBA during day, greater of 40 dBAL90 or 5 dBA above background level at night at any temporary or permanent residence; shadow flicker: no more than 8 hours per year at or in any residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, or other occupied building [link]
  • Freedom, Maine, Nov. 17, 2015:  13× height setback to property line, 4× height to public roads, 2,500 ft to special resources; sound limits 5 dBA above preconstruction ambient level, 40 dBA during day, and 35 dBA at night at property line, and 20 dBC above preconstruction ambient dBA level at property line and inside dwellings [link]
  • Lancaster County, Nebraska, Nov. 10, 2015:  sound limits at exterior wall of dwellings 40 dBA and 3 dBA above background (by 10-minute average, Leq,10min) from 7am to 10pm, 37 dBA from 10pm to 7am [link]
  • Boone County, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2015:  change of setback from 1,000 ft to 2,640 ft (1/2 mi) to property line [link]
  • Catlin, New York, July 9, 2015:  sound limit at property line 35 dBA and 5 dBA above background for 5 minutes per hour; setbacks 10× rotor diameter to property line, 4× height to on-site residence [link]
  • Rush County, Indiana, July 1, 2015 (upheld by trial court May 27, 2016, appeals court Feb. 14, 2017, and supreme court May 25, 2017 [link]):  project approved with change of setback to 2,300 ft to residences and property line [link]
  • Peru, Massachusetts, June 6, 2015:  height limit [link]
  • Garden Township, Michigan, June 1, 2015:  35 dBA or 50 dBC limit at property line from 10pm to 6am [link]
  • Iroquois County, Illinois, Apr. 14, 2015:  change of setback to property line from 1,500 ft to 12 rotor diameters [link]
  • Cleburne County, Alabama, Feb. 9, 2015 [needs state approval]:  2,500 ft setback to property line, 40 dB sound limit [link]
  • Pictou County, Nova Scotia, Jan. 5, 2015:  1,000 m setback, 600 m with consent of homeowner [link]
  • Bavaria, Germany, Nov. 21, 2014:  10× height setback to homes, 800 m to other dwellings [link]
  • Adams Township, Michigan, Oct. 2014, affirmed Apr. 13, 2015 [link]:  3,000 ft setback to lines, roads, and homes [link]
  • Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Oct. 8, 2014; repealed under threat of lawsuit May 27, 2015 [link]:  50 dB average, +10 dB peak infrasound limit inside dwellings; 15 dBC or 20 dB infrasound limit over dBA level inside or outside dwellings; amplitude modulation limit indoors of 2 mPa RMS for 10 seconds out of any 40 seconds [link]
  • Mason County, Kentucky, Sept. 30, 2014:  wind turbines >50 kW in already-designated industrial zones only; 1 mile setback of turbines, substations, and maintenance/operation facilities to property line, residences/regularly used buildings, residential zones, rights of way, wetlands, etc.; 30 dBA and 50 dbC limits at property line [link]
  • Buckland, Massachusetts, Sept. 25, 2014:  limits of 250 kW capacity and 120 ft height, setbacks 360 ft to property line and half-mile to off-site residence [link]
  • County Offaly, Ireland, Sept. 15, 2014:  setback 2 km from towns and villages [link]
  • Fairview Township, Pennsylvania, Aug. 4, 2014:  height limit 350 ft, setbacks 1,500 ft to property lines and bodies of water, 1.1× height to roads [link]
  • Dallas County, Iowa, July 29, 2014:  setbacks 2,640 ft from residence, school, hospital, church, or public library, 2 miles from sensitive natural resource areas, wildlife management areas, prairies, wetlands, forested areas, etc.; 30 dBA noise limit at property line of any dwelling, school, hospital, church, or public library [link]
  • County Donegal, Ireland, June 30, 2014 [cancelled by Minister Oct. 6, 2016; reinstated Mar. 27, 2017]:  setback 10× tip height to places of residence or public assembly [link]
  • Ohio, June 16, 2014:  change of setback (1,125 ft from blade tip) to property line (from house) [link]
  • Schoolcraft County, Michigan, June 5, 2014:  setbacks 3,960 ft (3/4-mile) to dwellings and businesses, 1 mile to scenic areas, parks, highways; 35 dB(A) limit at property line, ambient plus 5 dB limit at dwellings [link]
  • Granville, Pennsylvania, May 5, 2014:  setbacks 2,000 ft to property line and participating residence and 2,500 ft to nonparticipating residence, 45 dBA or 45 dBC limit at property line [link]
  • Carteret County, North Carolina, Feb. 26, 2014:  change of setback to 1 mile (from 6× height), plus 275 ft height limit and 35 dB limit at property line [link]
  • County Offaly, Ireland, Sept. 15, 2014:  setback 2 km from towns and villages [link]
    • Eastern Kings, Prince Edward Island, 2013:  setbacks 4× height to participating dwelling, 3,280 ft (1,000 m) to nonparticipating dwelling [link]
    • Saxony, Germany, July 12, 2013:  setback 1,000 m to residence [link]
    • Woodstock, Maine, Mar. 25, 2013:  setback 1 mile to property line; 35 dBA limit at property line 7pm–7am, 45 dBA 7am–7pm [link]
    • Pratt County, Kansas, May 12, 2012:  2,500 ft to residence, or 1,000 ft with permission; maximum sound level at property line 50 dBC [link]
    • Wisconsin, Mar. 15, 2012:  1.1× height to property line, 1,250 ft to any residence [link]
    • Haut-Saint-Laurent, Montérégie, Québéc, Jan. 9, 2013:  2 km setback [link]
    • Denmark, Dec. 15, 2011:  addition of 20 dB low-frequency (10–160 Hz) limit (day and night) inside homes [link]
    • Frankfort, Maine, Dec. 1, 2011:  1 mile setback to property line, noise limits within 2 miles 35 dB day, 25 dB night [link] [repeal rejected Nov. 4, 2014; link]
    • Victoria, Australia, Aug. 29, 2011:  2 km setback without consent of homeowner [link]; reduced to 1 km Mar. 2015 [link]
    • Umatilla County, Oregon, June 28, 2011:  change of setback to 2 miles from “urban grown boundary”, 1 mile from "unincorporated community" zones (from 3,520 ft) [link]
    • Barnstable County (Cape Cod), Massachusetts, Apr. 20, 2011:  10× rotor diameter to property line [link]
    • Centerville Township, Michigan, Aug. 18, 2010:  height limit 199 ft; setback 10× rotor diameter to property line or road; noise limits at property line 35 dBA or 5 dBA above background during day, 3 dBA above background at night, with low-frequency limits and tonality penalty [link]
    • Allegany County, Maryland, enacted Jan. 1, 2010:  setbacks 2,000 ft to homes, 5,000 ft to schools [link]