May 11, 2009

Toronto Star attacks citizens, shills for industrial development

In an article in today's Toronto Star ("Noise protesters howling about windfarms"), Tyler Hamilton reports:
At the moment, however, there's no convincing evidence that wind turbines located a few hundred metres from a dwelling negatively effect health, [Energy and Infrastructure Minister George] Smitherman said. A 2008 epidemiological study and survey, financed by the European Union, generally supports that view.

Researchers from Holland's University of Groningen and Gothenburg University in Sweden conducted a mail-in survey of 725 rural Dutch residents living 17 metres to 2.1 kilometres from the nearest wind turbine.

The survey received 268 responses and, while most acknowledged hearing the "swishing" sound that wind turbines make, the vast majority – 92 per cent – said they were "satisfied" with their living environment.
That survey is available here. Only 26% of the nearby turbines were 1.5 MW or above, and 66% of them were smaller than 1 MW -- whereas the turbines being built now are typically 2-2.5 MW. Furthermore, only 9% of the respondents lived with an estimated noise level from the turbines of more than 45 dB, which is the maximum level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure that the inside level is 30 dB as required for sleeping.

In other words, the survey does not in fact support the view that the turbines being built in Ontario should not be farther from people's homes.

Small wind energy expert Paul Gipe writes in the comments to the article:
There are 74,000 wind turbines in Europe, some 5,600 in Denmark alone. And contrary to many myths, the Danes, German, French, Spanish and others are continue to install thousands more every year.
Again, most of the turbines in Denmark are half the size of those being installed today. And it is a simple fact that Denmark has not added any new wind capacity since 2003. (See Danish Wind Energy Association.) Meanwhile the Spanish industry ministry just last week issued changes to limit the expansion of wind energy. Germany's wind still represents less than 10% of production, and France is just starting to push big wind. People are pushing back in all of these places: see the European Platform Against Windpower.

Finally, the reporter of the Star article, while readily questioning the direct testimony of dozens of individuals about the health effects of wind turbine noise, mentions without question "the positive environmental role that wind power plays in the battle against climate change and air pollution". Where is the data showing this? Where is this reporter's skepticism about that side of the story?

Wind industry advocates like to note, for example, that from 1990 to 2006, Germany's CO2 emissions decreased 13.7% (click here for the latest international data from the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy). Most of that, however, appears to be due to cleaning things up after the unification of east and west. From 1998, when industrial wind energy began to be installed in earnest, CO2 emissions decreased only 1.6%. Considering just Germany's extensive effort to insulate roofs, that figure doesn't suggest much benefit coming from big wind.

In part 2 of this article, published the next day, Hamilton writes about Denmark, "In some years, when CO2 emissions rise slightly, it has little to do with wind." Yet without embarrassment, he presents any drop in emissions as having everything to do with wind! In fact, Danish energy trade, and thus domestic CO2 emissions, varies dramatically year to year. In the same table cited in the preceding paragraph, we see that emissions decreased 16.3% from 2003 to 2005, although no new wind capacity was added in that period. From 2002 to 2003, the last year that wind capacity was added, emissions increased 16.2%.

Again, it is hardly courageous to avoid questioning those with power and to only attack those without.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
link:
Label(s): , , ,

May 8, 2009

Wind Turbine Syndrome

Wind turbine syndrome (WTS) is a cluster of clinical symptoms first formally identified by British physician Amanda Harry, MD, and subsequently given the name Wind Turbine Syndrome and a pathophysiological explanation by New York State behavioral pediatrician Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD.

WTS refers to the discrete constellation of symptoms that some -- not all -- people experience when living near wind turbines, symptoms which Pierpont and other clinicians maintain are caused chiefly by turbine low-frequency noise and vibration and shadow flicker affecting the body's various balance organs, including the utricle and saccule (vestibular organs) of the inner ear. According to Pierpont, people at notable risk for WTS are those with migraine disorder and a history of balance and motion sensitivity (such as car-sickness and sea-sickness).

Both Harry and Pierpont have based their research on clinical case series (defined, in medicine, as a descriptive account of a group of individuals with the same new medical conditions), and both have called for large-scale government-sponsored epidemiological studies to definitively establish WTS as a full-blown disease state. Until that happens, WTS remains, clinically, merely a syndrome.

Symptoms

Pierpont has identified the following cluster of symptoms among many people living near wind turbines. In Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, in press) she explains how these seemingly disparate symptoms result from turbine low frequency noise scrambling the body's balance, motion, and position sensors.
  1. sleep disturbance
  2. headache
  3. tinnitus (pronounced "tinn-uh-tus": ringing or buzzing in the ears)
  4. ear pressure
  5. dizziness (a general term that includes vertigo, lightheadedness, sensation of almost fainting, etc.)
  6. vertigo (clinically, vertigo refers to the sensation of spinning, or the room moving)
  7. nausea
  8. visual blurring
  9. tachycardia (rapid heart rate)
  10. irritability
  11. problems with concentration and memory
  12. panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep
Case reports

British physician Dr. Amanda Harry, in a February 2007 article titled "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health" [1], wrote of 39 people, including residents of New Zealand and Australia, who suffered from the sounds emitted by wind turbines.

Pierpont interviewed 10 families living near large (1.5-3 MW) wind turbines, for a total of 38 people from infants to age 75. People in these families had noticed that they developed new symptoms after the turbines started turning near their homes. They noticed that when they went away, the symptoms went away, and when they came back the symptoms returned. Eight of the 10 families eventually moved away from their homes because they were so troubled by the symptoms.

Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, conducted interviews with 15 people living near the industrial wind energy facility in Mars Hill, Maine. The purpose of the interviews was to investigate and record the health effects on those living within 3,500 feet of industrial-scale turbines.

On March 25, 2009, Dr. Nissenbaum presented his preliminary findings before the Maine Medical Association. The data, which he characterized as alarming, suggest the residents are experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker and noise emissions from the turbines near their homes. The onset of symptoms, including sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, weight changes, possible increases in blood pressure, as well as increased prescription medication use, all appeared to coincide with the time when the turbines were first turned on (December 2006).[2]

On April 22, 2009, Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine of the University of Western Ontario, released a survey conducted on the various wind facilities in Ontario. Of the 76 respondents in the community-based self-survey, 53 people living near different wind power plants reported that industrial wind turbines were having a significant negative impact on their lives. The adverse effects ranged from headaches and sleep disturbance to tinnitus (ringing in the ear) and depression.[3]

In Japan, more than 70 people living near wind turbines have reported ill health. They include residents in Ikata, Ehime Prefecture; Higashi-Izu, Shizuoka Prefecture; Toyohashi, Aichi Prefecture; and Minami-Awaji, Hyogo Prefecture. The Japanese Ministry of the Environment is now studying international data showing a potential link between wind turbines and health problems in surrounding areas to determine a plan of action for Japan. It has also started measuring low-frequency sounds around some wind farms.[4]

Scientific and clinical acceptance and explanation

Dr. Nina Pierpont's report has received peer reviews from the following:
  • Professor Robert May, Baron May of Oxford OM AC Kt FRS. Professor May holds a professorship jointly at Oxford University and Imperial College, London, and is a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. President of the Royal Society (2000-05), Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Head of the UK Office of Science and Technology (1995-2000), and member of the UK Government's Climate Change Committee (an independent body established by the Climate Change Bill, to advise on targets and means of achieving them).

  • F. Owen Black, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Senior Scientist and Director of Neuro-Otology Research, Legacy Health System, Portland, Oregon.

  • Jerome Haller, MD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics (retired 2008), Albany Medical College, Albany, New York.

  • Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons. Former Professor of Otolaryngology, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine (NYC), currently Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.

  • Ralph V. Katz, DMD, MPH, PhD, Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry.

  • Henry S. Horn, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Associate of the Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University.

  • Robert Y. McMurtry, MD, Emeritus Professor and Dean of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario Schulich School of Medicine. In 1999 McMurtry became the first Cameron Visiting Chair at Health Canada -- a post carrying the responsibility for providing policy advice to the Deputy Minister and Minister of Health for Canada. McMurtry is the founding Assistant Deputy Minister of the Population and Public Health Branch of Health Canada.
There are as yet no other reports in published clinical literature linking wind turbines to this set of symptoms. Residents of the U.K., however, presented their experience at the Second International Wind Turbine Noise Conference in Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007.[5] And researchers in Portugal reported at the same conference that the conditions for Vibroacoustic Disease, in which low-frequency vibrations affect heart and lung tissues, were found in homes near wind energy facilities.[6]

Wind Turbine Syndrome, clarifies Pierpont, is not the same as Vibroacoustic Disease. The proposed mechanisms are different, and the noise amplitudes are probably different as well.

Wind Turbine Syndrome, according to Pierpont, is essentially low-frequency noise or vibration tricking the body's balance system into thinking it's moving. The process is mediated by the vestibular system -- in other words, by disturbed sensory input to eyes, inner ears, and stretch and pressure receptors in a variety of body locations. These feed back neurologically onto a person's sense of position and motion in space, which is in turn connected in multiple ways to brain functions as disparate as spatial memory and anxiety. New discoveries about the extreme noise/vibration sensitivity of the vestibular system of the human inner ear were published in Neuroscience Letters in 2008.[7]

Several lines of evidence suggest that the amplitude (power or intensity) of low-frequency noise and vibration needed to create these effects may be even lower than the auditory threshold at the same low frequencies. In othr words, it appears that even low-frequency noise or vibration too weak to hear can still stimulate the human vestibular system, opening the door for the symptoms that Pierpont has called Wind Turbine Syndrome. There is now direct experimental evidence of such vestibular sensitivity in normal humans.

Vibroacoustic Disease, on the other hand, is hypothesized to be caused by direct tissue damage to a variety of organs, creating thickening of supporting structures and other pathological changes. The suspected agent is high-amplitude (high power or intensity) low-frequency noise. Given Pierpont's research protocol, her study is unable to demonstrate whether wind turbine exposure causes the types of pathologies found in Vibroacoustic Disease, although there are similarities that may be worthy of further clinical investigation, especially regarding asthma and lower respiratory infections.

Against this growing evidence, the wind industry insists that no problem exists or that it is so rare as to be of little consequence. The Canadian Wind Energy Association, for example, cites a set of articles in the June 2006 issue of Canadian Acoustician as refutation of serious health effects from wind turbine noise. Besides the fact that they are not medical articles, they do not conclude that there is no evidence of health problems.[8] Although the wind industry denies that wind turbine noise is intrusive, let alone a health problem, it also fights against noise regulations that would ensure that to be the case.

In the United States, George Kamperman, INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engineering) Board Certified noise control engineer, and Rick James, INCE Full Member, have documented significantly increased levels and the unique character of noise from industrial-sized wind turbines. To ensure the World Health Organization recommendation of no more than 30 dB(A) inside a bedroom and that low-frequency noise be limited, they recommend that large wind turbines be sited at least 2 kilometers from homes.[9] Similarly, the Noise Association of the U.K. and the French Academy of Medicine recommend a distance of 1 mile or 1.5 kilometers, respectively.[10][11]

This is still an emerging phenomenon, but the evidence is clearly accumulating in support of Dr. Pierpont and others' observations of a clear clinical pattern of ill effects caused by large wind turbines.

References
  1. Harry, Amanda (February 2007). "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health". http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/wtnoise_health_2007_a_harry.pdf.

  2. Nissenbaum, Michael (March 2009). "Mars Hill Wind Turbine Project Health Effects -- Preliminary Findings". http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/nissenbaum-mars-hill.pdf.

  3. "Ontario Health Survey Exposes the Wind Industry". http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/ontario-health-survey-exposes-the-wind-industry/.

  4. "Something in the Wind as Mystery Illnesses Rise". http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200902060054.html.

  5. Davis, Julian; and Davis, Jane (September 2007). "Noise Pollution from Wind Turbines". http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/noise-pollution-from-wind-turbines/.

  6. Alves-Pereira, Mariana; and Castelo Branco, Nuno (September 2007). "In-Home Wind Turbine Noise is Conducive to Vibroacoustic Disease". http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/in-home-wind-turbine-noise-is-conducive-to-vibroacoustic-disease/.

  7. Todd, Neil; et al. (October 17, 2008). "Vibration Sensitivity of the Vestibular System of the Human Inner Ear". http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.08.011.

  8. "Deconstructing CanWEA Health Claims". http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/deconstructing-canwea-health-claims/.

  9. Kamperman, George; and James, Rick (July 2008). "Simple Guidelines for Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks". http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/simple-guidelines-for-siting-wind-turbines-to-prevent-health-risks/.

  10. Noise Association, U.K. (July 2006). "Location, Location, Location: Investigation into wind farms and noise". http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/UKNA-WindFarmReport.pdf.

  11. Chouard, Claude-Henri; for the French Academy of Medicine (March 14, 2006). "Repercussions of wind turbine operations on human health" [in French]. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/FrAcadMed-eoliennes.pdf.
Testimony: diaries, letters, and interviews
News reports
Petition: 2 km setback of industrial wind turbines from homes

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
link:

Tax and income inequalities: insult upon injury

A letter in the May 7 (Woodstock) Vermont Standard expressed the opinion that the rich are unduly taxed to support the poor. I will ignore the absurd accusations implying that the poor have chosen to be so and that even the obscenely rich are justly rewarded for uniquely hard work and wise decisions. And I will ignore the other question raised of whether sharing the risk of what afflicts all of us equally, such as ill health, is not the mark of a civilized society.

The writer cited Congressional Budget Office figures showing that 39% of federal income tax is paid by the top 1% of household incomes, 61% by the top 5%, and 99% by the top 40%.

Actually, the CBO report (April 2009) says that (in 2006) the top 1% paid only 28% of all federal (not just income) taxes, the top 5% paid 45%, and the top 40% paid 86%.

This may still appear to be unfair to those who think the poor should be soaked as much as those who can more easily pay, because the top 1% represented only 20% of all household income (ignoring the fact that they owned about 34% of all wealth and 42% of all financial wealth), the top 5% 32%, the top 40% 75%.

But another way to look at it is how those income proportions change after taxation. After taxes, the top 1% were down from 20% to 16% of all income, the top 5% from 32% to 28%, and the top 40% from 75% to 72%. Meanwhile, the share of the bottom 20% rose from 4% to 5% and the bottom 60% from 25% to 28%.

That's hardly a turning of the tables.

In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data, the real turning of the tables appears to have occurred 30 years ago. From 1947 to 1979, family incomes rose by nearly equal percentages across quintiles: an average of 108%, ranging from 99% to 116%. But from 1979 to 2005, the family income of the bottom 20% declined 1%, that of the middle 20% increased 25%, and that of the top 5% increased 81%.

Progressive taxation helped the bottom 20% somewhat, so that their after-tax income rose 6% from 1979 to 2005, according to the CBO. But the middle 20% lost out, with their after-tax income increasing 21% compared with the pretax increase of 25%. And belying the claim that the rich support their less fortunate compatriots, the top 5% saw their after-tax income rise by 106%, compared with the pretax increase of 81%. The average pretax income of the top 0.01% rose by 484%, while their after-tax income rose by 742%.

It appears that the middle class is paying more than their fair share and the rich less and less towards keeping our country whole.

human rights, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
link:

CO2 emissions of countries with the most wind energy

Denmark, Spain, and Germany have the most wind energy capacity as a proportion of total electricity generation.

Denmark's wind plant was built from 1996 to 2003. Spain has built steadily since 2000, and Germany since 1998.

According to data from the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, in the International Energy Annual 2006, with data updated in December 2008 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls):
  • Denmark's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions decreased 14.9% from 1996 to 2003. The trend of Denmark's emissions is hard to follow, however, because year-to-year energy imports vary a great deal. CO2 emissions were 57.41 million metric tons in 1990, 72.07 in 1996, 75.07 in 1997, 53.36 in 2002, 62.02 in 2003, 51.93 in 2005 (a 16.3% decrease since 2003 with no new wind capacity), and 59.13 in 2006.

  • Spain's CO2 emissions increased 14.0% from 2000 to 2006, 57.3% since 1990.

  • Germany's CO2 emissions decreased only 1.4% from 1998 to 2006. From 1990 to 1998 (before large-scale wind installation), they decreased 11.9%.
The belief that wind energy is an effective means of reducing carbon emissions is not well supported by these figures.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
link:

May 6, 2009

Wind: The next battlefront

Janice Harvey, president of the New Brunswick Green Party, writes in today's Telegraph-Journal:

It’s as predictable as the wind. Now that big utilities and corporations have grabbed hold of wind energy, the controversies begin.

The first complaints were of the visual impact of wind farms on their landscapes and waterscapes. Now a new concern is emerging. People who live near wind turbines are complaining of health problems such as sleep disorders, migraines, tinnitus, equilibrium problems, depression and anxiety attacks, and in children, learning disabilities. A 2008 California study and a 2007 British study have dubbed the “wind turbine syndrome,” an effect on the inner ear by low energy noise from the turbines. There may also be an effect from air pressure changes from the turning turbines.

I first heard of this last year. A CBC radio documentary featured a family in southwestern Nova Scotia driven out of their home by the new wind installation nearby. Their story demonstrated, as do all the similar stories that are cropping up around the world, that we have learned nothing from the past century of hyper-industrialization. Regardless of technology or intention, scale and intensity matter. Indeed, it has been the vast scale and intensity of industrialization that has pushed the impact of economic development way beyond any reasonable thresholds of ecological and human tolerance. (For an eye-opening read on this topic, check out J. N. McNeill’s Something New under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th Century).

In the wind farm case, scale and intensity imply squeezing as much energy as possible out of each unit, and locating as many units on as large a portion of the landscape as possible. This results in mind-boggling dimensions for both individual turbines and wind farms.

The third leg of this stool is the pervasive pro-development bias within regulatory agencies, which ultimately expresses itself as a dismissive attitude towards public concerns. I’ve heard the story of the Nova Scotia family a thousand times. They are suffering real health problems as recounted above. The company’s response? They followed all the rules; no studies have proven a direct link between wind turbines and health effects; their own noise monitoring revealed levels below probable health effects. The bureaucrats echo the company line: the environmental impact assessment was done, no effects predicted. Therefore, there must be no effects. The family must be imagining their symptoms or, if they had them, they couldn’t possibly be connected to the new kid on the block — the wind turbine.

This contemptuous attitude is being repeated all over the world where these mega-wind farms are being built. The technology may have changed, but the business of doing business is the same. The companies circle the wagons and the government rides shotgun.

It doesn’t have to be that way. All governments, including Canada’s, present at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil endorsed the precautionary principle as an alternative to the conventional risk-based approach to environmental management. The precautionary approach states that the lack of scientific proof is not a justification for inaction in protecting against potential harm. Using this approach, the government simply needs to establish siting requirements for wind farms that assume there is a potential for health effects associated with the large-scale interference with air currents. These requirements would establish a mandatory setback from any dwelling based on the growing body of evidence of health impacts and incorporating a good margin of error. Such setback would be adjusted as more research is done.

There should also be a limit on the number of hectares that can be covered in any one location. If humans are being affected by changes in air pressure and noise, so are animals. The larger the wind farm footprint, the more habitat is being removed for some species.

In this current economic system, being precautionary would make wind farms “uneconomic.” We need a new business model in which people and the ecosystems on which all life depend come first. No more cost-benefit analyses in which economic benefits to some come at the expense of others. No more pollution- and illness-based profits. If governments need to offset the extra cost of truly green power while the economy is transformed from an exploitative to a protective model, so be it.

Wind developers and regulatory agencies have a choice. Either take these emerging issues seriously now and change the way the industry develops, or face inevitable and justified hostility at every turn. Wind developments need to be appropriately scaled and located well away from human habitation.

Everything has limits, even renewable energy developments. Until we learn that lesson, we will continue to make big mistakes.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
link:

May 3, 2009

It's time to reject wind

To the Editor, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press:

If wind energy had not been prominent in the news for several years, the Free Press might not be faulted in asserting that a balance can be found between impacts and benefits from industrial wind facilities on Vermont ridgelines (editorial, Apr. 26).

But while they appear to be open to discussing impacts and presumably how best to minimize them, they ignore the fact that the benefit from -- and thus the need for -- industrial-scale wind energy remains debatable.

The Free Press pleads for energy self-sufficiency, as if Vermont were not a part of the New England grid and does not also have connectors to New York and Quebec (with the latter providing a third of our electricity). Self-sufficiency may be a laudable goal, but large-scale wind energy would make Vermont more dependent, not less, on outside sources to fill in for the intermittent, highly variable, nondispatchable, and significantly unpredictable production from wind.

Rather than face the facts about wind energy (besides its utter lack of documented benefit, its substantial environmental and health impacts are also by now well known), the Free Press resorts to name-calling.

To imply that those who have actually researched this technology "say 'no' merely because of nimbyism" or are engaged in "resistance for the sake of resistance" is not only insulting and projects an attitude that does not encourage working together. The attempt to shut out dissenting voices also reveals the emptiness of the editors' reasoning.

Vermont would no longer be a "green" state if it flouted its own protection of the ridgelines only because wind energy salesmen have convinced so many that their product is above questioning. If one or two or five arrays of giant wind turbines are allowed, when will it stop? Why? The right thing to do is to ask those questions before, not after, the damage is done.

It is hardly a sign of leadership to jump onto a juggernaut. Vermonters can lead by thinking for themselves and finally rejecting the false idol of industrial wind energy.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
link:

April 29, 2009

Oil produces only 1% of U.S. electricity

Oil is still sometimes raised in attempts to push wind energy, as running out, making us dependent on unpleasant trade, polluting. Most people know by now that oil is not an important part of the overall electricity debate (it is significant only in some localities, especially islands, that rely on diesel generators).

Less than 2% of the oil used in the U.S. is used for electricity production, generating only 1% of our electricity.

The source for these figures is the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy ~~

Electric Power Monthly: in 2008, gigawatt-hours:
from petroleum liquids: 31,162
from petroleum coke: 14,192
from all sources: 4,110,259
percent from petroleum: 1.10

Annual Energy Review: in 2007, million of barrels per day:
of crude oil imports: 10.02
of crude oil production: 5.10
of other net imports: 5.48
used for electric power: 0.29 (1.40%)

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
link:
Label(s):
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)