Outrage in Fairhaven; Dismay in Falmouth
When the DEP’s Deputy Commissioner Martin Suuberg reported at the Board of Health presentation on May 21, 2013, he said testing measured 5 instances where turbines were out of compliance at 3 locations. The best he could offer the disturbed audience was a promise to work with developers. According to Louise Barteau:
The citizens of Fairhaven are outraged that there were five instances where the turbines were found out of compliance, and the state DEP and the town Board of Health are not taking any action. Why is there no action to stop the turbines?
Barteau said the findings identified noise readings that exceeded the DEP’s guideline of 10 dB(A) above ambient on November 9, 2012 at 12 Little Bay Road (10.7), on March 20, 2013 at Pierces Point (11.4), on April 2, 2013 at Little Bay Road (12.9) and on April 12, 2013 at Little Bay Road (11) and Teal Circle (11.5).
——-
The lop-sided vote on Question 2 in Falmouth on May 21st was sobering. Scott Giordano Tweeted for the Bulletin: “election results: 6,001 NO votes & 2,940 YES votes on removing the turbines.” In spite of the concern expressed in recent weeks by many townspeople over the divisions created by the turbines, the sheer cost may have been the deciding factor.
I will abide with the result of Question 2. But I must, at the same time, continue the work necessary to preserve acceptable health and living conditions for all residents of Falmouth.
Wind Wise ~ Massachusetts 
Here are a few points you might consider to counter certain arguments that will be made to minimize the noise from the wind turbine:
• Only a small number of violations were found.
o Over a five month period only a small number of samples were possible. Statistically, each violation is representative of many more violations that occur should we had the ability for continuous monitoring at the various receptor points over a prolonged period covering all possible wind speeds and directions.
• Shah will reduce noise to acceptable levels.
o The board has no way of independently evaluating future infractions. Mr. Shah’s assurance is not enough.
o How will future complaints be expediently handled? Waiting six months for additional testing is not acceptable.
o Should there be future violations, what penalties will be assessed against Shah.