ELLSWORTH, Maine — A study panel of health and environmental experts commissioned by the state of Massachusetts found insufficient evidence to support claims that noise from commercial wind turbines directly cause health problems or disease.
But the report, which is garnering attention from both advocates for and opponents of grid-scale wind power in Maine, cautioned that not all potential side effects of living near turbines are fully understood.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Public Health commissioned the study panel in response to concerns that noise, vibrations and “shadow flicker” from spinning turbines can cause health problems in some people.
While Maine is New England’s largest producer of wind power, Massachusetts has set an ambitious goal of generating 2,000 megawatts of electricity from wind by 2020. And as in Maine, the move to develop wind farms has sparked debate over whether living or working near a 400-foot-tall turbine can affect a person’s health.
After reviewing scientific literature on the topic, the panel of seven scientists determined that “there is insufficient evidence that noise from wind turbines is directly (i.e., independent from an effect on annoyance or sleep) causing health problems or disease.” The panel included Dr. Dora Anne Mills, the former head of the Maine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could
be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome,’” the authors added, using a phrase used by critics of the wind power industry around the world.
The available scientific literature, however, was less clear or too incomplete on other potential impacts, the panel wrote in the January 2012 report.
For instance, the authors noted that while available science shows that “infrasound” — low-frequency pressure waves created by the massive blades spinning through the air — does not impact the vestibular system that contributes to balance and spatial orientation, the effects of infrasound on the inner ear are not fully understood.
The report also acknowledged that there is some evidence to suggest noise from wind turbines can affect sleeping patterns — a complaint made by some Maine residents living near wind farms in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven.
“In other words, it is possible that noise from some wind turbines can cause sleep disruption,” the report stated. “Whether annoyance from wind turbines leads to sleep issues or stress has not been sufficiently quantified. While not based on evidence of wind turbines, there is evidence that sleep disruption can adversely affect mood, cognitive functioning, and overall sense of health and well-being.”
The report stated that “limited scientific evidence” exists suggesting that so-called “shadow flicker” created by sunlight reflecting off of or being blocked by the spinning blades can cause annoyance as well as cognitive or other health effects after prolonged exposure.
The authors also urged Massachusetts regulators to adopt statewide setback standards and decibel levels while recommending that wind power developers minimize the “annoyance” factor by engaging the public in the process.
Not surprisingly, people on both sides of the debate over commercial wind power in Maine seized on parts of the report to support their arguments.
“For us, this is further confirmation that the questions about health impacts from wind power in Maine have been answered time and time again,” said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, an industry trade group. “We are hoping that the folks concerned about this [issue] will acknowledge that there are no known impacts.”
The report’s authors acknowledged repeatedly that turbines can cause “annoyance” in neighbors. But Payne said he doesn’t believe the wind power industry — or many others, for that matter — will ever be able to eliminate the potential to annoy or irritate some people. He said the industry has changed practices to address concerns, however.
“I think the industry will continue to adapt and make changes if and when there is scientific and medical research to dictate that,” Payne said.
The industry’s critics see things differently.
Dr. Monique Aniel, a retired radiologist who is co-chair of the Citizen Task Force on Wind Power, pointed to the report’s careful wording on the possibility of turbine noise disrupting sleep.
“In other words, many people in this country and worldwide testified that wind turbine noise disturbs their sleep, but they have not been the subject of large controlled studies, so their testimony is ignored,” Aniel said.
Chris O’Neil, who represents the organization Friends of Maine’s Mountains at legislative hearings and during proceedings with regulators, wrote in an email that while “sleep disturbance may or may not be a direct cause of disease … it certainly does not enhance one’s health and well being.”
O’Neil also pointed out that the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, after holding lengthy hearings on the issue of turbine noise, voted last year to lower the maximum noise levels at nearby houses during evening hours to 42 decibels. That was still higher than O’Neil and other critics wanted, but he said it shows the board recognized turbine noise can impact neighbors.
Both O’Neil and Aniel also criticized Dr. Dora Anne Mills’ service on the panel because she has said publicly that she has seen no scientific evidence of adverse health effects from turbine noise apart from annoyance. Mills is now vice president for clinical affairs at the College of New England.
Actually if you read the article carefully you’d conclude just the opposite. “Studies” don’t actually state any facts just an opinion. However, actual testimony by people effected by turbine noise are ignored. Kind of makes you wonder doesn’t it????
What about the actual testimony of the vast majority of people who live and work near them that have no problem at all? Should we ignore the benefits to the many because of the annoyance of a few? There is no such thing as energy use without impacts. Context is important, in fact, critical to decision making in these matters.
There are those Skitziods with Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder that if ANYTHING Changes around them it’s the “End of the World.” They will obsess over it until they Make themselves Sick, then blame the object of their obsession.
I’m just surprised there are so many with this combination of mental afflictions in Maine.
Maybe it has a genetic defect link? Should have a study done on that. The results would be interesting to say the least.
Well, aren’t you friendly? Guess those “Skitzoids” should just move away from the turbines. Only problem with that is that we will need to put turbines on every square inch of planet in order to make any kind of progress. This is one of the biggest problems with this industry – making people be this miserable to their fellow man. Nice.
“This is one of the biggest problems with this industry – making people be this miserable to their fellow man. Nice.”
As a citizen of New York, you must know that your state is filled with mercury contamination. You have 48 coal-fired power plants which undoubtedly contribute mercury emissions not only to your own end of the state, but which also spew on us here in Maine to the point where every lake in Maine is contaminated with mercury. Your state has issued warnings about eating your fresh water fish due to the mercury poisoning caused by your coal-fired plants as well as those plants to the west of you. I know that the warnings about mercury contamination of fresh water fish are quite stark here in Maine. Personally, rather than have to watch Maine become even more contaminated with your mercury emissions, I’d be happy to see NY mandate thousands of more windmills in your state to keep your filthy dirty emissions off of us. Such a mouth you have about what we should do in Maine to “protect our environment” from the wind industry. You have enough to worry about in your own filthy state in terms of environmental degradation.
Still haven’t seen any environmental degradation in my area. I can’t speak for the millions of people in the cities here – I don’t live in one. I hope you get your way and you can have a wind project near your home. Hopefully you will get “habituated” to the incessant noise. Hopefully you’re a sound sleeper. I hope those who have stories are wrong and just like to complain for no apparent reason. My personal experience with this industry hasn’t been good. I hope yours is. I will work on the mercury. Singlehandedly take on all of coal in MY state if it will be less harmful to you and your family. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, and I’m very sorry if my personal opinion regarding my right to not have turbines near my family offends you. I’ll try and keep my “filthy” state to myself and I’ll own up to all the trouble the city has caused you. Sorry for my wrongdoing. But please, at least look carefully at the ancedotal experiences of these poor people. They deserve a voice.
the people working around the turbines have the opportunity to go a long ways away to get their rest. Not living 24/7 around them. Turbines moved into the neighborhood, not people moving next to turbines.
There are “no benefits to the many” without much higher rates for all and huge taxpayer subsidies. The pourest among us and business can ill afford this crazy rush to ungreen energy. Wind turbines are ungreen because there is little or no reduction in CO2 after enormous expense…see my longer comment below. Also, the manufacturing of the huge neodymium magnet in each industrial turbine results in a higher release of radiation into the environment than a nuke plant puts out over several years. But that’s happening in Mongolia, so why should we care? If you do care, it gets worse. The government is allowing for the reopening of a rare earths mine in a California pass to meet demand. That mine was previously closed becaue it was an envirmnmental mess. The more you learn about industrial wind generation, the worse it gets.
Last time I looked at a physics book, electricity generation of all kinds requires magnets. At least renewables don’t require coal mines, or oil and gas wells. But do send your sources about these neodymium mines.
Wind turbines kilowatt hours replace fossil generation on a one to one basis.
It does? How? Can you give me some facts? Really hadn’t realized how efficient you think these are. Please explain.
Basic physics. Spinning a coil of wires between the poles of a magnet produces an electric current. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
As far as replacement of fossil generation goes it comes down to the physical nature of electricity again. Any grid system needs to maintain a constant balance of electrical supply and electrical use. Independent system operators (ISO) make sure this is always the case by managing supply and demand. They keep really good data and can forecast demand in advance. They run auctions that electrical generators bid into for the opportunity to sell their electrons to meet the forecasted demand. They are constantly monitoring the supply and electrical use. If a generator fails they need back up to come on line instantaneously – always have always will. So, they keep the equivalent of the largest generator running and ready to connect to the grid at any time. This is the “spinning reserve” others mention. Currently wind is such a small percentage of generation that it relies on the existing spinning reserve for much larger power plants. Generators online can also change the amount of power they produce if necessary to meet changing wind conditions. SO, it isn’t fair to count the emissions of this spinning reserve against windpower exclusively. It is an emission that is part of the large scale grid we all depend on.
Back to the idea of the constant balance and the auction. Wind power, hydro power, solar power and nuclear power have such tiny marginal costs to operate (meaning once they are built, they are cheap to operate on a day to day basis) that they bid into the auction at ZERO cost. WHich means that when they are available to operate (not being fixed, there is wind/water/solar energy to capture), they ALWAYS do. Everyone ends up taking the price of the last generator the ISO accepts into the daily auction. Meaning that once all the supply forecasted has been met, the auction is closed and the highest bid asked to make electricity for everyone sets the price. Anyone that bid higher than that DOESN’T MAKE ELECTRICITY. This means THEY DO NOT BURN FOSSIL FUEL. The more sources of ZERO cost electricity entering at the bottom of the auction, the fewer higher bids needed to fill the demand.
Hope this helps.
once they are built………with our tax dollar. 3MW of power traveling miles and miles means no real power.
So, the studies are moot because it will take thousands and thousands of turbines to replace a small hydro plant. Too much real estate. No electricity made.
Saddleback Ridge Wind will have 3MW of power generation and destroy the health and welfare of over 100 citizens.
There is no fair way for these companies to expand and not destroy lives.
Sorry to be so blunt Alice, but you are speaking nonsense.
Yes, there is some line loss when electricity (any electricity) travels long distances. But not enough to make transmission of power uneconomic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
Lives destroyed? You exaggerate and show a complete lack of context in regards to energy generation impacts. Go talk to the people who used to live near Fukushima or to folks near mountain top removal coal mines. Or check out the issues with Fracking of natural gas. Far worse…
How do you know how much worse it was for them? Driving you out of your mind slowly isn’t that bad apparently? So YOU say. The EXPERT says. Why don’t you ask some of those people how bad it is for them? Oh – because you clearly don’t care about what this wonderful industry does to people.
“Driving you out of your mind slowly isn’t that bad apparently?”
There are people here in Maine who say that 25 decibels is an acceptable level of noise from a windmill. That level is slightly above the loudness of a ticking watch. Many reasonable citizens have decided with their votes that this is an unrealistic threshold, and that there is not enough medical evidence to conclude that a ticking watch causes enough of a health risk to deny landowners the right to develop their own property.
What about the rights of those who have to suffer the impacts of landowners exercising their “right” to develop their own property? I would like to develop my property too – but if a wind project goes up behind me, who would want to purchase a home in my development?
I do care about people. I have heard directly from people who claim to be affected by turbine noise and find them to be good story tellers with a lot of emotional appeal. But my firsthand experience near wind turbines combined with the work of panel’s like this one tells me that they are way overplaying their hands. I have no doubt that there are some people that are annoyed by turbines. But I do not believe that their health is being impacted by the turbines as much as it is by their obsessive focus on them.
Radiation on the other hand causes cancer.
thousands and thousands of GRID scale Turbines will replace one small hydro plant…..as fas as the eye can see….where do u live?
I live in Maine and you are exaggerating again. Kibby, the currently the largest wind project in Maine has a higher nameplate capacity than each of the largest hydro projects on the Kibby. 132 MW vs. ~85MW. 44 wind turbines.
Is that fact based information or WIND company fact based information? Trust me, there is a vast difference…
“Trust me…”
Why should anyone trust you?
Excuse me on the “Kennebec” is what I meant.
http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf…/Maine_Kennebec.pdf
Is there proof the wind project is actually producing the promised capacity? Better do more homework…
Would your context change if your family were negatively impacted by this industry? Check out the efficiency facts surrounding this industry. It is 60% overcast where I live. Solar is still proving to be much more efficient than wind here. Shouldn’t we invest in what works the best? Solar isn’t causing any negative impacts at all that I’ve heard of. Yes it’s more expensive, however does it make sense to keep nickel and diming an industry that isn’t nearly as effective? Think of those “Tide” commercials – even though it’s more expensive, it’s also more efficient so it saves us money in the long run. And solar can do so without hurting anyone.
Solar is a good idea for sure. Getting cheaper all the time. We need wind AND solar. It can be sunny when the wind isn’t blowing.
THe point of the article you are commenting on is that WIND DOESN’T HURT ANYONE.
Why not ask the familes who suffer from wind turbine syndrome if it doesn’t hurt anyone? We had the 3rd turbine in a new project burn this weekend. It was 460 feet tall and the setbacks from property lines for that project was 500 feet. How many towns have fire hoses that reach 460 feet in the air? When that turbine falls over like the other one did, hopefully there won’t be a house in the way. Hopefully there won’t be someone driving on the road when it falls. There are many many threats from this industry – just not a lot of information available to you apparently.
“There are many many threats from this industry – just not a lot of information available to you apparently.”
The available information shows that your arguments amount to little more than Chicken Little waiting for the sky to fall (which I believe you admit about the sky in one of your two dozen posts here today).
Anti-wind activists that I’ve talked to tell me that there have been around 300 recorded cases of turbine fires in the last 20 years. The number is miniscule compared to the numbers of fires attributed, for instance, to children playing with cigarette lighters, which accounts for approximately one million fires per year around the globe, according to a study conducted by the University of California in 2000. Lastly, try to name any significantly sized fire caused by wind turbines and the number shrinks to insignificance. The issue is another case of fear mongering put forth by people who will do anything to continue this nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Each region will have to rely on different types of green energy. There is on ‘one size fits all’ type of green energy production.
In your area maybe hydro or geothermal is a better source of green energy. In a arid or semi-arid area it would be better to use solar power, for example.
That’s true, but as windy as it supposedly is 463 feet over my head, it still only produces a miniscule amount of energy. Would you be interested in fracking in your area? Probably suitable to your area – how about a turbine in your back yard? We could play what goes where all we want but these companies will move in and take over if you’re not careful.
I happen to live in Central Maine so I don’t think I have to worry about fracking but I am against fracking in any area because of the damage to the rock stratus and polution of ground water. Plus, I would rather not see flames coming out of my faucet.
I happen to think wind power is better suited to off shore farms or wind farms that are not near heavily populated areas but that may not be entirely feasible.
“Would your context change if your family were negatively impacted by this industry?”
Your state of New York is already negatively impacted by mercury emissions from coal fired power plants. Is your context changing? No… you appear to be quite happy with the status quo. Here is the status quo, according to the Citizen’s Campaign for the Environment:
“Significant levels of mercury and other toxins are found in water bodies throughout New York State and Connecticut, although much of this pollution comes from out of state sources. In order to protect public health and the environment from mercury exposure in NY and CT, strong rules are needed at the federal level.
Strong federal rules to reduce mercury contamination are necessary to:
Protect women and children’s health. A pregnant woman passes the toxin on to her fetus or infant, which in turn can impair her baby’s ability to walk, talk, and learn. Children and infants are more susceptible to mercury contamination because their bodies are smaller and still developing.
Prevent the continued poisoning of our food supply. Consuming fish is an inexpensive and nutritious component to any diet, unless those fish are contaminated. Nearly all shellfish and finfish contain mercury, demonstrating how widespread mercury contamination is throughout the environment Furthermore, methyl mercury, the particularly toxic form of mercury, accumulates in the tissue of large predator fish, like tuna, swordfish, and shark. Children eat more tuna fish than other species of fish!
The New York State Department of Health has issued fish advisories warning women and children to either eliminate or significantly limit their consumption of fish due to unsafe mercury levels in 63 different bodies of water.”
Still didn’t answer my question. Would you feel differently if it were YOUR family? Put them up in your back yard – lets do an experiment. Can’t sleep? No? It that a problem for you? I catch fish here all the time and feed them to my children. There are NO warnings otherwise in my area. Sorry.
Tobacco was declared non-deleterious to
ones health for years by the tobacco lobby.
It was deemed that there was no
definitive peer research to claim that there was a connection to
cancer caused illness.
Opponents and sufferers of metastatic
illness suffered for years because of the lies perpetrated by the
industry.
Peer reviewed studies were denied to be
scientifically valid by the lobby.
Testifiers were squelched by legal
maneuvers, non-disclosure actions, squelch clauses and massive
financial opposition .
Significant facts and truthful research
were marginalized.
Now, many Wind Complex abutters must
vacate their properties for their health and well being.
The industry denies any health
impacts. Infra-sound noise is declared non-harmful.
The affected are marginalized.
They must suffer financial costs of
property loss. They must fight a huge corporate structure against teams
of lawyers , supported by an inept and biased DEP and
Health bureaucracy.
Settlements when made are under
non-disclosure clauses to avoid deleterious publicity to the
industry.
The opposition is called NIMBY and
delusional.
However , just as with the factual
connection that was made of tobacco to cancer, wind turbines will be
connected to health impacts and human damage if improperly placed.
Valid research does exist, but is denied.
The history of this kind of corporate abuse of power repeats itself,the truth is ignored.
Lies have a way of being overcome by
the truth.
It is wonderful to see the Wind Shills and Industry out in force today.
They are in the fighting stage, the one before THEY LOSE!
You are making a huge leap here from tobacco and asbestos to windpower. Yet you neglect to mention the possibility of corporate abuse of power related to fossil fuels. There are HUGE flows of money to be lost when the world switches to renewable. Think about it.
When “Renewables’ are throttled back after this election, wind will blow away.
If you think any of the clowns on the GOP debate stage are going to remove Obama from office, you’re even more deluded than I at first thought. By the time they get done trashing each other, there won’t be anything left of them for Obama to trash.
Couldn’t be more true. Government funds are being used for this privately owned industry. How scary would it be if the government subsidized tobacco companies? Same thing. Don’t sink this ship in the name of “green” when the only ones benefitting will be the private companies who feed us the lies.
“How scary would it be if the government subsidized tobacco companies?”
More hysteria from the anti-windys. The big difference here is that the surgeon general has determined through scientific research that tobacco is a carcinogen. Your claims of diseases and illnesses caused by windmills is not only unsupported by any significant scientific data, it is also refuted outright by many reputable doctors, including many who practice here in Maine as upstanding members of the Maine Medical Association. By the way, why are you so unconcerned about the dangers of the 48 coal-fired power plants that belch mercury over New York and New England every day? Now, there’s a collection of private companies that are benefiting quite handsomely from government subsidies, yet you have nary a word of rebuke for them.
Never said I likes anything about coal. Can’t recall that nope. How do you think the surgeon general determined to even conduct the scientific research? Ancedotal evidence. When you smoke, you get sick. When turbines affect your sleep, you develop symptoms. When you leave the area where the turbines are, you sleep and the symptoms go away. Very scientific.
Great point. Someone needs to give impacted families a voice. Why would they make this stuff up?
If you read the Report, you will find that the “study” based its findings on the selection of specific Surveys where it was deemed that repsondents fairly represented a sampling of the community at large. Both the surveys in Vinalhaven and Mars Hill were dismissed because they were not deemed random. Other Surveys were dismissed because they were not deemed to have been conducted with sufficient controls (some people felt better when they moved away from the turbines). In other words, we have a Report by scientific types (in order to add credibility) which analyzes polls and draws conclusions of real health effects based on those polls. The next time you go to your doctor your diagnosis will be based on a survey filled out by your peers.
No where in the Report are the technical attributes of the wind turbines differentiated. The Surveys used were based almost exclusively on units less than 600 kilowatts in size while the dismissed Surveys involved turbines 1,500 – 2,000 kilowatts.
There has been no comprehensive clinical study done anywhere on the health affects of noise and vibrations. Labratories do not test animals because such testing is considered cruel. The Report finally goes off mission when they justify the turbines because the authors assert it will reduce CO2 emissions. The only people making this claim are the wind industry and they have no data to back it up.
Fairly? Why not ask those already living in these conditions how “fair” this “study” was? The editorial titled “to pee or not to pee on peer review” is very cognizant of how accurate these “studies” are.
Ask Mary Todd about the Industry forced non-disclosure clauses.
But more suits are pending.
“Why would they make this stuff up?”
Some anti-windys claim that sounds that are slightly louder than the ticking of a watch are bothersome to them. That’s all it takes for some people to make up stuff.
Ok, but the question was “why would they make this stuff up”. What do “anti-windys” have to gain from making this stuff up? If sounds are bothersome to people, should they be forced to live with the sounds in their own home?
Annoyance is subjective – “in the ears of the beholder” if you will. Ask any business owner near an air force base and they will tell you the the much louder (in decibels) and stinkier (in burnt jet fuel) is the sound and smell 0f freedom (and money from base employees).
Think of it this way: to someone of my generation the sound of wailing rock guitar feedback is art, while the sound of rap/hip hop is crap; for my kids the guitar noise is dinosaur dung, while the rap is “totally awesome”.
So I am sure some people who live near big turbines find them annoying, just like some people who live near airports find them annoying.
Most likely the people who liveor work near airports chose to do so. Not the case here chief. I think most people probably find you annoying. Just saying.
“Most likely the people who liveor work near airports chose to do so.”
When the noise from the refueling jets in Bangor became an “around the clock” phenomenon due to the new war in Iraq, there were no widespread claims of illnesses as a result. Also, whether you choose to live near an airport or not, one would think that noise hazards to human health would effect one and all.
As another poster has mentioned, it makes sense that there is a threshold at which the proximity to a windmill will cause extreme annoyance, just as living inside a jet engine test hangar would cause extreme annoyance. Nobody should have to live beneath a windmill if they don’t want to. The question becomes, “how close is too close” and “how loud is too loud?” Some anti-wind activists claim that any site in Maine is too close, and sounds that are even only slightly louder than the ticking of a watch is too loud. But the health data (at least at this stage of the debate) does not support that claim.
Has any of this “health data” actually taken into account ancedotal data from people who are actually experiencing the impacts? Nope. Wouldn’t want to get TOO much information would we?
Actually, my understanding is that just about every iota of evidence put forth by the anti-wind side in support of “Wind Turbine Syndrome” has been nothing better than anecdotal.
So those people don’t matter? Who gets to matter? Annoyance is subjective, that’s true. It just seems that people who are subjected to this kind of noise are suffering all around the world. You have to consider the angle and distance of the turbines as well as hours when people are home trying to have quiet. Business owners get to go home after a day of listening to air force base noises and get some sleep. Add the air force base noise all day and turbines at night and what do you think would happen to that business person?
If you can’t sleep in the presence of sounds that are the equivalent of the sound allowed in a professional recording studio (30 decibels, which many anti-wind activists argue is too loud), then you’ve got bigger problems than most people on the planet.
Guess I do then. I can’t stand a ticking clock anywhere near my bedroom. I can’t help how well my ears work – why should I have to? This is MY house. No one should have the right to take away the sanctity of my HOME.
Bottom line is people in Maine living near these things will be their
guinea pigs.
Guinea pigs, yes, but not out of volunteering for the job.
What guinea pigs? There are many windfarms that have been in operation for years. They are new only to Maine.
If the sound pollution from windmills is worrying people about its unknown health effects,
how can it be discussed fairly without being compared to the known health effects
of the all the pollution caused by the other ways to generate power ?
There is some pollution created by the constant need for alternative energy sources as well – the wind only blows adequately for energy production a small percentage of the time. Other sources need to be ready at all times to start up as soon as the wind stops blowing. Think of how much more fuel is used when you start your car than when it is just idling. Same principal. Take a look at the efficiencies of these projects. Truly important information.
“Other sources need to be ready at all times to start up as soon as the wind stops blowing.”
Backups are necessary for all forms of electricity generation, not just for wind. Spinning reserves have been in place longer than wind energy has been. As disqusbites points out, the hazards of spinning reserves need to be analyzed against a backdrop of the hazards produced by nuclear waste storage, natural gas fracking, widespread mercury emissions from coal fired power, multi-million barrel fuel spills in the Gulf of Mexico, etc. Many brilliant people believe that wind can help to reverse the damaging trends of fossil-fuel produced electricity, including a sizeable collection of engineers at the University of Maine. The debate should include their perspectives as well.
That’s true – but why keep building something that may or may not save the planet? The numbers I’ve seen are extremely disappointing. By the way, the group I’m a part of includes several doctors, attorneys, professors, and I live near Nina Pierpont. Guess you know her stance.
The 3rd turbine in a newer project near my home burned up this weekend. Luckily, the setbacks are 500 feet and the turbines are only 460 feet tall. Thankfully, it isn’t a dry summer right now. Guess that isn’t technically a threat though – it’s just people living there anyway. Only one family probably. Course, if you add up how many turbines it will take to offset any fossil-fuel produced electricity, it might even directly affect your family. Add to that allowing them to use eminent domain and heck, we could get rid of all the people living where the wind blows and just keep putting up turbines. Save the planet!!!!!!! Just don’t expect people to be able to keep living here.
“I live near Nina Pierpont. Guess you know her stance.”
Yes, I know her stance. She is seen as something of a kook by leading professionals in my state. This is from the Maine Medical Association’s Dr. Richard Jennings:
“Nina Pierpont, M.D., cited as an authority of “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (the title of her self-published book), has no medical publications. Contrary to her claim, her book was not “peer reviewed,” but rather received approving comments from friends and associates.”
Here is a critique of her work from the blog “Balance Sheet”:
Nina Pierpont is a pediatrician and an opponent of wind turbines. In a 2009 book she authored, Pierpont invented the term, “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”
Since then, Pierpont’s theories have been widely discredited by the scientific community, which points to severe flaws in her research methodology and lack of statistical validity, among other problems.
We pulled together the five major flaws in Pierpont’s theory about wind turbines:
* Experts dispute the premise of Pierpont’s theory.
A panel of medical doctors, audiologists and acoustical professionals – including Dr. Robert J. McCunney of MIT – concluded, “There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans.“ (Expert Panel Review, 2009)
* Pierpont used a sample size that was not valid.
Pierpont’s study included just 38 people in 5 counties who at some point lived near wind turbines. “[N]o conclusions on the health impact of wind turbines can be drawn from Pierpont’s work due to methodological limitations including small sample size, lack of exposure data, lack of controls and selection bias.” (Dr. Arlene King, Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, 2010)
* Pierpont did not see her “subjects” in person nor did she medically examine them.
Pierpoint interviewed all her subjects over the phone and did not medically examine any of them, nor did she access their medical records. (Simon Chapman, professor of public health at the University of Sydney)
* Pierpont’s work was not properly peer reviewed.
Pierpont’s work was never properly peer reviewed, as she claims. Instead, “she showed [her work] to people she selected and then published some of their responses, including that by Oxford University’s Lord Robert May, whose subsequent public silence on the issue may suggest a re-think.” Without proper peer review, it is difficult if not impossible to assess the validity of claimed scientific findings. (Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010)
* There were no recorded complaints from anyone else.
There is no record of complaints or symptoms of so-called “Wind Turbine Syndrome” from owners of the land on which the turbines actually sit. (TreeHugger, 2011)
Good time to check out “to pee or not to pee on peer review”. Very insightful editorial. Also, might mention that the reason Dr. Pierpont is opposed to wind is that she lives near it. She knows more than any “expert” pretending to have knowledge of this issue. By the way, you can pay any “expert” to have any opinion you wish. Just ask the wind companies.
That is sandbagging.
I asked about the pollution.
So you changed the subject to a different argument ?
Why, because your position is so weak ?
But I’ll play your game : IF the wind doesn’t blow much,
then the windmills do not make much noise do they ?
If your A then B.
Flatulence might be causing health problems too!!
If you don’t live near a wind farm, how would you know what those people suffer? Why be so sarcastic and obnoxious to people you don’t even know? What if little kids are negatively impacted by this industry? If you live in a rural location, chances are you live there for the peace and quiet. Is it really ok to subject people to unwanted noise without even bothering to listen to their objections? What do these people have to gain? The quality of these people’s lives shouldn’t be negotiable. Noise can be torture for some people – and this industry isn’t efficient enough to justify experimenting where people already live. It would be responsible to do some research before insulting others’ experiences. It could be your backyard next time.
Towns vote to host wind farms – after a long deliberative process.
No one forces wind farms on them.
Nossuh
Except towns now overwhelmingly kill wind power whenever there is an ordinance vote.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/ordinances-moratoriums
Nice try.
BDN, November 2010
CLIFTON, Maine — In a local referendum Tuesday, a majority of voters opposed a move to replace the wind turbine portion of the town’s recently enacted land use ordinance, considered the strictest in the state, with an even stricter version.
Residents’ 258-183 vote against the proposal paves the way for a five-turbine wind farm on Pisgah Mountain. If it moves forward, the wind farm would generate approximately $295,000 a year in property taxes.
That’s the claim of the wind company anyway. Again, it’s important to look at all sides before committing your community to this industry. Residents in my area in NY assumed that 5 million dollars would be pouring into our schools from PILOT payments from our project. In truth, it was $100,000.00 and it was to be divided between 2 different school districts (not even in the town hosting the wind farm) and amongst the 5500 residents of the town. That would amount to approx. $20.00 for each resident – not accounting for the loss of tax income from hundreds of homes which were planned for developement in the area of the turbines which wouldn’t happen if the project were to move forward. It’s important to read the fine print and ask questions – the wind companies are looking for a different kind of “green” than you would hope.
“…the wind companies are looking for a different kind of “green” than you would hope.”
That’s the claim of one person from NY anyway. However, I agree with you that it is important to look at all sides, and I believe this is what the ongoing debate here in Maine is accomplishing.
Sorry I don’t live in your state, but every decision made on this issue can set precedents that can be dangerous. By the way, thanks for pointing out that I personally am but one person. One who once believed in this technology, but 6 years of fighting a wind project later and I can see very clearly where this is headed.
Look at how many comments have been generated from this one article. If you believe strongly in this technology, at least have the decency to do your research into both side before subjecting other people to the turbines. If we had realistic “studies” and actually listened to sufferers of this affliction, we could avoid a whole lot of lost government funds that could have been used for something productive.
It’s not just families’ quality of lives that is at stake here – it’s our future. Invest our future in something that actually works.
“Look at how many comments have been generated from this one article.”
Yes, and the last time I checked, about 20% of the comments are from you. Another large percentage of comments are from the same handful of anti-wind bloggers who can’t wait for the next wind article so they can spew their hogwash all over again. You don’t need to tell us about all the comments. We’ve been having this debate for a couple years now.
“Sorry I don’t live in your state, but every decision made on this issue can set precedents that can be dangerous.”
Ma’am, you’ve got PLENTY of environmental problems to deal with in your own filthy state, including mercury contamination from 48 coal-fired power plants, that undoubtedly spew their poison on Maine also. If you’re not going to do anything to protest that abomination, then worry about your own poisoned back yard there in New York, and we’ll do what we can to clean up your mess in ours.
Just to inform you further, New York isn’t a giant city. New York STATE is much larger than just the city. There’s nothing filthy about anything where I live. The references I made to burning turbines was limited to MY area in New York state. One burned on Saturday night – believe it or not it’s true. The firefighters responding to that fire stated they couldn’t reach it to put it out – there are no firetrucks here that can reach that high. When they left the scene it was still burning. Did I make this up? Look up the fire on the turbine in Altona NY. Also pertinent to my statements are the other two turbines that burned up in Altona NY in 2009 – one of them fell over. Guess I paid off the local news – who by the way are all very pro wind.
Clearly you’ve never paid a visit to northern NY? Probably never even seen a turbine from a mile away either? I’ve also read reports that the sludge created from wind projects has seeped into water sources and killed fish. Those reports came from the Maple Ridge Wind Project in Lowville NY. The reports I’m missing apparently are the ones you refer to pertaining to mercury in my NY area.
Tobacco was clearly thought to be fantastic at one time too. How many centuries of “scientific” research did it take to realize it was bad? Guess we’ll need to cover every square inch of space with turbines before anyone figures out the ancedotal evidence was accurate.
If you want to cover your state in turbines, enjoy them. Please just don’t set ignorant precedents (like inadequate setbacks to protect residents from things like fires or flying parts or noise or shadow flicker or electronic interference or huge losses in property values) that will someday affect my family. I say trust me because I’ve been through it. The turbines are not in my backyard and I will continue to fight to keep it that way. I’ve been living this nightmare for 6 years so far. In 6 more years when they invade your backyard, let me know so I can say I told you so. Until then, it would be a good idea so spend some of your abundant time researching both sides of the story and looking closely at those ancedotal warnings.
These votes happen all the time. Tell the majority of residents in a town that they get all these tax breaks and they won’t have any negative impacts from these projects and of course they’ll jump on board. Uninformed residents will vote any way the media teaches them to. Tell them the reality of this industry and wind PILOT promises and see how they vote then.
Actually, in my experience, this is only true to a point. At our public board meeting, there were over 100 opponents of the project. Literally 1 person supporting the project was even present at the meeting. Opinions were clearly voiced that this project (in NY) was inappropriate in a residentally zoned community.
However, our Board decided that those opinions were unimportant – going so far as to try and get a Boardmember to recuse himself from project decisions due to a “conflict of interest” because he lives in the project area.
So yes, actually, people are forced into this situation. Until you are directly impacted, it’s very hard to explain the process effectively. There is a film called “Windfall” that I haven’t seen yet but I understand it is pretty fair in explaining the process. It’s important to get informed about this industry because it isn’t regulated and for those experiencing negative impacts from turbines, there needs to be some kind of regulation. Noise seems innocuous, however so some people that isn’t the case. If this industry were as efficient as wind officials claim, that would be another consideration but unfortunately, their claims are far from the truth.
“It’s important to get informed about this industry because it isn’t regulated”
Why don’t you feed some of that mercury contaminated New York fish to your family then, Ms. New Yorker? You do know that there is an advisory out in New York about the dangers of eating New York fish, due to the mercury pollution brought about by the coal-fired power plants in your area, yes? Maybe that’s why your officials want to change the course of energy production in your state, so that you (and WE in Maine) won’t have to suffer the consequences of your mercury-spewing coal-fired power plants any longer.
Still not seeing any mercury. Feed that fish to my family all the time. Nope, no mercury here. Sorry. I never said I liked anything about coal-fired power plants. Not even once. It’s important to invest in efficient and responsible renewables – solar, hydro, etc. Not a fan of fracking either in case you were wondering. Thanks for making all these assumptions though.
Nossuh- Towns get bribed to vote to host wind farms- the power of free $$$ from the Gov’t being waived around. You are right that the wind farms were not forced on them. Also that “long deliberative process” in Oakfield had towns people throwing things at a speaker who is a doctor, and mocking a war veteran. Makes you questoin the integrity of that town. Weak.
As for your charges of bribery, there are many who agree with you. Please see:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-business-model-of-lie-cheat-and-corrupt
Dozens of Protective Ordinances now popping up everywhere!
Yessah
“Why be so sarcastic and obnoxious to people you don’t even know?”
That’s kind of a comical statement coming from an obnoxious New Yorker who has had no trouble being sarcastic all day today on this blog.
If infrasound had an impact on the function of the vestibular system, it would impact skiers at Bigrock Mountain on Mars Hill.
They should be dropping like flies.
They ain’t.
Humans habituate to sounds and other stimuli – people living under airport takeoff and landing paths sleep soundly, people living near paper mills sleep soundly.
We have noise ordinances to control these sources – and wind turbines are no different than other industrial noise sources.
If people don’t like the looks of a wind farm – that’s OK, but they lose all credibility when the make stuff up about health impacts of wind turbines that simply do not exist.
yessah
So where in Mass are you from?
You put out some of the most assinine drivel—yessah! Have you skied at Big Rock? I have. Both the operator of the ski area and the operator of the wind turbines will tell you that the turbine that is near the unloading area is always locked down when the ski area is operating, a prudent safety measure. When I ski there, I can hear the turbine roar clearly through my helmet and thermal liner. Definitely hear that constant roar even though the ski area is on the “quiet” side of the mountain. But a skier is always in motion, gliding down the trails, not likely to be affected by noise.
Your wisecrack about them dropping like flies is ludicrous. A skier is NOT trying to sleep at night like the folks on East Ridge Rd. or Mountain Rd. in Mars Hill having their sleep and health negatively impacted in the way that was documented by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum. Noise is a serious problem with wind turbines. When asked what they learned about their experience in Mars Hill, First Wind spokesman Ryan Chaeters told the Lincoln Town Council that they learned the turbines were built too close to where people lived. It right in the public record.
Did the dreaded infrasound cause your inner ear to go kookoo and make you lose your balance?
Did the lift make infrasound too?
Did it make you fall down?
Post the peer reviewed paper authored by Nissenbaum in a respected medical journal that documents this “evidence”.
Produce it.
yessah
jets come and go, wind turbines are stationery and so are the homes the people live in. Turbines can make noise 24/7, so how is a person suppose to get any rest. Sleep deprivation can drive people over the edge. If I couldn’t turn the sound off or down, I would get pretty angry, some people desperate to get away. Only getting away means abandoning your home to get away. NO,NO NO. My home is my castle. No one has the right to invade my home.
But we are told – by the anti-wind folks – that wind turbines “don’t work all the time”.
How can they make noise 24/7 when anti-wind folks tell us they only work part time?
We need to get our stories straight.
Can you hear traffic noises in the castle? How about aircraft and trains – do you say NO NO NO to cars and planes too?
If you ignore those noises, you are habituated to them.
yessah
yessah? Cute. Anyway, no they don’t work all the time – what is quite convenient is that they seem to be most efficient at night when people are trying to sleep. Some people don’t get “habituated” to sounds and why should they have to in their own home?
” Some people don’t get ‘habituated’ to sounds and why should they have to in their own home?”
Why should we in Maine have to put up with the widespread mercury contamination in our lakes, on our mountaintops, in our forests and in our wildlife thanks to the 48 coal fired power plants in your state of New York? Do something about it!
You nailed it – no one should ever have the right to invade your home.
I’ve seen the assualt first hand from these companies. They’re not the upstanding do gooders everyone assumes they should be. Photos taken from my own property were used in their “impact studies”. These photos were taken from a vacant trailhead 200 feet down the road from my occupied residence. Apparently, vacant trailheads would suffer a greater “impact” from the project than the young family living in the house. Except when I asked the company. He arrived in a beat up old car with his dog. Told us there would be “no impact” from the project. Then when we asked intelligent questions, he changed that to “the company would be willing to purchase any impacted portions of your property”.
He left the next board meeting in his brand new Lexus. Hmmmm…
The Bangor Deadly News, your 24-hour a day wind industry propaganda rag. The headline is horribly misleading and it appears the panel relied on primarily wind funded biased research. Pasted below in the above BDN article is enough info from the panel to discredit the headline.
The report also acknowledged that there is some evidence to suggest noise from wind turbines can affect sleeping patterns — a complaint made by some Maine residents living near wind farms in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven.
“In other words, it is possible that noise from some wind turbines can cause sleep disruption,” the report stated. “Whether annoyance from wind turbines leads to sleep issues or stress has not been sufficiently quantified. While not based on evidence of wind turbines, there is evidence that sleep disruption can adversely affect mood, cognitive functioning, and overall sense of health and well-being.” BTW, why does a story about a Massachusetts study (no corruption in that State..LOL) have an Ellsworth, byline?
These are the same people who say that electromagnetic waves from cell phones and other radiating devices do not pose a health problem. Maine experts opposed the placement of warnings on cell phones. Under federal standards it is extremely difficult to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship since most humans are exposed to hundreds of harmful or toxic sources. How much data is available to measure the long term impacts of being near wind turbines? Since there is an expressed concern, government should remove all subsidies and incentives for wind developers until definitive studies have been conducted at representative sites. I assume that turbines will still have to meet noise standards since OSHA mandates compliance.
osha has no control on noise for industrial wind turbines. In fact some of the towers are to small and don’t meet osha regulations for confined space, but no control over sound levels.
What about the subsidies for oil and gas that are PROVEN to cause health and environmental problems?
Read all about Adverse Health Effects at Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – Maine:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/adverse-health-effects
The wind industry is rolling out the paid liars as did tobacco.
The people that work around these industrial wind turbines are few. During the construction, the workers are not exposed to the sound. After the turbines are up, then there are only 2-5 workers left behind on the site. Of course the construction workers will testify that they have never had symptoms of WTS, (wind turbine syndrome) because they have not been exposed. It is the community that has to deal with the projects ultrasounds put out during operations. What else would we expect from an industry driven by federal subsidies and destroying our mountains for their gain. Maine is already up to 30% renewable energy and the wind industry wants to push that to 50% to justify building more turbines on our mountains. Why don’t they just take the cap off hydro and send the turbine carpet baggers back to Massachusetts?
The wind industry also will tell you that the wind turbines do not make noise, their quiet…..
As I sit typing this comment, I am forced to listen to the wind turbines that are 1.2 miles away. I am concerned about WTS. There are two kinds of sound, what you hear and what you feel. The wind industry wants to convince those who can hear that turbines are not loud and do no harm. I will refer to Helen Keller, who was deaf, she could not hear, but she loved to stand by the piano, her hands on it, and to feel (hear) the music through her hands. So when I read an article like this one, I see the one sided and closed minded approach to an issue that does cause maladies to the human body. There should have been a study and guidelines put in place before it was decided that these structures could be within 750 feet from abutting property. This article shows the desperation and the lies that will get people to think that Industrial wind turbines do not cause health issues. I disagree. I have heard to many false statements made by the wind industry to even give this one any value. Tread softly and stay wise to the deception of wind.
Final notes, consider forest fires from turbine fire, oil contamination from the leaking nacelle that holds 80 plus gallons of oil, bird kills, herbicide and pesticide usage, and contamination to waterways from the runoff from the mountain. The noise from wind turbines is annoying and when it surrounds your home, you have no way to turn it off and the only way to get away is to leave. I don’t believe it right for any industry to run some one out of their own home with their noise.
In a March 2009 letter from Dr. Mills to David Littell, then commissioner of DEP and a member of former Gov. John Baldacci’s Wind Task Force, Mills stated that an Associate Professor of Medicine at Yale University, Dr. Peter Raboniwitz, was applying for a grant to study the health effects of noise related to turbines. Dr. Mills stated “I would like to write a letter of support, but certainly would not want to do so without your okay.”
Dr. Mills was the Director of Maine Center for Disease Control, and she was deferring to Littell before voicing approval for a study to ascertain the health impacts of wind turbines.
One of the projects Dr. Raboniwitz wanted to study was First Wind’s Mars Hill project, where a dozen Maine families are suffering.
That does not seem like the appropriate action of an ‘unbiased expert’–nor of a doctor who is charged with safeguarding the health of Mainers.
I hope the people of Massachusetts demand that a real scientific study be done, including a study of (and the testimonies of) citizens living near turbines.
I urge Mainers to get a copy of the report and read the whole thing, front to back. Don’t base your judgement on attention-grabbing headlines, but read the report for yourself. Then read testimonies from the people who live near wind turbines… and those who don’t, anymore, because they’ve abandoned their homes. Yes, that has happened right here in Maine. Citizens are abandoning their homes.
Please take the time to study this important issue. We cannot put politics and money before the health and well-being of people.
Respectfully,
Karen Pease
Lexington Twp., Maine
Dr. Mills as Director of Maine Center for Disease Control was derelict in her duty to investigate and protect the citizens of the state. Dr. Nissenbaum initially identified a significant cluster of people on East Ridge Rd. and Mountain Rd. who reported symptoms. For any other disease or outbreak of an unknown illness having sinilar cluster characteristics, Dr. Mills would have dived in and gathered resources to identify and address the perceived menace to public health. She would have taken to the media to shout out alarm and keep it from spreading. For these people, she turned her back. Instead, the Baldacci appointee played politics and helped out the wind industry rather than standing up for the people of Maine and their wellbeing. Shame on Dora Mills! Double shame on Dora Mills that she continues to be the stooge of an industry that clearly harms people. Turn in your MD license, Dora!
If you are interested, the initial study at Mars Hill by Dr. Nissenbaum was expanded to include Vinalhaven with a study including a control group in each town with which to compare results. You can read the paper here: http://api.ning.com/files/I830crlONkaxKOn*ALw38T3IoPz3B6WvqSVCRJIKfHFapO5fUuPIrvI2ia4CrY0DCjK1kLvx*OKiZljXkUVr-qIeqYOs9Jtb/NissenbaumetalICBEN2011_0158_final.pdf
“That does not seem like the appropriate action of an ‘unbiased expert’–nor of a doctor who is charged with safeguarding the health of Mainers.”
The Maine Medical Association, which is charged with safeguarding the health of Mainers, has made no pronouncements to date that warn of horrible afflictions caused by windmills. How could this be the case if windmill noise has been proven to be so malignant, as you seem to suggest?
I’m not too sure that the Maine Medical Association “is charged with safeguarding the health of Mainers.” It’s a voluntary professional organization, so who charges the organization with that responsibility? Is the Maine Association of Realtors charged with safeguarding home sellers?
Someone should be concerned with the safety and well being of people before agreeing to build turbines right next to their homes. Clearly we haven’t found that agency yet, and yet we continue to build the turbines…
“I’m not too sure that the Maine Medical Association “is charged with safeguarding the health of Mainers.”
I’m merely going by what the MMA’s Dr. Jennings said while stating in an editorial that anti-wind activists were using an MMA resolution to make false claims about health concerns regarding windmills.
“As physicians, we are ethically committed to preserving the health of our patients, specifically, and maintaining the health and welfare of the populace, in general. There is no more critical and overwhelming threat to the health of all those on this planet than the present and increasing changes in our climate, compounded by the exhaustion of fossil fuel.”
What’ s the matter Lifetime? Can’t get your signatures to get your fleecing license?
Renewable energy backers may lack signatures
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Renewable-energy-initiative-may-lack-enough-signatures.html
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
“Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…”
Billy Boy, you are such a little giggle box! Here are a few clips from the recent past to smile over, regarding ongoing wind projects supported overwhelmingly by the voters:
CLIFTON, Maine — In a local referendum Tuesday, a majority of voters opposed a move to replace the wind turbine portion of the town’s recently enacted land use ordinance, considered the strictest in the state, with an even stricter version. Residents’ 258-183 vote against the proposal paves the way for a five-turbine wind farm on Pisgah Mountain. If it moves forward, the wind farm would generate approximately $295,000 a year in property taxes.
OAKFIELD, Maine — Residents on Monday evening voted to forge a tax increment financing agreement with a First Wind subsidiary on a new $300 million industrial wind project. The decision was made after residents attended a two-hour special town meeting and voted 81-22 in favor of the TIF agreement. Town and wind industry officials said the move would provide the town $16.5 million in benefits over 20 years. The project is anticipated to result in approximately $200 million of new taxable development within the town, according to information distributed during the meeting.
Both sides win some and lose some, as it should be…
People living close to these 40-story monstrosities have lost millions in home equity due to the noise, health impacts and loss of view shed. If this were not true, why would Denmark, home to the largest turbine manufacturer Vestas, make it law that homeowners be compensate by developers for loss-of-value:
http://www.ens.dk/en-us/supply/renewable-energy/windpower/onshore-wind-power/loss-of-value-to-real-property/sider/forside.aspx
And all this battling over health issues is for a fraudulent technology that Governor Patrick embraces. WIND TURBINES DO NOT PROVIDE RENEWABLE ENERGY! Not one coal or gas plant the world over has been decommissioned because of IWTs…and eliminating our dependence
on fossil fuels is their raison d’etre. To quote an expert: “Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal-or gas-fired generators (called “cycling”). But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and if they don’t, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase.” This is happening worldwide, and in places like Colorado and Texas where CO2 and power plant pollution have increased since installing wind farms:
1) http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15081808
2) http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/19/wind-energy-carbon.html
The wind industry is built on crony capitalism, it is the only way it can exist. Taxpayer money builds them and power companies are mandated to buy wind generated power at much higher rates than conventionally produced power. There is no true benefit, except to wind power companies, politicians and lobbyists. Some people and communities that partner with wind developers also profit, but those profits are paid for by surcharges to all other ratepayers and huge taxpayer subsidies – and the misery of families living close. Industrial wind turbines are a scam, and I believe developers are guilty of human rights violations for forcing them on communities.
“Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don’t go dark…”
Spinning reserves were in place and running in the background long before wind power entered the picture, due to the fact that ALL forms of electricity generation require backups. Anti-windys love to paint the false picture that reserves are necessary only because of the addition of wind.
Also, when reading the pieces that you quote, it doesn’t take long to note that one of the writers admits: “The methodology looks solid to this layman, though potential bias stemming from the study’s natural-gas sponsorship was fairly noted in the industry press after its April 19 release.”
As if all of your pro wind “studies” are not funded by wind? Other sources are far more reliable than wind – step outside and lick your finger and hold it up. Did the wind blow continuously for 24 hours? Strange, I live in an area where it’s supposedly perfect for wind turbines – the company claims they could get up to 35% efficiency if everything ran absolutely perfectly – notice I said “claims”. That isn’t actually the case at all according to the actual factual numbers. The fire that just burned down the 3rd turbine in a newer project near me this weekend is certainly productive. Glad I don’t live 500 feet (current setbacks here) from a 460+ foot turbine on a dry summers day.
“…step outside and lick your finger and hold it up.”
If you happen to do this on a rainy day, you’re likely to ingest a bit of mercury spewed by the 48 coal-fired power plants in your state. As for the turbine fire danger, I’ve already suggested to you that you are a bit hysterical on the issue, given that a million fires a year are started by kids playing with lighters compared to 300 turbine fires cited by anti-windys over the past 20 years.
From the New England Wind Integration Study commissioned by ISO New England:
“Additional spinning and non-spinning reserves will be required as wind penetration grows.” AND
“Due to the increases in TMSR and TMNSR, overall Total Operating Reserve (TOR) increases in
all wind energy scenarios.”
No, spinning and non-spinning reserves are not new, but there will be increased need for them as the penetration of wind increases, even with no change to the actual load.
Your quotes are not accurate unless you include the detail about how much additional spinning reserve is required compared to the total wind power added.
Here are some rough figures from the report and FERC:
The report states that when
wind = 20% of generating capacity on the grid the total additional operating reserve
(spinning and and non-spinning) required would = 500MWCurrent
Generating capacity for all of NE (all sources) according to FERC= ~38,820 MW 20% of 38,820=
7764MW
Current wind generating capacity in NE = ~400
MW
So, when we add nearly 20X as much wind power to the grid we’ll need to add an additional 6.4% of back up.
Well, I think the statements are accurate, with or without the computations. If wind’s penetration is increasing on the grid, it simply means a larger portion of the power is coming from wind, not that there is necessarily more power being put into the grid. And if operating reserves have to increase to accommodate the new SOURCE of power but not a new AMOUNT of power, then that new source caused an increase in the amount of required operating reserve, did it not?
This probably the worst medium imaginable to quibble over calculations of grid specifics. I’m not qualified to start throwing around arcane figures and formulas. So, here, from 2 news pieces:
“Wind could generate as much as 24% of New England’s power needs by 2020, but integration of that magnitude would require major transmission upgrades, as well as increased operating reserves and regulation services, ISO New England officials said in a presentation Wednesday.”
“Wind’s intermittent nature would require increased reserves, ensuring that there are other generation options when the wind isn’t blowing, as well as regulation services, under which resources respond to signals sent every four seconds to match minute-to-minute changes in the New England load.”
If you can’t come up with specific facts to counter what I am saying here when you have the entire internet at your finger tips, I can’t imagine how or when you would be able to come up with any.
The computations are important and factual. Yes, you are correct that adding over 7700 MW of wind will require 500 MW of new back up reserve. The important tidbits here are:
1. No new back up power is required UNTIL we reach this 7700MW installed capacity (we are currently at about 400MW of wind in Maine, which leads the region)
2. Even when we increase the amount of wind power on the currently on the grid by 2000%, only 500MW of new backup would be required to ensure stability (equal to just over 6% of that 7700 MW of new clean, renewable wind power)
THEREFORE: The wind power put on the grid for the foreseeable future IS REDUCING (or will reduce) EMISSIONS on a 1 to 1 basis.
Read the report. Stop quoting it out of context.
Take it easy. The NEWIS state’s flatly, “Additional spinning and non-spinning reserves will be required as wind penetration grows.” I don’t think that statement really needs an elaborate mathematical explanation. Perhaps we’re looking at different parts of the NEWIS. Why don’t you tell me what section/page you’re looking at.
Also, my initial comment on this was in no way an attempt to quantify or make a judgement about the amount of additional reserves required with wind power. I simply pointed out to another commenter that operating reserve requirements for volatile generation sources like wind were going to be different than conventional non-volatile sources – a fact he/she seemed to be dismissing.
Please send your reference.
I’ll take a deep breath and explain (again) why people are dismissing your argument that operating reserve requirements are going to be different. Wind will (may) require a VERY small amount of new operating reserve some time in the future when (if) the amount of windpower on the grid is increased by a factor of 20. UNTIL THEN IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER SOURCE.
Here is a link to the executive summary of the report. http://iso-ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/prtcpnts_comm/pac/reports/2010/newis_es.pdf
I am sure the full report includes even more detail, but the executive summary includes enough. See pages 21 and 22 of the ESummary. Or look through the whole report for more detail:
http://iso-ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/prtcpnts_comm/pac/reports/2010/newis_report.pdf
I apologize for getting testy. You seem like a reasonable person open to looking at the available facts. So many others could care less about the facts and throw around half-baked ideas, opinions and misinformation in irresponsible ways. It is corrosive to the democratic process.
I’m sitting down with my coffee to read over your suggested reading. On initial glance, it appears to be the same material I have.
I’m always open to facts, as long as they can be verified. I hate being wrong, so if I get corrected and learn something new, the way I see it, I can be right the next time – or at least not be wrong again.
There’s plenty of information of questionable value flowing into the wind discussion from both sides of the river and I hate bad information – especially if I’m the one providing it. I’m always willing to learn. So……
I’ll take a look at this material again and respond. If this thread closes before I get back with you, feel free to write me at philkozapes@aol.com. It’s an account I use for junk and don’t often check it, but I’ll make a point to.
I’ve looked over the NEWIS ES section titled Regulation and Operating Reserves, concentrating on pp. 21 & 22. I’ve read it about five times now and I just don’t see where you’re getting the information for making the statement that no reserves are needed until we get to 20% penetration. Are you deriving that statement from this section or is there some other place I need to be looking.
The only place I can see that you might be referring to is the first paragraph on p. 22 that suggests that at 20% wind penetration, there would be a 500 MW increase in reserve requirements over baseline (no wind) reserves. But, that paragraph also suggests that there would be 20 MW and 350 MW increases with 2.5% and 14% wind penetration, respectively.
If you can, paste the language from this section that supports your statement and it will save me some time combing over other documents. If you believe I’m reading the paragraph referenced above incorrectly, I’m willing to listen.
Also, I don’t believe we should be using total NE CAPACITY figures, but rather LOAD figures. The 2011 RSP estimates a 2020 summertime peak load of about 31,000. A significant portion of the NE capacity (38,820 according to your post) potential is idle at any given time, so it really doesn’t seem pertinent to calculating regulation and reserve requirements. My understanding is that wind penetration “penetrates” load, not overall capacity.
You are reading the right section. And you are correct about the lower requirements for lower penetration. Perhaps I overstated the case slightly. Let’s look at that numbers for other cases and use your lower load figures to calculate the percentages. We’ll use the installed capacity values for wind and not reduce the numbers to account for the variability. Presumably, there is a need to back up projects at times of the their full output, but as you’ll see, this is currently entirely covered by existing reserves with only small percentage increases in reserves as wind penetration increases.
So…
Current installed wind in NE generating full power = 398 MWh
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
Summertime Peak Load in NE = 31,000 MWh (Actual electrical usage or generation needs a time factor in the units)
Your number. From where?
398/31,000 = 0.0128 x 100 = ~1.3% current percentage of peak load produced by installed wind generating at full power
Therefore, when we roughly double the amount of wind power to hit 2.5%, we’ll need an additional 20MWh of back up generation.
2 x 398 = 796 MWh of wind
20 MWh/ 796 MWh = 0.025 x 100% = 2.5% of installed wind would need back up
Now lets look at the middle case:
~1.3% = current percentage of peak load produced by installed wind generating at full power
14%/1.3% = ~10x increase in current wind penetration
10 x 398 = 3980 MWh
350/3980 = 0.0879 x 100% = 8.8% of installed wind would need back up
Finally the high penetration case (using your lower peak load figure):
~1.3% = current percentage of peak load produced by installed wind generating at full power
20%/1.3% = ~15.4x increase in current wind penetration
15.4 x 398 = 6129 MWh
500/3980 = 0.0815 x 100% = 8.2% of installed wind would need back up
It is important to note here that there would be some need for increasing back up reserves if 6129 MWh of NEW generation of ANY KIND were added to the mix. What’s not clear to me is the percentage of this new wind that will replace existing capacity vs. what will provide additional generation capacity to meet increasing demand. Other variables that could change these figures in the case of backing up the specific issue of variable winds are: improved forecasting and data management as wind interconnection is refined and improvements in electrical storage technology and management. This storage could be as low tech as better coordination between hydro and wind to save water behind the dam when it is windy to make hydropower when it isn’t — the net would still be a reduction in fossil fuel burning. Or as high tech as electric cars, heating/cooling, and other distributed loads functioning on a smart grid.
I am very open to constructive criticism of my calculations and other comments. We are human and mistakes or imperfect access to information are inevitable. There is no shame in admitting this, only shame in not doing so.
I’m looking forward to going through your numbers, but have a lot on my plate today – still have to make a living. I don’t know if I can’t get back before the commenting opportunity closes. If not, I’m sure we’ll have the chance to take it up again.
Sure is – corrosive that is. Again, how many turbines will that take? Realistically – not just based on wind company promises. They promise efficiencies they can’t possibly produce – HOW MANY turbines will it take? How many people will need to be displaced from their homes to find out?
Thank you for making the point so that I didn’t have to do the honors. This is an old and established viewpoint in the debate. I’m rather surprised that armichka hasn’t heard of it yet, though I think he is at least likely to listen to the point.
Actually some gas turbines ARE being shut down because of wind: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-30/statkraft-may-have-to-shut-two-power-plants-in-germany-ftd-says.html
Both of your links about emissions increases go to OPINION pieces that discuss a long de-bunked study produced by and for the fossil energy industry.
Your link to the Danish government website is interesting. Yes, it looks as though they are willing to pay for proven loss of home value. I am sure that if a turbine is built too close to a home it causes some problems and reduces values. No one has ever suggested that turbines belong everywhere or that living directly underneath them wouldn’t be annoying. The issue then becomes how far is far enough? Emotional wind opponents would have us believe that miles need to separate people and turbines, without any facts to back them up. Getting the siting right is important. In order to do that rhetoric and emotion needs to be toned down and people need to work together to figure out what actually makes sense.
If you click on one of the other links about wind power on the Danish site it is clear that they are continuing to develop wind power in Denmark. Replacing older technology with new and getting the siting right. Apparently this is a society of people who are able to communicate effectively enough to solve problems. http://www.ens.dk/en-US/supply/Renewable-energy/WindPower/Onshore-Wind-Power/Replacement-scheme-for-wind-turbines-on-land/Sider/Forside.aspx
If you stand directly under one you won’t hear as much noise. This argument has been spun so many times it’s disgusting. Think of living a mile away – downwind- from one of these turbines. Wind Turbine Syndrome is seeing effects up to 3 miles away. Read the book for pete’s sake – it’s right out there ready to educate. The hardest part about being heard is that wind advocates try as hard as possible to remain uninformed. Why?
“The hardest part about being heard is that wind advocates try as hard as possible to remain uninformed.”
I honestly try to study just about every statement made by anti-wind bloggers to understand what they have to say. And I have to admit you are correct: I am still uninformed.
Why not go check it out for yourself in an unbiased manner? Find somone who is having these issues and see if they will allow you some education the way they were forced to get educated.
I know this is not really pertinent to the point you were making, but just in case anyone gets the wrong idea….
The natural gas plants that were being considered for closure were not doing so because wind power was competing and beating them on an economic level. Under German law, power from renewable energy gets priority access to the grid. It’s not that NG can’t compete on price, it just can’t compete with a government mandate that wind power must be taken ahead of it.
In New England wind beats natural gas generation on price. A zero bid is lower than anything else.
The Bloomberg article I linked mentions nothing about your arguments. Where do you get your information?
Time to read more articles. Articles in themselves are opinions aren’t they? What does “a zero bid” have to do with any efficiencies pertaining to wind energy production?
I believe BalanceandReason tried to explain this to you earlier in the discussion. If you can’t grasp the concept, perhaps you should go back and study what he said.
I understand completely the dance he did to avoid speaking about the efficiency of THIS industry. What difference does anything he stated make if you just don’t have enough wind to provide enough energy? It won’t make it blow harder, but it obviously has that effect on you.
I understand the zero bid argument, but a wind operator still has to make money at some point, or at least you would think. There have been numerous statements by wind energy companies/representatives in which they have stated very clearly, that they cannot compete with the current low price of natural gas. Should NG prices skyrocket, then they might be able to. But, current thinking is that natural gas will remain low for quite some time. But, who really knows?
Here’s a link to the article regarding your question.
http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2012/01/16/9524250/power/edem,esgm/statkraft-could-shut-unprofitable-natural-gas-fired-plants.html
Thanks for sending that link. If you are worried about climate change (if you have children or care about future generations it is worrisome – we just don’t know what the results of creating instability in the climate system at the very same time that human populations are reaching levels never before seen) the policy of giving renewables priority on the grid when they are available makes sense. Even if you are skeptical about climate change, it is still rational to save a non-renewable resource that can be used for so many industrial processes (plastics, carbon fiber, fertilizer, etc.) when it can be replaced by a renewable one that otherwise continues to flow unused.
Of course, wind operators need to make money. And they do. They bid zero (this is effectively giving them priority access to the grid), but they are paid the same as every plant that makes power that day. The “clearing price” or last price in the auction that meets the final bit of demand sets the price for every generator in the auction.
The beauty of that system is that, these zero bids reduce the overall amount of power that needs to be produced by generators who bid in with higher operating costs. Effectively, the higher priced generators (those who cannot make money unless they sell the power at higher prices because they have to buy the fuel) get pushed out of the auction and don’t make electricity that day. Wind and other zero bid operators can therefore only stabilize or lower prices.
You are absolutely right that with low power prices, building new wind projects (or other energy projects with front-loaded costs) gets harder. Big capital investments require specific rates of return (different for every company/investor) over a period of time to justify the risk of those investments.
That said, once an investment is made and a project is built, the operating costs are so low that they are extremely likely to continue operating even with lower power prices. Why wouldn’t you continue to take in revenue of some kind if you have already put the big money in and it only requires small money to keep operating and getting some kind of return on your investment?
I’ve got to admit, I’m not that worried about climate change. But, that doesn’t mean I don’t care. I just tend to not worry much about things I truly believe I’m not able to influence much. I’m not really a skeptic about a warming planet – if the NOAA says the planet is getting warmer, that’s good enough for me. However, I’m not entirely convinced that it is strictly due to human activity – nor would I rule it out.
Let me say, however, that my household was watching our personal carbon footprint before it was even fashionable to do it – before I even knew what a carbon footprint was. We use a fraction of the energy consumed by the average Maine household. It’s a matter of principle to us.For me, there are plenty of good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption as much as feasibly possible without even talking about global warming. (I agree with the reasons you listed.) Moreover, if a warming planet IS attributable to human activity, I don’t believe that wind development in Maine really has much hope of making a meaningful contribution to turning this around.
Last summer, a climate change expert from the University of New Hampshire submitted testimony of about 40 pages in support of the Bowers Mountain project. Not once in the testimony did he attempt to quantify the role that wind power development, here or anywhere else, would play in the global climate story. I thought that curious for someone with his credentials. He really wouldn’t go any further than to say, more or less, that we could serve as a good example for others if we pursued wind development. At least that was the impression his testimony left me with.
Strictly speaking, from a mathematical standpoint, it doesn’t seem possible that it’s going to make any real difference. I understand the “every little bit helps” concept. In my mind, though, the smaller the bit of help, the more flexibility – and responsibility – we have to scrutinize the bit. So, if wind power in Maine is a really, really, tiny bit of the overall solution to something, maybe we have the option – and responsibility – of taking a look at something else – or at the very least, taking a little time to really do a thorough evaluation of ALL of our options. I don’t think that we are experiencing any emergency that wind power in Maine is going to be a critical part of solving. So, couldn’t we step back for a second and re-evaluate?
I understand your viewpoint about not worrying too much about things we cannot influence much on a personal level. It isn’t healthy to obsess and I do my very best to avoid it.
Where the argument breaks down is that none of us individually really has much of an influence over the big systems – human, environmental or where they intersect. Yet, collectively our influence is HUGE. All of us together released enough CFCs to open a hole in the ozone layer that is only now beginning to get small (I hope). Climate change is the same way. The amount of carbon you and I release in our lifetimes is miniscule on the grand scale. An active volcano probably spews more in a few minutes. Yet it is the overall system balance that matters.
System balance is maintained by feedback loops. Feedback loops can be positive or negative. A negative feedback loop creates stability within boundaries. Your thermostat is a good example. You set it at 68 degrees. When the room hits that temperature your heat source turns off and it probably gets a little warmer than that as the heat source continues to radiate heat as it cools. When the temperature hits 67, the heat source comes back on. So, your room stays between 67 and 70 degrees. A well regulated carbon cycle is the same thing – it stays within boundaries as it has for most of the time we have data on it. Organic matter is consumed, organic matter is created. CO2 is respired. O2 is added by photosynthesis, which also stores carbon. People are reducing photosynthetic capacity by clearing forests and using unwise, soil destroying agriculture. At the same time we have been mining and burning huge fossil stores of carbon. The result is that we have knocked the system out of balance — there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere than coming out.
Positive feedback is a whole ‘nother ball game. You hit a threshold and the feedback pushes you further past that threshold. This can be good or bad – the positive is about the math not the value judgement. The miracle of growing a baby in utero depends on positive hormonal feedback. So does blood clotting. But nuclear explosions are uncontrollable because of the principle. Populations can grow exponentially and then crash because of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback Another great resource on this issue is a book that wind activist and all around good guy Robert Kimber helped to translate: The Logic of Failure. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Logic-of-Failure/Dietrich-Dorner/e/9780201479485
The thresholds in climate science are what we need to be concerned about. Read some of Dr. James Hansen’s writings to get a sense of what I am talking about: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ One of the big ones scientists are watching is the release of frozen methane from the arctic regions. Methane is a VERY strong greenhouse gas that lasts even longer in the atmosphere than CO2. When the arctic regions warm (which they do faster than the equatorial regions) they unlock vast quantities of methane. There is evidence that this is happening and may be accelerating now: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
Does one wind turbine or 50 of them make a dent in climate change? No. If we had been putting in 50 of them a year here in Maine for the last 20 years while everyone else in America and around the world was replacing the equivalent of their fossil fuel use with the renewable resources they have and all of us were using energy more efficiently, would we be in the position we find ourselves in today? I’d say no, we probably wouldn’t be on the verge of finding out what a positive climate feedback loop means for civilization. Why should we continue to let the years pass while we study the problem more? We know the problem. We know the solutionS (plural). Let’s be careful about how we implement them, but lets also be realistic about the tradeoffs that are required.
I find little to debate in most of what you say. Any differences I have with you on it are either philosophical or too trivial to spend time on.
I think my only significant debate with you on this would be on the role of wind power in context with how we are deploying it in Maine (politically, statutorily, socially, geographically, strategically, economically, and so on). – and perhaps New England, as well. It’s a debate – a time consuming debate – I’ll have to wait to have, but in summary – “Is there a way to add wind power to the mix differently than how we are presently doing it?”
“Under German law, power from renewable energy gets priority access to the grid.”
And yet, Germany remains one of the most technologically advanced and economically powerful nations in the world. Hardly seems like the “doomsday scenario” that the anti-windys paint of nations that embrace renewable energy.
Uh, I don’t think I made any suggestion of a doomsday scenario. Though Germany might have embraced renewables, the fact is, their overall fossil fuel dependency is not much different than our own in the U.S. – 83% (Germany) vs 87% (U.S.). It’s probable that the German dependence will rise as they replace their nuclear generation with fossil fuel generation.
Again, armichka, to your credit, you don’t paint the doomsday scenario. But many, many of your anti-wind colleagues have no problem describing the impending economic and environmental disasters that will befall and have befallen any and all nations in Europe that have embraced renewables.
Also, I believe Angela Merkel’s plan is to step up the use of renewables to help replace nukes in her nation. Her aim is to make Germany a showcase for renewable energy. Given the fact that she is a physicist, I believe she has a fighting chance to accomplish her goals.
Sleep depravation no matter what the reason is a disaster to the mind and body and can lead to deadly consequences. Sleep disruption is known to be an effect of turbine noise because people that live near turbines have reported it many times. I personally have experienced turbine noise and flicker and can say that if I was forced to live with it, it would drive me up a tree. I wanted to see for myself so I went to Stetson and spent a day. It was not pleasant. Having no choice but to live with it would be less than acceptable. The other thing that comes to mind is that the corrupt and greedy corporations lied about noise and flicker to townspeople who are now quite upset about their lives with turbines. This article, I believe, is full of it.
What a carefully crafted dance around the issue in this report that was set in motion to have the outcome we see. Just for once regarding the issue of audible noise and low frequency sound waves, I would like the medical people who sign on to do the reviews recognize that the proliferation of industrial wind turbines is, indeed, hurting people.
We know that noise and sound waves are injurious; there are professions where there are limits to exposure and OSHA has put many limits in place in the factories. What we have here is a unique sound signature of a huge piece of machinery, often in arrays and with unique topographic features, that are causing some people in every location to suffer every symptom in what has become known as Wind Turbine Syndrome.
In Maine, wind turbines have been built too close to people at Mars Hill, Freedom, Vinalhaven, Lincoln, Lee, and Burlington. Soon to join the list as the projects become fully operational: Woodstock and Roxbury. Every single place wind turbines are built within a mile or so of where people live, we have people reporting sleep disturbance, irritability, headaches, imbalance, dizziness, and nausea. What we don’t need is another whitewash in favor of the wind industry. What we need is an immediate moratorium on any further wind power development, for the health and well being of all people.
Mass DEP and DPH flatly refused repeated requests to instruct their panel that produced the Wind Turbine Impact Study to visit the locations generating noise complaints–for a reason.
Could it be bribery?
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-business-model-of-lie-cheat-and-corrupt
Annoyance? Try public health threat! I have experienced it first hand. I have a surgically repaired heart and a stent. One day back at the end of May while photographing wildflowers, I wandered within a half mile of the wind turbines in Rocky Dundee in Lincoln. First, I experienced a headache, then came the tightness in the chest and dull pain. As soon as I got back to my car and drove a half mile or so, the symptoms subsided. I lead an active life of hiking, skiing, swimming, tennis, etc. I don’t experience those symptoms like I had near the turbines.
When I read about the misery and health impacts that some people experience, I know they are real. With my condition, I know I could not live anywhere near the noise impact zone of those turbines. Not everyone will be affected like some can be, but do we inflict harm on those who are affected? Do they not warrant protection? In Maine, we are dealing with night time background noise readings that are in the single digits to low teens on the dBA scale and people live out in rural areas because they seek such quietude.
The threat is real. We must stop building wind turbines anywhere near where people live. Then lets move on to all those other reasons to not build wind turbines anywhere. The folly. The scam.
By the way, that day I got several great photos of rare white lady slippers. But it wasn’t worth risking my health!
Isn’t it wonderful that people who actually know all about these impacts don’t have any voice? It’s disheartening that people are just willing to sacrifice the quality of life of people they don’t even know for an industry they obviously don’t really understand.
You’ve had more voice than anybody today on this blog… yet I’m still not certain that you know all about these impacts. Your knowledge doesn’t necessarily come across in your presumptuous remarks.
Why don’t you take 5 minutes of your life and look at http://www.windaction/stories – maybe if you get some realistic ancedotal information you will discover you do have empathy after all. No I don’t know everything, but I can say I’ve taken the time over the past 6 years to do the research. I will do everything in my power to protect my family.
It is quite obvious that this “study” was purposely designed to get insufficient evidence to support claims that noise from commercial wind turbines directly cause health problems or disease.
Why is it so obvious?
Because Dr Dora Mills was chosen to be on the panel.
Her record on the Maine CDC showed a clear bias for wind power.
To heck with setbacks, noise, health problems and birds! How about we discuss the fact that industrial wind doesn’t work? That the wind doesn’t blow on hot sticky days when our electrical demand is highest? And that even when it does blow, it’s not enough to drive those turbines anywhere near capacity except during a storm, according to the manufacturers own specs and the government wind map? How about we talk about that?
Buying into industrial wind is like paying twice the sticker price for a car because it comes with a package of AAs in the glove box.
The Dr. Mills who sat on the panel which released the Mass. report is the same doctor who expressed total disregard for the findings and actions of her colleagues– the doctors of the MMA.
In September of 2009 the Maine Medical Assn. passed a resolution regarding wind energy and public health. When that happened, Dr. Mills wrote to Andrew Fisk, DEP commisioner and member of former Gov. Baldacci’s Wind Task Force. She stated: “It’s actually awfully. Especially the ‘whereas’. I’m appalled they passed something like this. At least someone can say in response that the membership that spent time on this issue–the Public Health Committee–voted 9-1 against a similar issue.”
The MMS’s resolution can be found at http://www.windwatch.org by searching for document #23095.
Part of the resolution:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Maine Medical Association work
with health
Organizations and regulatory agencies to
provide scientific information of known and suspected
medical consequences of wind development in
order to help safeguard human health and the
environment.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Maine Medical Association 1) work
with other
stakeholders to encourage performance of
studies on health effects of wind turbine generation by independent qualified researchers at qualified
research institutions; 2) support the need for the state to clarify and refine with supportive
evidence-based, scientific literature Public Law
Chapter 661(LD2283) effective April 18, 2008)
recommendations on wind power; 3) support the protection of populations who are at higher
risk for adverse health effects from wind power
generation; and 3) ensure that physicians and
patients alike are informed of evidence-based
research results.
It seems apparent that Mills was more interested in helping the Baldacci administration protect its wind energy policies than she was in supporting the resolution to work together to protect the health of Maine citizens.
Respectfully,
Karen Pease
Lexington Twp., ME
“…ensure that physicians and patients alike are informed of evidence-based research results.”
This resolution has been much discussed in the debate over wind power in Maine. It speaks of supporting objective, scientific research on the alleged effects of windmills on public health, and disseminating that information. This is only prudent. The problem many people have with the anti-wind side’s use of the resolution is that activists characterize the resolution as bona fide proof that windmills cause illnesses, when in fact, the MMA has never issued any public resolution to date which condemns wind power as a hazard to public health. One MMA doctor, Richard Jennings, has even gone so far as to state that the anti-wind side has hijacked the resolution to support unfounded claims. His editorial on the topic is entitled: “Anti-wind Group Supports Claims of Health Problems with False Data” and was published in the Kennebec Journal. I’ve posted the full text of Dr. Jennings’ editorial earlier in this discussion. Here again, is part of what the doctor said:
“…Drs. Monique and Albert Aniel have consistently opposed wind development on the same false grounds of harmful effects on health. Dr. Albert Aniel, after the Maine Medical Association’s Public Health Committee rejected his initial resolution by a vote of 8-1 a year ago, submitted a different resolution at the association’s general meeting. Although a comprehensive resolution about climate change already was approved, Aniel’s resolution encouraged further studies and dissemination of information about wind power, and it passed. Passage, however, in no way suggested, or reflected, any concern by the Maine Medical Association regarding negative health consequences.”
“Now, however, the resolution is being used as a platform from which to present a distorted position of the Maine Medical Association, falsely portraying it as having legitimate and serious concerns about wind and health problems. These allegations have been widely promoted and quoted, thereby creating fear and apprehension, leading in turn to the many delays and excessive restrictions set upon development of wind as an alternative form of energy, such as we have seen in recent months.”
But the MMA has rescinded that original resolution using quite strong language. Dealing with climate change trumps dealing with annoyance of a very few.
DRAFT
Maine Medical Association
Resolution #1 RE: Global Climate Change & Wind Power
Submitted by the MMA Public Health Committee
WHEREAS, Effective action has yet to be taken to substantially reduce our dependence on fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, Political discord and short term economic interests prevent constructive dialogue and action on this important long-term public health issue; and
WHEREAS, The Maine Medical Association policy on global climate change that passed in 2009 emphasized the use of evidence based science as the foundation of discussion and debate on all matters regarding this issue; and,
WHEREAS, The intent of the Maine Medical Association 2009 Resolution “Wind Energy and Public Health” has been misconstrued as taking sides on the wind power debate; and
WHEREAS, The Maine Medical Association 2009 Resolution “Wind Energy and Public Health” called on the organization to 1) bring attention of known medical consequences of wind development, 2) encourage evidence based studies of the health effects of wind turbine generation and public dissemination of the results; and
WHEREAS, In the public debate, there is considerable disagreement as to the accuracy and validity of studies of wind turbines as well as highly technical issues that the MMA has neither the resources or the expertise to discern;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maine Medical Association reaffirm its position on the health threats posed by global climate change and the need to develop alternative energy sources as one way of reducing climate change, as adopted in its 2009 policy “Global Climate Change” and the enabling 2009 Resolution #4; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Maine Medical Association rescind its 2009 policy “Wind Energy and Public Health” and the enabling 2009 Resolution #7.
Thank you, Balance and Reason.
I do apologize for not having that updated information and I appreciate having this pointed out to me.
I admit, it is discouraging to me to read it, especially where the data is mounting which shows that large-scale growth of wind energy will not have a significant impact on reducing greenhouse gasses. It certainly seems that our health professionals would be able to give both issues equal diligence.
Thank you, again and I’m sorry if I misled anyone with my earlier post.
Respectfully,
Karen Pease
Lexington Tw., Maine
How exactly does this miniscule percentage of energy affect climate change? How many people will have to be displaced from their homes in order to make even the tiniest dent in anything climate related? Look at efficiency studies, look at how little impact this technology has had overseas. All the information is out there – you just have to look over the shoulders of wind companies to find it. “Studies” are a joke – especially those funded by wind. Why not simply go to the homes of those affected and see for yourself. There are several online who invite you to.
“Why not simply go to the homes of those affected and see for yourself.”
If I go to your home in upstate New York, there’s a decent chance that I will come into contact with the mercury emissions spewed by the four dozen coal-fired power plants in your state. It’s time to try something different.
Not upstate New York – that would imply I live near a city. NORTHERN New York – almost Vermont. Clean as can be here!! It’s 60% overcast here – solar is still far more efficient than wind. Wind companies would have you believe otherwise, but the facts listed using the New York ISO’s Gold Book data states the wind farms in my area generate about 5.8% on average. Wind companies claimed it would be a whopping 35%. That’s what my neighbors who have solar believe they get with solar with 60% overcast skies. Where are these reports about mercury emissions in MY State?
LOL, I see the NIMBY’s are out in farce(not a typo). The sky is falling the sky is falling the…………
Abraham Lincoln must have been thinking of you when he said, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Actually, that statement originated a bit before Lincoln’s time:
“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” — ‘Proverbs’ 17:28.
That’s probably the last time you’ll see me favorably comment on a quote from that particular book.
Words to live by buckweet.
NIMBY and proud of it. 400+ foot INDUSTRIAL wind turbines do not belong in anyone’s backyard. And actually, a 3rd turbine did fall in my area so technically, the sky IS falling.
Is BDN owned by the Globe or the Times?? TYPICAL left wing propoganda with this headline, but the content shows that there is no conclusive evidence either way. How about this for a headline “Evidence inconclusive on whether or not Wind Turbines pose health risks”. And look who was on that “panel of experts” that conducted the study in Liberal Massachusetts where chronyism from Gov. Devil Patrick is at its finest. Nice spin BDN. Rag.
“Report: Evidence lacking to support claims that wind turbines harm health”
“Evidence inconclusive on whether or not Wind Turbines pose health risks”.
If you can’t see that those two statements support the same conclusion, then there have been some serious deficiencies in your education. Left wing propaganda, my foot.
Try living on a state road and having to listen to all the trucks that speed by delivering subsidized goods and services to those same people who don’t want any noisy development near their house.
“Try living on a state road and having to listen to all the trucks that speed by”
We live on one and it really sucks…
Who needs evidence? Many in this country just make up their own facts to support their opinion. How about that we agree that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts?
I’d agree to that if wind advocates would actually get some facts. It’s no where near efficient enough to make it worth the sacrifice you’re asking people to make in their quality of life. When you’re in your home look around and decide for yourself if your family really needs to have the peace and solitude you currently enjoy. Trucks occasionally going by or planes flying overhead are temporary. That all happens way too often at my own home – not to mention loudly modified motorcycles. They all drive us crazy – but temporarily crazy. What if you couldn’t ever escape the craziness? Please be cognizant of what you’re asking of other people.
Jeremy Payne said the industry has changed practices to address concerns, however.
Okay Jeremy , the changed practices are to put turbines in NRO (Noise Reduction Operation) slowing down power out put. Is it really about a new electricity source? Nope.
Another paractice is to buy out the complainers.
And why would you bother to buy out complainers? Unless, of course, it were your backyard. This industry just isn’t worth this much controversy. It certainly brings out the best in people…
Wind power is one of those things that the only value it has is in the construction of them. Once erected they are abandoned… Sort of like erecting a Statue
wind power horror http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/windmill.asp
I recall that back in 50’s people thought cigarette smoking was actually good for you!
The wind industry is simply taking advantage of rural Mainers by giving them a few short-term bucks and not telling them about the long-term negative side effects.
What about the effects on babies and young children trying to sleep?
The results are inconclusive!
Why take the risk for a heavily taxpayer subsidized scheme that will only result in destroying Maine’s natural beauty and cause incresed electric rates? Not to mention potential long-term health problems, reduction in tourism dollars and decreases in property values.
Awesome points! Take a look at the editorial: “New York wind: Much ado for so little”. There’s so much information out there that wind advocates don’t bother to read and people are suffering as a result. Cut this off before it becomes like big tobacco and our government funds are so tied up in an industry that doesn’t work we’ll all be required to look at a rusting useless monstrosity in our own backyard.
The one targeting my backyard wanted to have the “essential service” designation just like a public utility. If these government funded privately owned companies gain eminent domain over your property, you better hope the wind doesn’t blow strongly about 400 feet above where you now sleep. The quality of life of families shouldn’t be for sale.
“For us, this is further confirmation that the questions about health impacts from wind power in Maine have been answered time and time again,” said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, an industry trade group.”
In his role as a lobbyist, I can understand why Mr. Payne must spin this story in favor of the industry for which he works. But, in his role as a private citizen, I don’t understand how he can be so dismissive of the people who will ultimately have to deal with these facilities’ effects, whatever they are.
The article points out pretty well (though the headline is unforgivable) that the study really didn’t break any new ground and didn’t really do much of anything in terms of settling the question of whether or not turbines could have ANY influence on health, direct or indirect.
Mr. Payne has to know this. If people can read this panel’s report and honestly come to the conclusion that the case is closed on this issue, it would be further evidence of America’s slipping position in science education.
As reported by WGBH: Ken Kimmel (Mass. State Commissioner of Environmental Protection): “This was a truly independent panel. We selected people, and before we selected them we ensured that they didn’t have any preconceived view about wind turbines in general and we also made sure they were not connected either to the wind industry or opponents of wind energy.”
Mr. Kimmel couldn’t possibly have said this with a straight face if he knew anything about Dora Mills.
In 2009, Dora Mills came to the conclusion after two days of web searches and consultation with DEP officials, according to email records, that their was no need for concern about health impacts associated with wind turbines. She has written several pieces that support wind power development. She submitted testimony to the BEP last summer to discourage them from making a very slight alteration to allowable noise levels for wind turbines that might have hindered wind developers. She was scheduled to testify on behalf of Angus King’s Highland Plantation project until the application was pulled last spring.
Does anyone REALLY believe Dora Mills doesn’t have preconceived views about wind turbines? Come on, Mr. Kimmel. Did you really believe that no one was familiar with Dora Mills’ background?
“Words to live by buckweet.”
To informedmother: So, please, take your own advice and live by them.