More wind then syndrome

Another in a long list of well researched, and well supported articles written by Mike Barnard.

“Wind turbine syndrome” is more wind than syndrome

by Mike Barnard

Dr. Nina Pierpont performed a small set of medical interviews of people who complained of health problems that they blamed on wind turbines. She self-published a 294-page book on her findings she called “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/) in 2009. This book and the syndrome are widely referenced by people campaigning against wind turbines. She continues to promote “Wind Turbine Syndrome” and act as an expert witness via Skype for anti-wind campaigners world-wide.

Is there a real syndrome? Are there organic medical causes? Is it caused by wind turbines?


Image courtesy Amazon.com

 

Short Answer:

Dr. Pierpont’s book, Wind Turbine Syndrome, is a deeply flawed and vastly over-inflated work that is causing much more harm than any good it might be attempting to achieve. It has a tiny, self-selected sample group, phone interviews only, acceptance of hearsay on additional people as direct evidence, no control group, the approach taken to gathering information is almost designed to lead to the sample identifying symptoms as caused by wind turbines and the conclusions are unsupported by the data.

Long Answer:

What is “Wind Turbine Syndrome”

This purported syndrome originally consisted of a long list of complaints including tinnitus, dizziness, heart-palpitations, nausea, tingling, loss of sleep and a list of five or six more complaints. This list of symptoms was gathered by Dr. Nina Pierpont by advertising near wind farms for people who blamed their health issues on the wind turbines nearby. She interviewed them by phone to gather data. She interviewed a total of 23 people and from them gathered information on the symptoms of another 15 people. She did not perform a direct, in-person medical assessment on the complainants. She did not interview other people from the area who did not have health complaints. She did not gather and assess prior medical histories. Dr. Pierpont hypothesized various organic causes for the “Wind Turbine Syndrome” she had identified from this study. Chief among them was infrasound given off by the wind turbines. She included material on medical impacts of infrasound from other studies.

 

She did not establish a link between infrasound levels and related impacts from the literature. She did not measure infrasound at the homes of the complainants, or at the wind farms.[1]

Weaknesses and flaws:

1. Selection bias error - Dr. Pierpont advertised specifically for people that attributed their health problems to wind farms. This fundamentally skews results and leads the discussion.

   

   Image courtesy http://www.nedarc.org/statisticalhelp/eliminatingBias/bias.html

    

2. Sample size error - Dr. Pierpont spoke over the phone to only 23 people. She accepted anecdotal evidence for an additional 15. Despite this, she published roughly 60 pages of statistics, charts and graphs. There is no statistical conclusion of any sort that can be drawn from a sample this small except the size of the sample.[10]
3. No control group. Effective health studies are carefully designed to include control groups to ensure that the study is valid. Dr. Pierpont did not establish a control group and assess their health and did not compare her results to incidence of symptoms in the general population. [11]
4. Accepting self-reporting of symptoms, severity and causation without independent assessment. This is antithetical to medical practice. Doctors are trained to listen to patients’ complaints, then use independent means to validate a diagnosis. Self-reporting by patients is considered to be of very low quality and only guides assessment.[12]
5. No validation of prior health histories. Dr. Pierpont does not assess the prior medical histories of the respondents. Accepting statements of health impacts with no histories is also deeply flawed methodology.
6. Accepting hearsay evidence - As pointed out, Dr. Pierpont accepted evidence about other family member symptoms as valid without corroboration and included this information in her analysis.

   

   Image courtesy of http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/h/hearsay_evidence.asp

    

7. No geographical mapping. - Dr. Pierpont did not establish the specific locations of complainants to location of wind turbines as well as other sources of noise or potential sources of medical health problems. This is an important step in establishing causation.
8. No peer review - Dr. Pierpont’s original ‘peer reviewers’ are relatives and friends with no expertise in acoustics, epidemiology or medicine. One of these was her husband, Calvin Luther Martin, a retired associate professor of history and long-time anti-wind advocate.[8] Her work is not peer reviewed, and has never been submitted or accepted for peer review by any credible journal. Any work that does not gain solid peer review by accredited, broadly accepted and cited medical journals, especially years after initial publication, must be considered on par with snake oil salesmen. Post-publication, she has gained additional supporters whom she terms ‘peer reviewers’ in direct contradiction of the accepted meaning of that term, all of whom have a significant history of attacking wind generation.

   

   Image courtesy of http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

    

The Evidence Against
There have been 17 major studies on wind turbine health[2] and innumerable point-specific studies on wind turbine noise, vibration, infrasound and shadow flicker. These studies have been made up of public health doctors and scientists, acousticians, epidemiologists and related specialists. They considered Dr. Pierpont’s book along with all of the rest of the published literature. In every case, they found that her work was completely lacking in credibility compared to other research. Recent major studies have been done in Ontario, Massachusetts and Oregon with the same results.
In every case they found the following: a small subset of people living near wind turbines find the noise annoying. A small subset of those people get stressed. A small subset of those people lose sleep due to stress, but there is little indication that this is connected to wind turbines. The best evidence is that they would have been stressed about other rural noise such as tractors, dogs barking, local traffic or bird cannons instead.

Image courtesy of http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2438578822/photos/985759/tractor-dawn-till-dusk

 

When assessments of prior medical histories have been performed on people asserting “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, the histories show significantly higher incidences of the same complaints that make up “Wind Turbine Syndrome” than in the general population. Those complaining skew heavily to being much older than the general population.

Studies of infrasound related to wind turbines find levels of infrasound at the wind turbines too low to be an organic cause of harm. Even at homes nearer to wind turbines than Ontario’s Regulation 359/09 recommends — ISO method established noise attenuation to WHO recommended 40 dBA or about 550 meters for one large wind turbine — wind turbine infrasound is below the level from air conditioners, fans and refrigerators. It is below the level of 55+ dBG experienced by all urban dwellers and many rural dwellers all the time. [7]

The level of infrasound inside buildings with the windows closed at the minimum Ontario setback of 550 meters from wind turbines is below what humans can hear, far below what humans can feel and 10-20 dBG below what people living beside beaches are exposed to. At 360 meters distance, the above is all still true. At 200 meters distance, the above is all still true. [3]

Special measurement systems have to be created with below-ground, wind-screened microphones in order to separate infrasound from wind turbines from the infrasound generated by wind itself.[3]

Vibro-Acoustic Disease was originally coined to refer to aircrews of long-range military aircraft who were exposed to levels of infrasound of around 130 dBG for hundreds of hours every month. Comparing this to the infrasound that can’t be heard or felt generated by wind turbines, that is lower than that experienced by the hundreds of millions of people living near the sea, and asserting that it is a health risk is just disingenuous.[7] Note that the coinage of VAD occurred after the original aircrew studies, that 34 of 35 published papers on VAD are by the same small group of Portuguese researchers and that fully 74% of citations of those papers are by themselves. In other words, no one is citing VAD except the researchers working on it. Strong self-referencing and low referencing by others in science is usually an indicator of the quality of the research, and not a positive one. [9]

The evidence is clear. The study was flawed methodologically. At best it is a collection of anecdotal evidence that might be input to community health survey design. Several major independent studies have found no health impacts or mechanisms for health impacts such as asserted by Dr. Pierpont. Some people find the noise annoying.[4]

Who does this harm?
A psychogenic illness is one in which a group of people become convinced that they have a disease or ailment in common and attribute it to some external source. They often experience real symptoms and have significant negative health impacts as a result of this belief.

Image courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

 

Dr. Pierpont has created a psychogenic illness, giving it name, form and myriad symptoms from the flimsiest of cloth. Where there were minor and isolated complaints, “Wind Turbine Syndrome” has become a public health hysteria. Where a few people were annoyed, now hundreds of thousands world-wide fear for their health. Where people were relaxed, now they are deeply stressed.[5]

A list of assertions of negative health impacts from wind turbines maintained by Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health in Australia has reached over 200 entries including vibrating lips at 10 kilometres, underlying the degree of hysteria surrounding this. [6]

Dr. Pierpont’s book and her continuing promotion of it arguably breach a primary rule of medical ethics: first do no harm.

Image courtesy of https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181058_10151745310684196_1513021340_n.jpg

 

And “Wind Turbine Syndrome” has been adopted as truth by the vocal minority backlash against wind energy. For context, wind energy emits no particulate matter or greenhouse gases. It doesn’t poison ground water, or kill miners. It doesn’t cause asthma. Coal kills about 13,000 people in the US alone annually according to one study. Wind energy, which is helping wean us off of coal, kills and injures virtually no one.

Wind turbine projects world-wide are delayed due to this. Communities are torn apart. Farmers — who typically have the large areas of land suitable for wind farms — are even more pitted against their rural neighbours, often retirees or vacationers. Setbacks of wind turbines are being proposed that would make many areas impossible to erect wind farms in.

While wind energy is far from a magic bullet, it reduces CO2 and particulate matter emissions from fossil fuels, especially coal. These emissions have direct and strongly evidenced negative health impacts. Supporting continued use of fossil fuels when there is a clean alternative to reduce their use is supporting continued health and environmental impacts on very large numbers of people.

References:
[1] http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/
[2] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/WindHealthReviews.docx
[3] http://www.goyder.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Attachment_5.pdf
[4] Wind farms don’t make people sick, so why the complaints?
[5] http://www.scribd.com/doc/87923728/Is-there-anything-that-wind-turbines-don’t-cause-Psychogenic-aspects-of-‘wind-turbine-disease’
[6] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.docx
[7] Humans evolved with infrasound; is there any truth to health concerns about it?
[8] http://grist.org/climate-energy/2009-08-03-attack-on-industrial-wind-puffed-with-false-peer-review-claims/
[9] http://hdl.handle.net/2123/8362
[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493004/
[11] http://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=control_group
[12] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA496991

Additional peer-reviewed references that debunk Dr. Pierpont’s study and findings:

1. Infrasound from Wind Turbines – Fact, Fiction or Deception? by Geoff Leventhall in Vol.34 No.2 (2006) of the peer-reviewed journal Canadian Acoustics http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/technologies/wind/turbinefactsheets/mainColumnParagraphs/0/text_files/file1/06-06Leventhall-Infras-WT-CanAcoustics2.pdf
2. Electricity generation and health in the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet. The paper concludes that “Forms of renewable energy generation are still in the early phases of their technological development, but most seem to be associated with few adverse effects on health” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…

Not peer reviewed but still worth considering:

1. Wind Turbine Facilities Noise Issues by Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
2. Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise, A White Paper by Dr. Anthony Rodgers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
3. Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise, University of Salford, UK, July 2007
4. Health impact of wind turbines, prepared by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent Health & Family Services Public Health Unit. comprehensive review of available literature
5. Energy, sustainable development and health, World Health Organisation, June 2004.

 

More Myth Busters

Fact check: Sen. Alexander's claims about wind energy unfounded

27 March 2013 by Tom Gray

 

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) was featured recently in a USATODAY article about his (perennial) opposition to wind energy.

Sen. Alexander has persisted in seeking to undermine the wind industry in Congress for a number of years, even though during that time, the Southeastern U.S. has become a center of manufacturing for wind turbine components and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a major regional public utility, has purchased large quantities of wind energy from Midwestern wind farms (AWEA honored TVA last December as Utility of the Year for its pioneering efforts).

His latest broadside, like earlier efforts, contains a variety of errors. Here are some mythbusting facts in response:

Federal incentives for wind power have been reasonable and extremely effective. Incentivizing domestic energy production makes economic sense, as those incentives lower consumer costs, create jobs, and help create a diverse national energy mix. All energy sources have been subsidized over time, and wind is no exception. For a fair comparison of government incentives, one must have a historic perspective.

Over the last 90 years, federal support for the fossil fuel industry has been far greater than for renewables. In fact, according to a study of historical incentives by the venture capital firm DBL Investors, the federal commitment to oil and gas was five times greater than for renewables during the first 15 years of each set of incentives. Government support totaling nearly $600 billion has been provided to bolster the production of conventional fossil energy sources, along with $73 billion for nuclear power, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute's own tally.

Wind power and its primary incentive, the Production Tax Credit (PTC), have been proven to be cost effective. The PTC has driven up to $25 billion a year in private investment, helping to create a supply chain for the wind industry that spreads across 44 states.

Even better, wind power has been shown to save consumers money. A May 2012 report from Synapse Energy Economics found adding more wind power in the Midwest could save consumers in that region between $3 billion and $9.5 billion a year by 2020, depending on the number of new wind farms installed. Wind farms' operating costs are very low, and so when the wind is blowing, the electricity they produce displaces output from the most expensive power plants that are currently operating. Because wind power has no fuel cost, it also protects consumers from volatility in the price of other fuels, much like a fixed rate mortgage protects consumers from fluctuations in interest rates.

In short, American wind energy and the PTC have been a bipartisan policy success story, helping to pave the way for an abundant, clean, renewable energy future.

With regard to electric generation, wind power has made utility systems more reliable, not less. That's because adding wind energy helps build a more balanced and reliable portfolio of energy resources. When Texas experienced rolling blackouts in February 2011 because a cold snap caused the failure of dozens of fossil-fired power plants, wind energy continued producing as expected and helped keep the lights on, earning praise from the state’s utility system operator.

Failures at large fossil and nuclear power plants occur instantaneously and without warning, requiring system operators to keep large quantities of expensive, fast-acting reserves on hand 24/7/365 to be ready in case an outage occurs. In contrast, changes in wind and solar output occur slowly and can be forecast by using advanced weather models, allowing system operators to plan ahead and readily accommodate their output. (Also, contrary to Sen. Alexander's claims, most wind farms generate electricity 65 percent of the time or more, although they often run at less than full output.)

To better understand wind power’s reliability and how utility system operators ensure flexibility within the grid, read more here: http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=21744

Hepburn Wind hosts Fukushima Youth

Hepburn Wind hosts Fukushima Youth Delegation on clean energy fact finding mission

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Leigh Ewbank

This week, the award-winning Hepburn Wind farm hosted a group of schoolchildren visiting from Fukushima, the site of Japan’s biggest nuclear accident.

 

 

Taryn Lane, community officer for Hepburn Wind, recently returned from a speaking tour of Japan were she briefed university researchers, policymakers, and community organisations about the community-ownership model for renewable energy. The highlight of Taryn’s trip was a community meeting attended by more than 300 people keen to hear how a community-wind energy project can get off the ground. The trip has fostered strong links between Daylesford and the Japanese community, and was a strong reason for the Fukushima Youth Delegation’s visit to Hepburn Wind.

The following is a report by Taryn Lane:

This week, twelve students from Fukushima visited the Hepburn Wind farm for a glimpse of the clean energy future they want to build in their disaster stricken province in Japan.

 

It has been nearly two years since the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident. The disaster and its aftermath continues to burden Fukushima residents, especially the children. Radioactivity is one of the key issues that the student delegation face.

 

People in areas affected by radiation have to limit their exposure. They are only allowed 2 hours outside per day and most of the students still living in temporary structures. The delegation’s schedule in Daylesford also included lunch with Hepburn Shire Councillors and an afternoon at renowned permaculture farm Meliodora. This gave the students 2 days in the clean air and environment of Daylesford.

 

Noritsane (14 years old) said, “I have never had an experience like this, being inside a turbine – I will tell this story to my school back in Fukushima, we should do this.”

 

Miyuki (13 years old) said, “One turbine generates a lot more energy than I thought possible and are far quieter than I thought – wind farms provide many good things, not bad things like nuclear.”

 

Naomi (14 years old) stated, “I really hope Fukushima will change and do this.”

 

It was an honour to host the students at our wind farm and show how a community can take charge and create a clean energy future. We hope the students can return home with a new story of possibility and hope.

 

Fukushima and other nuclear disasters are a global threat and a global responsibility, which Australia should give more enough attention to. Very few Australians realise that our uranium was the source of the radioactive pollution that is harming our young visitors from Fukushima (reference).

 

From 23 March – 1 April, the 12 junior high students from Minamisoma are visiting Victoria for eight days with sponsorship from international NGO ‘Peace Boat’ in co-operation with Melbourne-based organisation ‘Japan for Peace’ (JfP) and various NGOs.

 

The ‘Fukushima Youth Ambassadors’ project was initiated by Peace Boat after the earthquake disaster in 2011. They trip aims to show them how Australians tackle environmental issues and includes visits to local secondary schools for a cultural exchange.

More Misinformation Debunked

Fact check: More misinformation from Bryce on wind and birds

25 March 2013 by John Anderson

 

Anti-wind advocate Robert Bryce penned a recent column on wind and birds for the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal. As with his previous writings on wind, Mr. Bryce again ignores a balanced analysis in favor of misinformation.

No source of energy production is without potential risk to wildlife. However, the wind energy industry’s impacts are comparatively minor, and it does more to study, avoid, and mitigate for them than any other energy industry. We work directly with federal and state regulatory officials the conservation community, and other stakeholders in this regard.

A recent analysis of studies conducted at over 100 wind farms estimated that wind power generation results in the loss of less than 200,000 birds annually. Mr. Bryce’s claim, based on the estimate of a single U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologist, is that the impacts related to wind energy are nearly three times as high. However, this metric is not based on data, and has been publicly noted by senior officials within the USFWS as not being an official agency estimate.

Further, aside from the earliest wind farms developed in California during the 1980s, when siting practices were in their infancy, wind energy is responsible for less than 2% of all documented eagle fatalities nationally. In fact, fatalities caused by electrocutions, vehicle strikes, poisoning from lead and other substances, illegal shootings, and even drowning in livestock watering tanks all exceed wind energy’s impact on eagles.

Contrary to Mr. Bryce’s assertion, the eagle “take” permit is not a wholesale license to kill eagles, nor is it specifically designed for the wind industry. Authorized by the 2009 Eagle Permit Rule under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, it provides legal protection to an individual or company (i.e., oil & gas, utilities, military bases and airports, wind energy, etc.) for the "take" of an eagle that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise legal activity--including energy production.

This protection is available under carefully controlled conditions. Any proposed wind farm must holistically evaluate the risk to eagles and take steps to reduce the potential for fatalities. If the threat of eagle mortality continues, the developer or operator must compensate for fatalities to ensure that eagles' overall numbers are stable or increasing. This high standard puts significant pressure on wind farm owners and operators to reduce their impacts to the greatest extent practicable.

Moreover, in March 2012, the USFWS released the final version of the Voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. These guidelines are the result of over five years of collaboration between representatives of the wind energy industry, the conservation community, USFWS, state wildlife officials, and tribes. The guidelines hold the wind industry to a higher standard for wildlife protection than is legally required and include specific recommendations related to pre-construction studies, post-construction monitoring, and mitigation, to ensure that each new project has the best information available to mitigate risks to wildlife.

In conclusion, no method of energy generation is completely benign. However, given that generating electricity with wind power requires no mining or drilling for fuel, creates no air or water pollution, generates no hazardous waste, and utilizes no water in the generation of electricity its net health and environmental benefits--for both wildlife and humans--are clear.

Supporting Evidence of the Nocebo Effect

Can Expectations Produce Symptoms From Infrasound Associated With Wind Turbines?

Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Gamble G, Petrie KJ.

Abstract

Objective: The development of new wind farms in many parts of the world has been thwarted by public concern that subaudible sound (infrasound) generated by wind turbines causes adverse health effects. Although the scientific evidence does not support a direct pathophysiological link between infrasound and health complaints, there is a body of lay information suggesting a link between infrasound exposure and health effects. This study tested the potential for such information to create symptom expectations, thereby providing a possible pathway for symptom reporting.

Method: A sham-controlled double-blind provocation study, in which participants were exposed to 10 min of infrasound and 10 min of sham infrasound, was conducted. Fifty-four participants were randomized to high- or low-expectancy groups and presented audiovisual information, integrating material from the Internet, designed to invoke either high or low expectations that exposure to infrasound causes specified symptoms.

Results: High-expectancy participants reported significant increases, from
pre-exposure assessment, in the number and intensity of symptoms experienced during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. There were no symptomatic changes in the low-expectancy group.

Conclusions: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms that aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound. Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the Internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings.

Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling? An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)

Journal of Psychosomatic Research, March 2013

Abstract

Objective

Medically unsubstantiated ‘intolerances’ to foods, chemicals and environmental toxins are common and are frequently discussed in the media. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is one such condition and is characterized by symptoms that are attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). In this experiment, we tested whether media reports promote the development of this condition.

Methods

Participants (N=147) were randomly assigned to watch a television report about the adverse health effects of WiFi (n=76) or a control film (n=71). After watching their film, participants received a sham exposure to a WiFi signal (15min). The principal outcome measure was symptom reports following the sham exposure. Secondary outcomes included worries about the health effects of EMF, attributing symptoms to the sham exposure and increases in perceived sensitivity to EMF.

Results

82 (54%) of the 147 participants reported symptoms which they attributed to the sham exposure. The experimental film increased: EMF related worries (β=0.19; P=.019); post sham exposure symptoms among participants with high pre-existing anxiety (β=0.22; P=.008); the likelihood of symptoms being attributed to the sham exposure among people with high anxiety (β=.31; P=.001); and the likelihood of people who attributed their symptoms to the sham exposure believing themselves to be sensitive to EMF (β=0.16; P=.049).

Conclusion

Media reports about the adverse effects of supposedly hazardous substances can increase the likelihood of experiencing symptoms following sham exposure and developing an apparent sensitivity to it. Greater engagement between journalists and scientists is required to counter these negative effects.

Keywords: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Functional somatic syndromes, Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF), Media reports, Medically unexplained symptoms, Somatization

Can Wind Turbines Make You Sick?

A new syndrome appears to be highly contagious.

By Keith Kloor|Posted Wednesday, March 20, 2013, at 1:17 PM

In the past several years, scores of people living near wind farms have claimed to have been sickened by noise from the rotating blades. They have complained of everything from headaches and depression to conjunctivitis and nosebleeds. Is “wind turbine syndrome” real? Is it just another imaginary illness stoked by loons on the Internet? Are the victims a bunch of fakers?

Noisy environments can be irritating and sleep-disrupting. But advocates of the new syndrome (which is not medically recognized) say that wind turbines pose specific dangers. They claim that exposure to wind farms’ low-frequency noise, even vibrations below the threshold of human hearing, is having dangerous physiological effects.

Several recent studies might explain what’s going on here. One of them, published in Health Psychology, found that the power of suggestion can induce symptoms associated with wind turbine syndrome. Researchers exposed 60 participants to 10 minutes of infrasound (vibrations too low in frequency to hear) and sham infrasound (that is, silence). Before the listening sessions, half the group was shown television footage of people who lived near wind farms recounting the harmful effects they said were caused by noise from the spinning blades. Within this group, the people who scored high on a test of anxiety became symptomatic whether they were exposed to low-frequency noise or sham infrasound.

As one of the authors of the study points out, this appears to be a classic case of the nocebo effect. It’s the evil twin of the placebo effect, which is often a pain-alleviating response to a sham pill or treatment. Nocebo effects are harmful symptoms that arise from negative information. For example, some participants in medical trials who are warned of potential adverse side effects experience precisely those side effects, even though they’re really taking a phony medication. The nocebo effect is psychogenic, a case of the mind making the body sick.

Several factors appear to be contributing to the sudden onset of medical problems attributed to wind turbines. A study released last week from the University of Sydney found that most of the health complaints about wind turbines came from an area of Australia where an organized anti-wind movement has been publicizing health concerns since 2009. (Coincidentally, the term wind turbine syndrome was coined in 2009 as the title of a self-published book.) "Health complaints were as rare as proverbial rocking horse droppings until the scare-mongering groups began megaphoning their apocalyptic, scary messages to rural residents," says study author Simon Chapman. As he pointed out to the Guardian: "If wind farms were intrinsically unhealthy or dangerous in some way, we would expect to see complaints applying to all of them, but in fact there is a large number where there have been no complaints at all."

And yet, the number of health problems attributed to wind turbines seems to multiply by the day, according to a compendium that Chapman maintains. His list now tops more than 200 maladies, which leads him to ask sardonically if there has ever been a bigger threat to humanity.

The epidemic also attests to the power of modern media, especially those outlets that have hyped anecdotal claims of wind turbine syndrome. A study published late last year in Health, Risk & Society calls this the "fright factor." Researchers surveying newspaper coverage of wind power in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2011 found that many articles focused on “environmental risks and human health” concerns. It turns out that the press may be just as responsible as anti-wind activists for triggering the nocebo effect in those who believe they have fallen ill from wind turbines.

That jibes with a finding from a study published earlier this month in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research that asked in its title, "Are media warnings about the adverse effects of modern life self-fulfilling?" The study addressed another supposed danger—electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi signals—that also has the power to evoke a nocebo response. As in the wind turbine study, participants watched a TV report of people claiming that Wi-Fi signals had caused them to fall ill. Researchers exposed participants to sham Wi-Fi signals and found that a number of the people (once again, those who were already identified as having an anxious personality) exhibited symptoms such as stomach pain and headaches.

Reports on the supposed dangers of electromagnetic fields from cellphone towers and overhead power lines have been circulating in the media for years. The roots of EMF hysteria in the United States can be traced back to the 1980s and 1990s and the work of a crusading journalist who published stories in The New Yorker under the heading “Annals of Radiation.” People have attributed a myriad of illnesses to EMF, particularly neurological disorders and brain tumors. But after many millions of dollars of peer-reviewed research in the past few decades, there is no credible scientific evidence for such claims.

Still, concerns are so persistent globally that the World Health Organization (WHO) has looked comprehensively into the matter, concluding: "Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields."

In the United States, paranoia over EMF seems to have died down in recent years, though there are plenty of dead-enders who still flog the issue. Those who might have been inclined to fret about the danger of power lines may now instead be focusing their fears on cellphones. (This subset of chronic worriers should know that everything gives you cancer.)

Meanwhile, people living near wind farms, including a number of residents in one Massachusetts community, say they are experiencing headaches, insomnia, ringing in the ears, and other symptoms. It’s impossible to know whether they are extra-sensitive to low-frequency noise, would have had insomnia and headaches wherever they live, or are psychologically predisposed to react badly to negative information on wind turbines. For the time being, perhaps Stephen Colbert's take on wind turbine syndrome as a "communicated disease" seems the best explanation. Here's hoping this article doesn't spread it any further.

Double Whammy

Double whammy to the anti-wind farm brigade

 

Simon Chapman18 Mar, 9:18 AM

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/18/wind-power/double-whammy-anti-wind-farm-brigade#ixzz2Nu62SjGT

A study of mine published Thursday night delivers a double whammy to those who argue that wind turbines cause health problems in communities.

Earlier this week researchers at the University of Auckland published an experimental study showing that people primed by watching online information about health problems from wind turbines, reported more symptoms after being exposed to recorded infrasound or to sham (fake) infrasound.

The study provided powerful evidence for the nocebo hypothesis: the idea that anxiety and fear about wind turbines being spread about by anti-wind farm groups, will cause some people hearing this scary stuff to get those symptoms.

The double whammy for the scaremongers comes in the form of an historical audit of all complaints made about wind farm noise or health problems on all of Australia’s 49 wind farms. Australia’s first wind farm, which still operates today, started generating power in 1993 at Esperance in Western Australia. Twenty years on, our 49 wind farms have seen 1471 turbines turning for a cumulative total of 328 years.

In recent years, and particularly since 2009, we’ve heard a lot about health complaints involving wind turbines, thanks to the efforts of groups such as the Waubra Foundation (none of whose directors live in or near the Victorian town of Waubra) and the interconnected Landscape Guardians. And, just as the nocebo hypothesis would predict, the great bulk of health and noise complaints have arisen since 2009: 82 per cent of complainants made their first complaint after that date.

There are some 32,677 people living within 5km of these 49 wind farms around Australia, and just 120 – or one in 272 – of them have ever made formal complaints, appeared in news reports or sent complaining submissions to government. Moreover, 81 (68 per cent) of these are people living near just five wind farms, each of which have been heavily targeted by wind farm opponent groups.

Our study tested four hypotheses relevant to the nocebo hypothesis:

1. Many wind farms of comparable power would have no history of health or noise complaints from nearby residents (suggesting that factors that don’t relate to the turbines may explain the presence or absence of complaints)

2. Wind farms which had been subject to complaints would have only a small number of such complaining residents among those living near the farms (suggesting that individual or social factors may be required to explain different ‘susceptibility’)

3. Few wind farms would have any history of complaints consistent with recent claims that turbines cause acute health problems (suggesting that explanations beyond turbines are needed to explain why acute problems are reported)

4. Most health and noise complaints would date from after the advent of anti-wind farm groups beginning to foment concerns about health (from around 2009) and that wind farms subject to organised opposition would be more likely to have histories of complaint than those not exposed to such opposition (suggesting that health concerns may reflect ‘communicated’ anxieties).

All four hypotheses were strongly supported by our study:
-- Almost two thirds (63 per cent) of all wind farms, including half of those with large (>1MW) turbines which opponents particularly demonise, have never been the subject of complaint.
-- The proportion of nearby residents complaining is minuscule.
-- Some complainants took many years to voice their first complaint, when wind farm opponents regularly warn that the ill effects can be almost instant.
-- Health complaints were as rare as proverbial rocking horse droppings until the scare-mongering groups began megaphoning their apocalyptic, scary messages to rural residents.

The first records of claims being made that wind turbines could cause health problems date from 2003, when a British GP wrote an unpublished report about just 36 people scattered around the UK who all said the turbines made them ill.

A Victorian country GP followed this up with an even smaller study in 2004, where after dropping 25 questionnaires to people living near the local turbines, eight reported problems like sleep difficulties, stress and dizziness.

Among the many problems with this study is the fact that in any community, regardless of the presence or absence of wind turbines, about a quarter to a third will have sleep problems, nearly half will have had a headache in the last week, and nearly one in six will have felt dizzy. When someone suggests that wind turbines – which some rural people don’t much like the look of – might be causing such problems, this ‘rural myth’ gets traction.

The rhino in the room for those who would dismiss the nocebo hypothesis is the small problem-ette of explaining why there are so many thousands of people living near wind farms who never complain. And of why between 1993 and 2004, there were no health complaints but 13 wind farms operating, including five with large turbines.

The standard response is that only some people are ‘susceptible’, just like only some people get motion sickness. Our data produce big problems for that explanation: it is implausible that no susceptible people would live around any wind farm in Western Australia where there have been zero complaints, around almost all older farms, nor around nearly half of the more recent farms. No credible hypotheses other than those implicating psycho-social factors have been advanced to explain this variability.

In the early days, those who didn’t like the turbines, complained that they looked ugly and were blots on pristine bush landscapes. A few worried that they might kill birds and bats (they do, but at a tiny fraction of the rate that plate glass, cars and feral cats kill). But as this lengthy 2004 report shows, health problems were rarely mentioned, with the few who did being seen as doing the cause no favours.

But then opponents decided to push the health issue: when someone says they are ill, you are supposed to be sympathetic, not sceptical. It was always going to be a winning strategy. My collection of health problems opponents have named now numbers 216.

Until now, this strategy has worked well for them, but the two studies now out should pour a large bucket of cold water on this core claim, as should even cursory consideration of the weird and wonderful claims being made by some of their leaders.

Australia’s high priestess of wind turbine syndrome, the unregistered doctor Sarah Laurie claimed last year that vibrations from wind turbines can “perceptibly rock stationary cars even further than a kilometre away from the nearest wind turbine” and that turbines can make people’s lips vibrate "as from a distance of 10km away”.

A pharmacist from near Yass in NSW, George Papadopoulos, claims to be able to experience the “problem” at remarkable distances,

Where does the problem stop? This is a difficult question to answer. On two occasions when the ILFN (infrasound and low frequency noise) nuisance was at its worst, I travelled out west. On one occasion I discovered that it appeared to have dissipated at Wee Jasper, 70km away from the closest turbines. On another occasion, and by far the worst of all days, the problem had dissipated when arriving at Young about 100km from the closest turbines.

But don’t worry – Mr Papadopoulos assures us:

Truly these figures appear subjective, outrageous, and for most, impossible to believe. However, I am reporting my findings that have taken hours and days to determine. I’m not just plucking figures out of the air.

Simon Chapman is Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney.
This article was originally published by The Conversation.


Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/18/wind-power/double-whammy-anti-wind-farm-brigade#ixzz2Nu55ypub

More anti-wind sickness.....it's spreading

I am Sick of Anti-Wind Propaganda

By Paul Gipe

Yes, anti-wind hysteria has made me sick. I got queasy in my stomach when I thought of the 150,000 wind turbines operating worldwide and still no epidemic of death and disease had yet broken out despite the sickening anti-wind hype in the English-speaking world. I worried myself sick that a new black death would strike Germany and Spain who together have one-third of the world's wind turbines. I fretted even more that Europe would collapse in panic and mayhem from its 100,000 wind turbines, many now operating for decades.

Why then are Germans, Danes, and Spaniards not falling by the thousands to dementia and disease? Are they made of sterner stuff? Or is it simply that they don't speak English and can't read all the propaganda fostered by the anti-renewables lobby.
It is the anti-renewables lobby--it's not just anti-wind anymore, they're after solar too-that makes me sick.

It made me sick to learn a few days before the Ontario, Canada election that the Power Workers Union was caught with their metaphorical pants down. It seems that the pro-nuclear, pro-coal lobby group was uncovered funding an anti-wind, and anti-renewables campaign of commentary in newspapers, on the radio, and on the internet.

I felt a lot better after the disclosure forced this unethical campaign to close its doors-at least for now. I am feeling much better now too, after learning that a disgruntled citizen sued an anti-wind group in Ontario for violating the province's election laws by openly endorsing an anti-wind candidate.

The Nocebo Effect

Written by: Alison Rourke in Sydney, Australia

 

Windfarm sickness spreads by word of mouth

Health complaints from people living around turbines shown to be psychological effect of anti-wind lobby making people worry

 

Sickness being attributed to wind turbines is more likely to have been caused by people getting alarmed at the health warnings circulated by activists, an Australian study has found.

Complaints of illness were far more prevalent in communities targeted by anti-windfarm groups, said the report's author, Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University. His report concludes that illnesses being blamed on windfarms are more than likely caused by the psychological effect of suggestions that the turbines make people ill, rather than by the turbines themselves.

"If windfarms were intrinsically unhealthy or dangerous in some way, we would expect to see complaints applying to all of them, but in fact there is a large number where there have been no complaints at all," Chapman said.

The report, which is the first study of the history of complaints about windfarms in Australia, found that 63% had never been subject to noise or health complaints. In the state of Western Australia, where there are 13 windfarms, there have been no complaints.

The study shows that the majority of complaints (68%) have come from residents near five windfarms that have been heavily targeted by opponent groups. The report says more than 80% of complaints about health and noise began after 2009 when the groups "began to add health concerns to their wider opposition".

"In the preceding years health or noise complaints were rare despite large and small turbined wind farms having operated for many years," it says.

According to Chapman, when windfarms started being built in Australia about 20 years ago some of the anti-wind lobby was driven by people who simply did not like the look of them.

"Then in about 2009 things started ramping up and these people discovered if you started saying it was a health problem, a lot more people would sit up and pay attention. It's essentially a sociological phenomenon," he said.

Giving the illness a name like "wind turbine syndrome" and "vibro-acoustic disease" had been a key feature in its spread, Chapman said. He accepted that some people genuinely felt ill but "where you set up an expectation in people that something in their environment is noxious, that can translate into an expression of symptoms".

The findings run against the claims of the Waubra Foundation, a national group that opposes windfarms and says serious medical conditions have been identified in people living, working or visiting within six miles (10km) of wind turbine developments. The group says the onset of conditions including sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart attacks and depression correspond directly with the operation of the windfarms.
Waubra's chief executive, Sarah Laurie, said illnesses resulting from exposure to windfarms were "an inconvenient truth".

"There's been an attitude that the people who are getting sick are collateral damage," she said.

"People are not getting sick because someone tells them they're going to become unwell. They're waking up in the middle of the night and suffering from sleep deprivation because something is waking them up."

Laurie, who trained as a rural GP, said it was important that more research was done so we have a better understanding of exactly what's going on.

"No evidence doesn't mean no problem. It means the evidence hasn't been collected because the research hasn't been done," she said.

Chapman said that if wind farms did genuinely make people ill there would by now be a large body of medical evidence that would preclude putting them near inhabited areas. Eighteen reviews of the research literature on wind turbines and health published since 2003 had all reached the broad conclusion that there was very little evidence they were directly harmful to health.

Chapman cited a recent New Zealand study that exposed 60 healthy volunteers to both real and fake low-frequency noise, similar to what is produced by wind turbines and is sometimes known as infrasound. Half of the volunteers were shown television documentaries about health problems associated with wind turbines before they listened to the low-frequency noise; the other half were not. They were then played a mixture of noises. Those who had seen the videos about the adverse affects reported higher levels of symptoms whether exposed to the genuine or fake audio samples.
In spite of results like this, complaints from some living near wind turbines persist.

David Mortimer is a beef and cattle farmer in Millicent, South Australia, 400km south-east of Adelaide. Wind turbines were built on his farm in 2004.

"Mostly I've had sleep-related problems," he said. "At night I get a deep rumbling sensation in my head which makes it hard to get to sleep. I also get a pulsing in my heat that does not correlate to my heartbeat. It gives me an acute sense of anxiety and arrhythmia that goes on for days."

Mortimer said he sleeps well when he's away from the farm, when the silence in his head at night is "absolutely profound".

"As soon as we come back the symptoms reappear," he said. "A lot of people like me are complaining but politicians and wind farm companies are not listening."

An application for 160 new turbines has been approved to be built on his neighbour's property. Seventeen of them will be visible from Mortimer's house and within 3.5km of his home.

• Read the windfarm noise study

More on the "Nocebo Effect"

http://www.positivelypositive.com/2013/01/23/the-nocebo-effect-how-negative-thoughts-can-harm-your-health/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/beware-the-nocebo-effect.html?_r=0

Research Finds Wind Farm Health Concerns Probably Caused By Anti-Wind Scare Campaigns (via Desmogblog)

ANTI-WIND farm activists around the world have created a silent bogeyman they claim can cause everything from sickness and headaches to herpes, kidney damage and cancers. This "infrasound" exists at frequencies too low for the human ear to detect but is present almost everywhere from offices and roadsides…

A wind energy worker speaks up!

Here is a fantastic editorial on living, and working among wind energy projects in Ontario. I hope it gets more people who live, work and support renewable energy to stand up and be counted.

This post has been reprinted from the blog site,
http://lifeamonggiants.com/2013/03/10/anti-wind-groups-make-me-sick/

Anti-Wind Groups Make Me Sick

 I often wonder if my experience living near windmills would have been different had I been inundated with the anti-wind message before we bought our home. If I had heard the ‘wind farms make people sick’ message over and over again, would that have changed my perception of reality? It’s hard for me to say. I consider myself a critical and analytical thinker. I am intelligent. I don’t fall for things easily. I may nod my head just to get through a silly conversation when I know the other party is completely irrational or beyond reproach, but I’m not going to believe anything at face value when I have doubts. I try to research things before I form judgement.

Wind power is a fairly new method of power generation in Canada. New things are scary. Humans have an inherent fear of the unknown. Many people also fear change. The anti-wind groups have taken advantage of these emotions and perfected the art of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the health effects of wind energy. Anti-wind groups prey on those who are uncertain and uneducated about wind power. Working in wind, I have heard the most ridiculous claims about wind power. I have had to try very hard to keep my jaw from dropping in awe; I find it hard to comprehend how people can believe such utter crap. None of these things are worth repeating, as they do not deserve any more spread than they’ve already received. That, and the sheer idiocy would likely cause some blog readers to immediately bash their head on the nearest solid surface.

I am not writing this blog as a scientist, a doctor, an engineer or an accoustician. I don’t need to say the same things that science has said over and over again. The fact of the matter is this: The balance of peer-reviewed scientific evidence states that windmills / wind farms pose no risk to human health. None. Zip. Zero. Science wins over anecdotal evidence every time, unless of course you are part of an anti-wind group. There are plenty of scientific studies on the very real negative health impacts of fossil fuel burning and nuclear, but people are used to those sources of power. Ever wonder why all the anti-wind court cases get thrown out? There is NO real evidence with which they can win a case to stop development!

I watched one anti-wind court case with particular fascination because the people who were suing the wind farm’s parent company lived in my old neighborhood. This family was claiming to suffer all sorts of health problems since the windmills went up near their home. As I said, I lived quite close to these people at one point. Their home was located directly beside a rail line where freight trains would pass frequently. There was a railway crossing at the edge of their property where the train would sound it’s horn. The train would also sound at 3 other crossings nearby, all of which were audible from this property. The home which these people inhabited had no siding on it (and had been that way for years). Do I need to point out the blatantly obvious problems with this scenario? No? I didn’t think so.

I’m going to say something here that may seem shocking, but hear me out. People who live near wind turbines are suffering from real health issues. People are losing sleep, experiencing headaches, nausea and so on. The reason for this is what’s important here. Windmills are not making people sick. A person’s fear that they will be made sick by windmills is making them sick. The very messages that anti-wind groups spread are causing these symptoms. Our mind is a powerful thing. Dr Clifton Meador, of Vanderbilt School of Medicine in Nashville in the U.S, said fear can turn into self-fulfilling prophecy. “Bad news promotes bad physiology. I think that you can persuade people that they’re going to die and have it happen. I don’t think there is anything mystical about it. We’re uncomfortable with the idea that words or symbolic actions can cause death because it changes our biomolecular model of the world.”* Now death is a little extreme for what we’re discussing here, but it solidifies my point.

What if I been told that windmills would make me sick, make my dog sick, make my family sick, etc, over and over again until I believed it? Would living here, looking out at the things that supposedly make me sick every day, make me sick? If I truly believed in it, yes, I have no doubt that I would make myself sick. I would stress myself out thinking about these windmills making me sick. I wouldn’t sleep. I would give myself headaches. I would be filled with worry and anxiety. If my dog threw up (which is perfectly routine around here), I would believe that it was because of the windmills. In a situation where I am anxious or stressed about something I tend to develop a headache, so if I was stressed out by the windmills it makes perfect sense that I would have that happen. The symptoms are real. The cause has been wrongly attributed. Anti-wind groups are at the root of this suffering, planting seeds of doubt and fear in people’s minds until it manifests itself in illness.

I will say that I do believe that in earlier days of wind development some poorly placed windmills, some that were improperly installed or poorly designed could have been responsible for real issues. There are handful of people who have had real experiences that need to be learned from. In this article I am discussing the present day issue of widespread fear of wind energy and the consequences of that. I am pointing an accusing finger at the anti-wind groups. This has not been an easy thing for me to sit down and write, but I felt it was absolutely necessary. People need to think critically, do their homework and be realistic. Everyone needs a chance to educate themselves on wind energy before an anti-wind group convinces them that windmills are evil things that will cause harm. That is not reality.

There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but I don’t wish to dive in to politics, start dissecting research papers or quoting scientific studies. That has already been done. My mission is to quell fears, destroy doubts and satisfy uncertainties. My husband, my dog and myself live among windmills. We have worked underneath them for months on end. We have neighbors and friends who live in even closer proximity than we do. I am friends with turbine technicians and tradespeople who have spent countless hours inside nacelles, 80 meters in the air. We are all fine. We are happy. We are healthy. We chose to believe in science instead of scare tactics.

~Meredith

Read more...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1181335/The-health-alerts-make-ill-Negative-thoughts-induce-sickness.html#ixzz2N5XTdQ8k



Town Meeting Day: Wind energy on the agenda

This article was written by Candice Page, and appeared in the Burlington (Vt) Free Press.

___________________________________________________________________

Wind Energy in Vermount

When wind energy is on the agenda at tax-decision time, it’s a matter of for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer.

Tuesday in Lowell, town meeting voters will decide whether to eliminate municipal taxes altogether, thanks to payments from the Kingdom Community Wind project.
In Sheffield, voters will decide whether to repeat last year’s choice to use revenue from the First Wind turbine project to slash the tax rate by 84 percent.

But up the road in Newark, residents must decide whether to raise the tax rate by 5 cents to fight wind development on a local ridgeline.

In all, wind-related items are on the ballot in at least four Vermont communities this week. In southern Vermont, Grafton voters will debate an item — the wording of which already has touched off criticism — prompted by a wind company’s interest in a series of hills in town.

Vermont lawmakers are in the midst of a lengthy debate in Montpelier regarding whether, and how, the state’s process for approving commercial wind development should be reformed, in part to give greater weight to town plans that discourage — or embrace — wind turbines.

For some Town Meeting Day voters, the effects of wind-energy generation and the debate over it will be on display in more immediate ways.

In Newark, Selectboard Chairman Michael Channon won’t seek re-election. He said the town’s fight against proposed measuring towers has turned his volunteer job into a 20-to-25-hour-a-week marathon.

“I’ve had enough,” he said last week. “This has affected my business and my family’s life. It’s way too much.”

An $800 windfall

The owner of an average-value home in Lowell — worth about $150,000, the town treasurer estimates — paid $809 this year in taxes for town and highway expenses.
Next year, that bill is likely to drop to zero.

The 21 turbines of Green Mountain Power’s Kingdom Community Wind project started turning last fall on Lowell Mountain. Under a signed agreement with the town, GMP will pay Lowell $535,000 every year — more than enough to pay all the town’s bills, which amounted to $447,000 this year.

It takes four separate articles on the town warning to dispose of all that cash: The first calls on voters to use the wind payments to reduce the tax rate to zero. The remaining articles ask the town to set up a savings reserve fund and direct surplus money from 2012 and 2013 into that fund.

Town Treasurer Pam Tetreault cautions that, even should the articles pass, residents still will pay school taxes, as usual.

For Selectman Alden Warner, a supporter of the wind project, creating the savings fund is critical. Despite the influx of money, the Selectboard didn’t go on a spending spree, he said.

“We figured the same way we always had: ‘What do we need to get by?’” he said. “There’s nothing over and above what we usually do.

“My personal opinion is we need a ‘ramp up’ savings account,” he added, “so that whenever the wind towers are decommissioned, we can spread the increase in taxes over a few years.”

In addition, he said, revenue from the wind project might help Lowell expand its school, “which has been at its maximum for umpteen years.” He predicts the school census will grow, putting more pressure on the space.

“I think more people will be enticed to live in town because of our low taxes,” he said.

Although the wind project is now a reality, a coalition of opponents known as the Lowell Mountain Group sent postcards to residents urging them to attend town meeting to vote on how the new revenue should be used.

“Most people thought the money would automatically reduce our taxes. They weren’t aware it had to be voted on,” member Robbin Clark said last week.

Although she continues to oppose wind development — “The detriment to our area has been just awful,” she said — now that the project is up, it’s important to make sure the money is used to lower taxes, she said.

Getting used to riches

In using new revenue to save taxes, Lowell would be following in the footsteps of Sheffield, which has been receiving payments from the 16-turbine Sheffield Wind project since fall 2011.

The town is guaranteed $520,000 a year for 20 years. At the 2012 town meeting, there was debate about whether to eliminate town taxes altogether or to put some of the money into savings.

“I think last year we were confused. It was hard to wrap your mind around,” Town Clerk Kathy Newland said last week.

Voters split the difference, directing half the money to current expenses, half to savings.

The town tax on a $100,000 home (the average value of a residence on six acres or less in Sheffield, according to the state Tax Department) dropped from $743 to $118.
Voters will be faced with the same choice of how to spend the money this week.

“Hopefully it won’t be so confusing,” Newland said.

How to pay the legal bills

Lowell and Sheffield both endorsed wind energy development in public votes. Newark residents have been equally decisive in their opposition to plans by Eolian Wind Energy of Portsmouth, N.H., to erect a wind measuring tower on a hill known as Hawk Rock.

A majority of registered voters signed a petition opposing wind development. By a vote of 169-59, residents approved a new town plan that finds industrial-scale wind generation incompatible with the community’s values and vision of itself.

On Town Meeting Day, the bill comes due.

Already the town has incurred nearly $60,000 in legal expenses fighting Eolian’s plans and defending itself from a lawsuit brought by the owner of the land where the project would be built. More expenses lie ahead. An article on the warning proposes creation of a $50,000 fund to “assist in legal matters including but not limited to Industrial Wind related activities.”

One penny on the tax rate raises about $10,000 in Newark, so passage of the article would mean a one-year, 5 cent increase in the tax rate and another $84 on the tax bill of an average-value house worth $168,000.

“We need to have money set aside to the defend the town in any legal situation,” Selectboard Chairman Channon said.

“We just haven’t had to do that in the past.”

Cynthia Barber, executive coordinator of the local opposition group Newark Neighbors United, said the group expects the $50,000 item to pass.

“Given the support we got when the town plan was changed, we believe this ought to pass, but it’s not assured,” she said.

The vote will test Newark residents’ commitment to fighting commercial wind turbines, because the legal fund is not the only special spending item on the warning.
Before they get to wind energy, voters will be asked if they want to spend $250,000 to build a new Town Clerk’s Office.

“So we’re going to start right off having a difficult conversation about money,” said Noreen Hession, a strong opponent of wind development.

Talking in Grafton

Grafton voters won’t be asked to raise or spend money related to wind energy. There, local opponents asked the Selectboard to add an item to the warning to prohibit industrial wind turbines.

The board refused, saying it had received legal advice that towns in Vermont lack the authority to prohibit wind installations. Instead they drafted an article asking whether the board should “continue conversations” with the developer and put any specific turbine proposal to a nonbinding public vote.

The article seems likely to provoke the kind of divisions and heated debate that other communities have experienced when wind developers come to town.

Selectboard members in Newark have advice for their residents that might apply in Grafton, as well.

“Whether we ever live among industrial wind turbines or not it is our hope that we don’t lose our community,” Chairman Channon wrote in this year’s town report.

“This is a complex and emotional issue and I hope all residents will try hard to understand that all this will pass and the town of Newark will still be home,” he wrote.

 “Without community, it will just be real estate.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130304/NEWS07/303040004/Town-Meeting-Day-Wind-energy-on-the-agenda?nclick_check=1