More Distance Needed–Letter Corrects False Assumption about DEP Study Findings

Massachusetts Wind Turbine Health Impact Counter Points

Click to access Massachusetts%20Wind%20Turbine%20Health%20Impact%20Study%20Talking%20Points.pdf

 What the Study Says:
o On page 1:“…It should be noted that the scope of the Panel’s effort was
focused on wind turbines and is not meant to be a comparative analysis of the
relative merits of wind energy vs. non-renewable fossil fuel sources such as
coal, oil, and natural gas.”
 However:
 The second paragraph of Chapter 1 of the study discusses a
significant decrease in the consumption of conventional fuels and a
corresponding decrease in the production of carbon dioxide and
nitrogen and sulfur oxides
 The second paragraph states that reductions in the production of
these pollutants will have demonstrable and positive benefits on
human and environmental health
 Appendix A has a 28 page summary on the origin of wind energy, the
mechanics and operation of wind turbines, and the reduction of
emissions if more turbines were providing energy (Section 12 is titled
“Wind Turbines and Avoided Pollutants”)
o On page 1: “The overall context for this study is that the use of wind turbines
results in positive effects on public health and environmental health…local
impacts of wind turbines, whether anticipated or demonstrated, have resulted
in fewer turbines being installed than might otherwise have been expected. To
the extent that these impacts can be ameliorated, it should be possible to take
advantage of the indigenous wind energy resource more effectively.” This
passage indicates the true purpose of the Massachusetts study—to create an
expansion of the wind industry through a slanted interpretation of wind health study
documents.
o The Panel merely reviewed literature and public media sources and met only three
times
o Stated that sleep disruption is the most commonly reported complaint by people and
discusses this primarily as a result of “unwanted sound” and audible, amplitudemodulated
noise (“whooshing”)
o Writes off most self-reported “annoyance” as a combination of sound, sight of the
turbine, and attitude towards the wind project (ES-5)
o Therefore, according to the Panel, because they “found” no negative health effects to
humans as a result of their literature research, it must necessarily follow that there
are positive health effects. Yet, these positive health effects are not the result of
wind turbines being safe, but that the turbines’ “green” impact on the environment will
result in a decrease of conventional sources of fuel. This endorsement of safety is
an admission that the Panel failed to strictly adhere to the scope of their charge.
 Expert “Independent” Panel Members:
o Dr. James F. Manwell and Dora Anne Mills are extreme pro-wind advocates:
o Manwell oversaw the first utility scale wind turbine and the largest wind turbine
constructed in Massachusetts
o Manwell has won several awards from American Wind Association and U.S.
Department of Energy
o Mills has provided public testimony and “op-ed” newspaper pieces supporting wind
turbines while a member of the Commission and before the findings were released
o Posted information on Maine’s CDC website as Maine’s public health director that
wind turbines do not have negative health effects in 2009
o Page 2 of the study states that 5 of the panel members “did not have any direct
experience with wind turbines.” While the other members had backgrounds in
epidemiology, toxicology , neurology, and sleep medicine, they had no past direct
experience with wind turbines
 Massachusetts Study Cites Sources that Contain Information that Wind Turbines
Cause Negative Health Effects:
o The Panel used several articles by the same authors of other studies that Senator
Lasee provided to the PSC
o The Panel used several articles that Senator Lasee provided to the PSC that found
that infrasound from wind turbines can have negative health effects, yet the
Massachusetts panel comes to different conclusions than the study authors:
 Ambrose, S.E. & Rand R. W., (2011, December). The Bruce McPherson
Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse Health Effects
Produced By Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed.
http://randacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Bruce-McPherson-
ILFN-Study.pdf.
 Nissenbaum, M., Aramini, J., & Hanning, C. (2011). Adverse health effects of
industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Paper presented at the 10th
International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN)
London, UK.
Concludes on page 6: “We conclude that IWT noise…disrupts the sleep
and adversely affects the health of those living nearby. The current
ordinances determining setback are inadequate to protect the resident
and setbacks of less than 1.5km (appx. 1 mile) must be regarded as
unsafe.”
http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Nissenbaum%20et%20al%20ICBEN20
11_0158_final.pdf.
 Moller, H. & C.S. Pedersen, “Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines,”
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, June 2011 vol. 129 no. 6 pages
3727-3744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3543957.
 These include Dr. Alec Salt, who is presenting two new papers before the
end of this year demonstrating that infrasound has negative health effects on
humans
 Salt, A., “Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don’t tell your
brain”—Powerpoint presentation by Alec N. Salt, Ph.D., Department
of Otolaryngology, (2010), Washington University School of Medicine,
First International Symposium on Adverse Health and Wind Turbines,
Sept. 2010. http://windvigilance.com/downloads/symposium
2010/swv_symposium_presenation_infrasound_your_ears_hear_it_2.
pdf.
 Salt, A.N. & Hullar, T.E., “Responses of the ear to low frequency
sounds, infrasound and wind turbines,” Hearing Research, September
2010 vol. 268 nos. 1-2 pages 12-21.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20561575.
 Salt, A.N. & Kaltenbach, J.A., “Infrasound from wind turbines could
affect humans,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August
2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 296-302.
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296.
 Wisconsin Law:
o 196.378(4g)(b)
 “…these rules shall include setback requirements that provide reasonable
protection from any health effects, including health effects from noise and
shadow flicker, associated with wind energy systems.”
 A political subdivision may not place a restriction on the installation or use of
a wind energy system more restrictive than the rules promulgated by the
PSC.
 Final Thoughts:
o The Brown County Board of Health issued a resolution stating that wind turbines
cause negative health effects
o Studies cited by the Massachusetts Study and by Senator Lasee contain evidence
that wind turbines cause negative health effects
o With the PSC in possession of these studies (nearly a 12 inch stack total), they are
aware that there is peer-reviewed information stating that wind turbines cause
negative health effects
o With Wisconsin citizens feeling negative health effects by wind turbines, PSC 128 is
not compliant with state law and the PSC should promulgate an emergency rule to
protect the health and safety of the citizenry.