Skip to content

Dr. Nina Pierpont Interviews Neil Anderson – Wind Turbine Syndrome

September 25, 2011

Catch this BLIP TV series installment when Dr. Nina Pierpont Interviews Falmouth MA resident Neil Anderson about Wind Turbine Syndrome.

“About this episode
TV-UN Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins) PhD (Yale) interviews Falmouth resident Neil Anderson who has been having a strange ailment plague him ever since a Vestas 1.65 Megawatt turbine went up in his neighborhood July 2010. The interview takes place in September 2011. Neil feels the turbine is destroying his life. Dr. Pierpont inquires about his symptoms and his ability to carry on a normal life now.”
Release Date: Sep 24, 2011
Runtime: 16:35

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. September 30, 2011 4:38 pm

    The state has been saying there is only regulatory noise from wind turbines. You may find this interesting that in 2006 the MTC has in black and white in a wind report “Human annoyance noise ”

    State officials have agreed to pay for another noise study on the Wind 1 turbine at the Falmouth wastewater treatment facility on Blacksmith Shop Road.The wind turbine industry, along with Gov. Deval Patrick, is pushing the state senate to adopt the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act. The noise from Wind 1 is a big issue for Gov Patricks commercial wind turbine plans.

    I have a wind study from 2006 done for my town Mattapoisett which quotes the second type of sound called “Human annoyance.” I have sent this to the attorney chris@senie.com Chris Senie is the attorney against the Falmouth and Salem wind turbines hired by the residents.

    It might get interesting if the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the governor become aware of the refrence to “Human annoyance noise ” in a 2006 report by the semi quasi state agency .

    Thanks Frank Haggerty

    This is the post I’ve been placing on the internet :

    Massachusetts officials were well aware of two distinct types of noise from commercial wind turbines in 2006. The types of noise were regulatory and human annoyance as reported in a wind study for Mattapoisett in 2006. The Vestas V 47 was given as an example.

    The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative was the state’s economic development agency for renewable energy. They were stuck with two Vestas V 82 turbines in a warehouse since 2004 at $3500.00 per month until they were installed in Falmouth with 2009 stimulus funds.The turbines were installed in 2010. The storage fees were a political embarrassment and the installation has 50 Falmouth residents up in arms over noise issues.

    Here is the introduction to the MTC report:

    Wind Power in Mattapoisett, Marion & Rochester:Siting Considerations for a Met Tower
    and Fatal Flaws Analysis for a Wind Turbine

    This report was funded by the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust’s Community Wind Collaborative on behalf of the towns of Mattapoisett, Marion & Rochester. It was prepared by Sally Wright and Lynn Di Tullio of the Renewable Energy Research Laboratory at the University of Massachusetts.

    Page 14
    “Noise
    Noise considerations generally take two forms, state regulatory compliance and nuisance levels at nearby residences:

    A. Regulatory compliance: Massachusetts state regulations do not allow a rise of 10 dB or greater above background levels at a property boundary (Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations, Regulation 310 CMR 7.10). This sound level is very unlikely to be a reached incase at the sites we examined.

    B. Human annoyance: Aside from Massachusetts regulations, residences must also be taken into consideration. Any eventual turbine would be sited such that it would be inaudible or minimally audible at the nearest residences. At this stage, to check for “fatal flaws,” a rule of thumb can be used: to minimize possible noise impacts,site wind turbines at least three times the blade tip height from residences. Distances from mixed-use areas may be somewhat shorter.

    Noise will not be an issue for siting a wind turbine at the ORR High School or the Marion WWTP.

    However, noise will be a primary siting constraint for the Brandt Island Road site because much of the parcel is less than 800 feet wide, and there are residences to the western side of the parcel. Consideration of the neighbors will be an important factor in siting a wind turbine on this parcel of town land. Given a specific size and make of turbine, suggested setbacks from residences can be proposed to eliminate or minimize the audibility at the neighbors. This would then inform the exact siting of a turbine. For example, a Vestas V47 on a 50-meter tower has a 241-foot blade-tip, and would need to be sited on
    the far eastern side of the parcel, to be three times the blade-tip height (723 feet) from the neighbors on the western edge.”

    http://masstech.org/Project%20Deliverables/Comm_Wind/Mattapoisett/Tri-Town_ORR_Preliminary_Site_Analysis.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: