Martin Alder, managing director of Longhill Energy, said: “At this time of year the sun hits the blades of the turbine at a certain angle and creates flickering shadows over parts of the prison.

“Some of the prisoners complained that the flickering was irritating them. We’ve discussed the problem with the prison authorities and agreed to turn the turbine off for a few hours in the early morning until about 9am. The problem only occurs at certain times of the year when the sun is low. I suppose the bottom line is that it’s a matter of security.”

Mr Alder said that his company hoped eventually to install equipment to stop the turbine automatically when the sun was at the problem angle.

He said: “Shadow-flicker is a recognised problem with wind turbines. That’s why they aren’t built near housing developments. And we want to be good neighbours.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The Prison Service is reaching an agreement whereby the wind turbine does not interfere with the smooth running of the prison.”

From The Times
April 9, 2005
By Richard Ford
Web Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article379096.ece

» Translations available on the toolbar at the bottom «

DeKalb residents who have been battling with wind turbine companies since 2003 said their presentation was to educate the citizens on the adverse effects they’ve personally experienced. The group has continued their efforts since the turbines went online in December and are seeking litigation.

“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.

Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.

Hinshaw & Culbertson Attorney Rich Porter who opened the informational meeting with a presentation called, “Don’t Get Blown Over By a Wind Farm,” said a study has compared the noise to a leaky faucet in the middle of the night.

Though the panel of DeKalb County residents admit some of their complaints don’t occur around the clock, they said problems are affecting their everyday lives.

Others like rural Waterman resident Ron Flex said the turbines have made he and his family physically ill since being turned on. Flex said his wife became nauseous the first day they were turned on. Something he attributes to the shadow flicker from the rotating of the propellers.

Shadow flicker occurs when the sun is at an angle to produce a large shadow from the propeller of a wind turbine as it rotates around. The repetition of the shadow fading in and out is considered an annoyance.

Noise seemed to be an overwhelming complaint from each of the speakers.

Porter said that even though no noise seems present when standing below one, the turbines create a noise short distances away and can sometimes be amplified when inside a home.

Also included in the list of complaints with the turbines are lower property values, speculation about tax revenue, the inability to negotiate the contracts with the companies, and negative effects on livestock and other wildlife.

Porter urged local officials to adopt special use ordinances that deal specifically with wind turbines.

“You should be doing something about your ordinances,” he said. “There are a variety of developers circling your county.”

Speakers also urged attendees to educate themselves whether they were considering allowing the turbines on their properties.

Porter warned the crowd to be very skeptical of what they hear about tax revenue being a major benefit for schools. Taxation for the turbines as currently exists expires in 2011 and he warned there is always the possibility of them becoming tax exempt because of their portrayal as green technology.

Speaker and DeKalb County resident Tammy Duriavich added that people need to stop labeling areas with turbines as wind farms and view them as industrial.

“If you can’t plant it, harvest it, breed it…it’s not farming,” she said.

Duriavich explained the group doesn’t oppose renewable energy, but said she believes the turbines are not a good example of efficient green technology because of how much land they take out of crop production and for various other reasons.

“We’re not against renewable energy,” she said. “We just think it could be done responsibly.”

Several elected officials from the area were present to hear what they had to say.

Attempts by Brad Lila, of Renewable Energy Sources in Ashton, to point out differences between the companies were cut short. Presenters claimed the audience was there to hear the other side of the story.

For the complete article see the 03-10-2010 issue.

Credit: Ashton Gazette, www.ashtongazette.com 12 March 2010

Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.

The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.

In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter’s property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. “We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night.” Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.

Mr. Porter’s story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.

I’ve spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit “continuous noise and vibration,” which disturb her sleep and are causing “loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects.”

Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.

Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.

In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter’s house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.

Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls “wind turbine syndrome” disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.

Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. “It has compromised their health,” he says.

The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel.” It declared: “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.”

Yet the report also noted that in “the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date.” True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that “a small number of sensitive people” may be “stressed” by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define “sensitive” and “small number”? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren’t problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they’ll be located closer to populated areas.

The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of “green” energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His fourth book, “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” will be published in April by PublicAffairs.

Source: http://www.djreprints.com
MARCH 1, 2010, 6:44 P.M. ET

Video:

JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA, PRESENTER: It’s the biggest wind farm operating in Victoria and it’s putting the tiny town of Waubra on the map in ways the locals never predicted. It’s been dubbed the ‘Waubra Disease’, the health effects of living surrounded by wind turbines and it’s now becoming known around the world. As the State Government approves more wind farms, there are growing demands for serious investigation and for standards to be reviewed. Cheryl Hall reports.

DONALD THOMAS, WAUBRA FARMER: I thought it was probably the greatest thing to ever happen to the area. Visited wind farm up at Ararat and was quite impressed and came home thinking well, yeah, it’s a good thing. It’s not until the windmills started turning that we started to experience a few problems.

CHERYL HALL, REPORTER: And what sort of problems have you had?

DONALD THOMAS: We’ve had troubles, ear pressure, headaches, rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure.

CHERYL HALL: 20 families living around Waubra’s wind turbines have reported similar symptoms, but not everyone can talk about it. Those with turbines on their properties have signed agreements not to speak publicly.

DONALD THOMAS: In the yard here you can feel the ones on the hill there. They get into sync and every minute or two you’ll get this – there may be three or four big whooshes that you can actually feel.

CHERYL HALL: The most high-profile case of so-called “Waubra Disease” was Trish Godfrey, who spoke to Stateline last year.

TRISH GODFREY, WAUBRA RESIDENT (Sept. 2009): Basically, the best way I can describe it is that you feel that you’ve got motion sickness, but it’s not just for a little while, it’s all the time in varying degrees. It feels like my head is in a vice. I can’t remember the last night that I had a full night’s sleep. Usually we wake up at least five or six times during the night.

CHERYL HALL: Last week she won her battle when the wind farm company Acciona bought her property, but it came at a price.

Trish and Victor Godfrey have signed a confidentiality agreement and can’t speak publicly, but the company Acciona has issued a statement denying they suffered health effects from the turbines.

BRETT THOMAS, ACCIONA: No, that certainly wasn’t the issue that they contacted us about. As I said, their concern when they contacted us was about the visual impacts.

CATHY RUSSELL, WESTERN PLAINS LANDSCAPE GUARDIANS: Absolutely ridiculous, because we all know, and as well as the media knows, as well as the greater community who reads the papers knows, Trish was very much suffering. And there’s no question of a doubt it would open the floodgates effectively with regards to liability.

CHERYL HALL: Just down the road from Donald Thomas’s house this property is deserted. The Deans haven’t lived here for 10 months.

NOEL DEAN, WAUBRA FARMER: I won’t go out there while the turbines are there. I can’t afford to. I just get too ill.

CHERYL HALL: Noel Dean has moved to Ballarat. His son works on the farm but won’t live there.

NOEL DEAN: It’s cost us approximately $400,000, of buying this shed, relocating and expenses occurred in the monitoring and investigation of the problem, which the wind farm won’t do. I’ve asked compliance from the State Government for at least six months and they won’t give any confirmation that they’ve complied with their duty.

BRETT THOMAS: We’re carrying out all of the compliance obligations that we are required to carry out at that wind farm.

CHERYL HALL: The responsibility of enforcing the permit conditions has been transferred from the Planning Minister Justin Madden to the local council. But the Pyrenees Shire Council has been unable to do its job. It says it has neither the technical skills or the financial resources to enforce the conditions. The council has received many complaints and wants the State Government to investigate them.

DAVID CLARK, PYRENEES SHIRE MAYOR: I honestly don’t know, and again all the official evidence says that no, there isn’t an impact. My personal view is very simple. My personal view is I’ve known these people all my life and a lot of them I’ve gone to school with and I trust ‘em with my life. And they’re saying to me they’ve got an issue and to me that issue needs to be investigated.

CHERYL HALL: The Planning Minister Justin Madden declined a request for an interview, but he issued a statement saying complaints regarding noise levels at the Waubra wind farm have been investigated and no breach of the conditions has been found. The Health Department says it has reviewed current research and believes there is no direct evidence that wind farms cause health problems. The Clean Energy Council agrees.

MATTHEW WARREN, CLEAN ENERGY COUNCIL: The issue of infrasound comes up in these debate, but after 20 years of wind farm development round the world and 100,000 turbines erected and studied around the world, there is no medical evidence of infrasound causing illness.

CHERYL HALL: Noel Dean has commissioned an independent report on noise levels at his property.

NOEL DEAN: I’m waiting for an independent, peer-reviewed report which at the moment indicates that there’s non-compliance at our property several times over 10 days. There is pulsing of low frequency, highly suspected of causing the illnesses we are getting.

CHERYL HALL: The report will be presented to a court case in New Zealand next week to demonstrate widespread complaints about health effects. It will include information on Waubra as well as complaints from 750 people who live near a wind farm in Makara in New Zealand.

CATHY RUSSELL: I’ve got information effectively from Makara Windfarm in New Zealand, the affidavits from the people who live near that particular wind farm, and similarly, questionnaires of a similar nature with regard to health from Waubra that back up – the same people in the same situations.

CHERYL HALL: Donald Thomas fears his problems are about to get worse. There are plans to make the Waubra wind farm even bigger, with more turbines to the north.

DONALD THOMAS: There’s no way known we can allow Waubra north to go ahead, having lived next to the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere.

CHERYL HALL: But the Waubra wind farm will be dwarfed by the Stockyard Hill proposal, west of Ballarat, of more than 200 turbines. Like Waubra, the communities of Beaufort and Skipton are divided over the wind farm. 300 public submissions have been received about the plan.

CASSIE FRANZOSE, WESTERN PLAINS LANDSCAPE GUARDIANS: The lack of information, the refusal to have a public meeting. There is no chance that this will not be approved. I mean, it is an absolute given. This process is – absolutely favours the deployment and widespread deployment of inappropriate wind farms across Victoria.

CHERYL HALL: Victoria currently has 10 operating wind farms, but another 27 are under development. One of those at Bald Hills in Gippsland was this week granted approval by Planning Minister Justin Madden to increase the height of its turbines by 20 per cent to 135 metres.

CATHY RUSSELL: It’s like a new frontier, effectively, because turbines, when the noise standards were set for example, were based on turbines that were around 36 metres high and now they’re 136 metres high and reaching into parts of the atmosphere never chartered before.

CHERYL HALL: But Environment Minister Peter Garrett laid the responsibility firmly with the State Government.

PETER GARRETT, FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Wind farms, there are a broader range of issues, sitting issues, amenity issues, noise issues and the like, and I certainly think that it’s important that they are taken into account by local authorities and state governments in any of the states of the Commonwealth when they’re actually approving wind farms.

CHERYL HALL: Cathy Russell and Noel Dean met with Peter Garrett last night. They asked him to take their health issues seriously and fund an independent investigation.

CATHY RUSSELL: We’ve told them repeatedly, and so ultimately, he’s ignoring that advice at his peril, as he has done with insulation and solar. It’s just a minefield and it’s a time bomb waiting to happen, especially with the deployment of so many of these things throughout western Victoria.

Source: Stateline Victoria
Published: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:34 AEDT

Barbara Ashbee-Lormand traveled from central Ontario to central Vermont in late October to a discussion of an industrial wind turbine development proposed for the town of Ira, organized by Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

She’s a rare figure in the debate over the effects big wind towers have on people. She’s one of only two homeowners that a major wind company, Canadian Hydro Developers, has conceded it bought out because of their complaints that the huge gadgets proved to be impossible to live with.

Ms. Ashbee-Lormand has an important story to tell, but she didn’t tell it at that October meeting in West Rutland. Nor did she tell it during an interview in her real estate office in Orangeville, a town of about 15,000 that sits 50 miles north and a little west of Toronto.

That was part of the deal, when Canadian Hydro bought her home.

“I cannot talk about my personal experience,” she said at the outset of a brief interview. “If you want to call it a gag order, so be it.”

Ms. Ashbee-Lormand clearly believes that wind towers pose a threat to human health, but she can’t say why. It might have been that frustration that briefly reduced the crisply tailored businesswoman to tears during the meeting in her office.

But she could refer this reporter to a colleague, retired pharmacist Carmen Krogh, who is under no such constraint. Ms. Krogh was a featured speaker at the West Rutland meeting. She says that Ms. Ashbee-Lormand and her husband found the wind towers so intolerable that they moved out of their house and slept in a tent in the backyard.

They lived in Amaranth, a rural township north of Orangeville that is host to 22 industrial wind turbines. After Canadian Hydro bought them out, they moved to the nearby township of Mono. Moving out of a house into a tent makes little sense, unless the effects of low-frequency sound from the turbines are taken into account.

“Low-frequency noise can be more disturbing inside a house,” Ms. Krogh said in a recent interview. “The house can act as a receptor.” In the tent, Ms. Krogh suggested, the couple coped with the noise of the turbines, “but the other component was reduced.”

Ms. Krogh says that Ms. Ashbee-Lormand is just one of more than a hundred Ontario residents who, in response to her questionnaire, have reported that nearby wind turbines do them harm.

That’s enough, she argues, to justify a thorough-going, well funded study of the effects wind turbines have on some of their human neighbors.

“My personal position is that we really need to pause until we do some very good studies,” she said. She compares such a study to the search for side effects that is undertaken before a potent new drug is released for general use.

In the field of wind energy, she notes, “it has been a very difficult situation, because a lot of investment has already taken place.”

Ontario alone, she estimates, has between 500 and 600 working turbines.

Absent the sort of study, the wind power industry is free to make statements like this one from the Canadian Wind Energy Association, to the Orangeville Banner: “We say it’s quite conclusively demonstrated in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that there’s no causal linkage that’s been found between sounds from wind turbines and human health.”

The industry’s stand on the matter, and its apparent determination to tie financial settlements to gag orders, isolates people who do suffer side effects.

In Amaranth, Ms. Ashbee-Lormand recalls, “We were experiencing problems, and being told we were the only people in the wind farm who were having problems. They really do try and keep it quiet.” Then Ms. Ashbee-Lormand saw Helen Fraser on television, talking about the problems that led her and her husband, Bruce, to sell their home.

The Frasers lived in the neighboring township of Melancthon, which hosts the majority of the 133 towers in Canadian Hydro’s “Eco-Power Center.” They are the other family whose home, the utility acknowledged utility to Banner reporter Richard Vivian, it purchased as a result of the residents’ health complaints.

The four other homes it bought, Canadian Hydro told the Banner, were needed for storage and to house construction workers.

Ms. Fraser disputes that vigorously. All the purchases, she insists, were due to residents’ complaints of health problems. One of them was a dairy farmer, she says, who complained that his cows stopped calving, and their milk production suffered accordingly. “He moved to Saskatchewan,” Ms. Fraser said.

Unlike Ms. Ashbee-Lormand, Ms. Fraser said she is barred only from discussing the terms of the purchase agreement, and can talk freely about what led to it.

The couple broke ground for their new home on County Road 17 on their second wedding anniversary in 1975. Built to their specifications, the five-bedroom home went up on a one-acre lot on the back corner of a farm that was then owned by Bruce’s parents. The stone facing on the front of the house came from the nearby farm of Helen’s parents.

They raised their four children in the house, planted scores of trees, grew bushels of potatoes in their vegetable garden.

When construction started on the wind turbines in 2005 the Frasers were interested and, Ms. Fraser insists, sympathetic witnesses.

Mr. Fraser, a retired crops expert for the province of Ontario, clocked a big gravel truck rumbling by the house every 30 seconds, hauling materials for the network of roads that crisscross the flat farmland around their former house.

He marveled at the scale of the project, the deep holes, 60 feet across, for turbine foundations that each absorbed truckloads of concrete and a tractor trailer load of rebar. The towers rise 256 feet, he said, and the turbine blades extend their height to 386 feet.

The closest tower is 1,410 feet from the house – “Much too close,” Mr. Fraser said on a recent visit to the site.

But before the turbines started turning in March 2006, Ms. Fraser insists, “I was still for them. I’m for green. We compost and recycle. I’m totally for green.”

Once the big blades began to turn, Ms. Fraser said, “I started to get headaches, then body aches, and a feeling like something was crawling out of my ear.”

Her problems varied with the direction of the wind, Ms. Fraser recalled. “If the blades were facing the house, I wrote the day off. I couldn’t concentrate. My heart would beat to the pulse of the turbines. We’d have to keep the windows closed.”

When the couple took a vacation to a beach on Lake Huron, she said, “all my symptoms, within 24 hours, cleared up.” When they came home, she said, the symptoms returned.

“If the blades were facing the northeast I wouldn’t sleep at all,” Ms. Fraser said. The family dog couldn’t sleep either, she said, “and nine times out of ten she’d pee on the floor.”

That August a 25-day trip to Canada’s east coast provided quick relief. “I never had aches, no ringing in my ears, nothing crawling out of them,” Ms. Fraser said. “Bruce’s blood sugar went back to normal.” Mr. Fraser is a diabetic, and at home his blood sugar levels had been all over the map.

“Back home we come and the symptoms started all over again,” Ms. Fraser said. “I started realizing this has to be the turbines. I started looking on the Net and found that this is a common problem. I said, ‘Okay, I’m not nuts.’”

Things got even worse with the arrival of winter, Ms. Fraser said. Coming from a lower angle, the sun shone through the wind turbines and cast their flickering shadows into the house.

The strobe effect gave her a pounding headache, Ms. Fraser said. “One day after 45 minutes I went to the basement – the dog beat me there. I thought the top was coming off my head. I was holding the sides of my head, my eyes were running, I was sick to my stomach.”

Beyond the physical symptoms, Ms. Fraser recalls a feeling of uneasiness. “You can’t get that anxious feeling out of yourself; feeling like you’re in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. It upsets your equilibrium.”

In 2007, on their thirty-fourth wedding anniversary, the Frasers moved into a house in the nearby town of Shelburne.

The company had made them an offer and, after talking to the grown children, all living in Toronto, the couple decided to take it.

“If we decided to keep the house, we wouldn’t be able to sell it,” Ms. Fraser said. “Basically I call it shut up money.”

Though she is free to discuss her experience with the turbines, and frequently does so, Ms. Fraser said she did agree not to testify in person at hearings on wind power that the Ontario Municipal Board was holding at the time.

“It was heartbreaking when we sold that house,” Ms. Fraser said. “Just heartbreaking.”

There were two years of extensive renovation before the Frasers stopped calling the Shelburne residence a house. With 25 friends and family sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner this fall, Ms. Fraser said, “we officially called it a home. It was a hard two years.”

Meanwhile an employee of Canadian Hydro lives in the couple’s old house.

It’s listed for sale in the Orangeville Banner, though the wind turbine that sits so prominently behind the house is somehow missing from the small photo in the newspaper ad. Though she can’t discuss the details of the original sale, Ms. Fraser noted that the asking price has, over time, drifted down from $298,000 to its present level of $284,900.

“If I had advice for any municipality,” Ms. Fraser said, “it would be ‘Please, please, please do the research on the health effects before you consider destroying people’s lives.’”

Video:

Video: 8:42 AM

The turbines are operational now, and we have experienced first hand shadow flicker. I’m an optimistic realist, but no longer optimistic regarding shadow flicker. This is a small portion of over 45 minutes of shadow flicker that occurred in our home this morning.

Video: 8:42 AM

I live in the Forward wind farm erected by the Invenergy Company of Chicago, IL. I understand you may have wind turbines coming to a farm near you.

I have been a rural mail carrier in this area for 30 years, therefore I know on a personal level most of the residents in this wind farm which is located near Brownsville, Wisconsin.

There are 86 industrial wind turbines here and I delivered mail where 64 of them are located. I, like most members of our community didn’t pay much attention to the news that the turbines were coming in because we trusted our local town government and the state government to site them responsibly and safely. We were very naïve.

The turbines are forty stories tall and the set backs are 1,000 feet from a residence, 440 feet from the property line of a non hosting neighbor and roads with a 50 decibel sound limit. These set backs were pretty much written by the energy company, who led us to believe that these set backs were safe.

We were told the turbines make about as much noise as your refrigerator or sound like the trees blowing in the wind. On March 3rd of this year I walked out of the house and heard a jet flying over. I looked in the sky for that jet. There was no jet flying over. It was the first day of operation of the industrial wind turbine 1560’ behind my home.

That day I decided it would be a good idea to begin keeping a noise diary. You can read it at betterplan.squarespace.com. You can also read there many health concerns and how many Wisconsin towns and counties are now enacting ordinances to protect the health and safety of their residents.

We did not know the loss of sleep, headaches, our son telling us “My head feels like it is spinning 100 miles and hour”, ringing and buzzing in the ears, nausea, stress, tenseness and lack of concentration which have affected us since the turbines went on line were caused by the wind turbines until a friend told us about Nina Pierpont’s study of wind turbine victims at www.windturbinesyndrome.com.

These symptoms are also experienced by people around the world that live near industrial wind turbines. yet the energy company will tell you that they have no complaints of health issues.

At our house we can hear 5 turbines on a regular basis. They range in distance from 1,560′ to 3/4 of a mile. At times we hear all five of them inside our well constructed and insulated home. When we go to our “cabin in the woods” not only is it peaceful there, but some of our symptoms go away or improve depending on how long we are away. We sleep all night there without interruption. The first time we went to our cabin after the turbines were up my wife told me, “Last night was the first night in weeks that I slept all night”.

Our neighbors and friends in the wind farm tell us of similar effects and farmers have told me of their regrets agreeing to host these large wind turbines. Recently an emergency medical helicopter company, The Flight For Life, moved to our area. They wrote a letter saying that they will not land in the wind farm to an accident scene or emergency situation because not all towers are lit at night and the turbulence around the turbines is like that of a Boeing 747.

Do you know that the wind turbines are designed to be from 27-30 efficient? Keep that in mind when you read that these turbines will power × number of homes when they are erected. You could divide that number by 4 to get a more accurate number. In the third quarter of this year the turbines in this wind farm produced electricity at 17.5% of capacity.

I have lots of trees around my property to help suppress the sound and still have loud sounds on a constant basis. I have friends that have very serious issues with shadow flicker that fills their home with flickering shadows or the red blinking lights at night flashing in to their homes. We have a beautiful landscape. Now it is polluted by these large industrial wind turbines.

In summary do not believe what the energy companies tell you until you research it for yourself. Read every word of the lease agreement or do it with and experienced attorney because you are leasing your property to the energy company to do with as they wish.

As a farmer do you want to affect your health as well as the health effects of your neighbors? Get concerned citizens organized immediately to adopt an ordinance that gives you a one mile setback from homes, safe set backs from non-hosting neighbors and a safe sound level. The low frequency sound emitted from an industrial wind turbine is much different than that of living near a road, train tracks or the flight path to an airport. I have written this letter so that hopefully you do not have to go through what we are experiencing in our area. If you do not have safe set backs you will regret it.

If you have questions or concerns you can contact me at nowindforme@fastbytes.com

Gerry Meyer
W6249 County Road Y
Brownsville WI 53006-1103
Cell 920 948 7469

(editorial for Custer County, NE, Chief)

Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee

After the wind turbines went online in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, the Lincoln Township Board of Supervisors approved a moratorium on new turbine construction.  The purpose of the moratorium was to delay new construction of wind turbines for eighteen months, giving the township the opportunity to assess the impacts of the 22 turbines installed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which went online in June, 1999.

The following document summarizes some of the problems the Moratorium Committee faced in trying to address problems the township hadn’t faced prior to turbine construction and some of the resulting changes the committee proposed as a result of its study.  Verification of this information can be obtained from Lincoln Township officials.

Agenda

The Moratorium Committee met 39 times between January 17, 2000, and January 20, 2002, to 1) study the impact of wind factories on land, 2) study the impact on residents and 3) review conditional use permits used to build two existing wind factories in Lincoln Township.

Survey

The committee conducted a survey on the perceived impacts of the wind turbines that was sent out to all property owners residing in the township.  Each household received one vote.  The results were presented on July 2, 2001, to the town board, two years after the wind factory construction.

Question: Are any of the following wind turbine issues currently causing problems in your household?

residents w/i                          residents w/i

800 ft. – 1/4 mi.                                  1/4 mi. – 1/2 mi.

_____________________________________________________________________________

a. Shadows from the blades 33% yes                                41% yes

Here are additional write-in comments from the survey:

• “We get a ’strobe effect’ throughout our house and over our entire property (40 acres).”
• “Shadows are cast over the ground and affect my balance.”
• “We installed vertical blinds but still have some problems.”
• “They catch my eye and I look at them instead of the road. They are dangerous.”
• “Strobe light, headaches, sick to the stomach, can’t shit (sic) everything up enough to stop the strobe coming into the house.”

An additional comment from Lincoln Township Supervisor John Yunk:

• “The strobing effect is so terrible that turbines should not be any closer than 1 mile from schools, roads and residences . . . They should never be set on East-West.”

Dr. Jay Pettegrew, researcher, neurologist and professor for the University of Pittsburgh, testified  before the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals that strobe effect could cause drivers to have seizures, which could result in fatal traffic accidents.  At the very least, drivers could become disoriented and confused, he said.  He testified that the turbine spacing (sited on top of hills instead of in a single field in orderly rows) would increase the likelihood of seizures.

It is important to know that according to Lincoln Township Chairperson Arlin Monfils, the wind developers publicly stated that strobe and shadow effect would not occur once the turbines were operating.  In reality, strobe and shadow effects were problem enough that residents vehemently complained and the power company anted up for awnings, window treatment blinds and small trees to block the light at certain times of the day.  Strobe and shadow effects take place for about 40 minutes during sunrise or sunset if the angle of the sun and the light intensity create the right conditions.  Mr. Jeff Peacock, Bureau County highway engineer, has recommended denying permits for 8 turbines due to safety concerns, including strobe effect.

Diane Heling, whose property is adjacent to the WPSC turbines, said the utility purchased blinds for her home, but especially in the spring and fall when there are no leaves on the trees, the strobing is at its worst in her home. “It’s like a constant camera-flashing in the house.  I can’t stand to be in the room,” Mrs. Heling said.  Her neighbor, Linda Yunk, whose property is adjacent to the WPSC turbines, describes the strobe effect as unsettling.  “It’s like somebody turning something on and off, on and off, on and off . . . It’s not a small thing when it happens in your house and when it affects your quality of life to that extent,” Mrs. Yunk said.

residents w/i                          residents w/i

800 ft. – 1/4 mi.                                  1/4 mi. – 1/2 mi.

_____________________________________________________________________________

b. TV reception 33% yes                                37% yes

Additional write-in comments from survey:

• “Ever since they went up our reception is bad.”
• “At times you can see shadowing on the TV that imitates the blades’ moves, also poor reception.”
• “Minimum of 50′ antenna tower proposed but no guarantee that would be high enough. Such a tower is unacceptable.”
• “At times we get black and white TV. Two channels come in hazy!!”

residents w/i                          residents w/i

800 ft. – 1/4 mi.                                  1/4 mi. – 1/2 mi.

_____________________________________________________________________________

c. Blinking lights from on top of the towers 9% yes                                  15% yes

Additional write-in comments from survey:

• “Blinking red lights disrupt the night sky. They make it seem like we’re living in a city or near a factory.”
• “At night it is very irritating because they flash in the windows.”
• “We have to keep drapes closed at night.”
• “Looks like a circus, live in the country for peace and quiet.”

residents w/i                          residents w/i

800 ft. – 1/4 mi.                                  1/4 mi. – 1/2 mi.

_____________________________________________________________________________

d. Noise 44% yes                                52% yes

Additional write-in comments from survey:

• “Sounds like a gravel pit crushing rock nearby.”
• “Sometimes so loud it makes it seem like we live in an industrial park. The noise dominates the ’sound scape.’ It’s very unsettling/disturbing especially since it had been so peaceful here. It is an ongoing source of irritation. Can be heard throughout our house even with all the windows and doors closed.”
• “The noise can make it impossible to fall asleep. It makes an uneven pitch not like the white noise of a fan. Can be heard through closed windows making it hard to fall asleep anytime of the year.”
• “You can hear them at times as far as two miles away.”
• “It is the annoyance of never having a quiet evening outdoors. When the blades occasionally stop its (sic) like pressure being removed from my ears. You actually hear the quiet, which is a relief.”

The most illustrative description of turbine noise was that of reverberating bass notes from a neighbor’s stereo that penetrate the walls and windows of a home.  Now imagine having no recourse for asking anyone to turn down that noise, whether it’s during the day or in the middle of the night.

As the result of so many noise complaints, WPSC paid for a noise study.  However, residents are still upset that the study was inadequate in that it measured decibel levels for a maximum of five days per season, sometimes only for a few minutes at some sites, and included days when rain and high winds blotted out the noise from the turbines.  In addition, many measurements were taken when the turbines were not running.  WPSC claimed it did not have the funds for a more comprehensive study, according to resident Mike Washechek, whose home is victim to some of the worst noise caused by the turbines, due to its location downhill and downwind from the WPSC turbines.

e. Other problems

On the survey, several residents showed concern over the perceived problem of increased lightning strikes in the area.

Additional write-in comments from survey:

• “. . . bring lighting (sic) strikes closer to our home.”
• “More concern over seeing more lightening (sic) than in the past — before generators were erected.”

According to Township Chairperson Monfils, the wind developers declared prior to construction that lightning would not affect the turbines; however, lightning later struck and broke a blade that had to be replaced.

In addition, Mrs. Yunk said that one month after the turbines went online, in July, 1999, a lightning and thunderstorm sent enough electricity through the power grid that Mrs. Yunk and Mrs. Heling both lost their computers to what the service technician called a “fried electrical system” — even though both computers were surge protected.  The reason that Mrs. Yunk attributes the electrical surge to lightning striking a turbine on that particular night is that on the night of the storm, her relative, Joseph Yunk, whose television set was also “fried” that same evening, reported seeing lightning move from one of the turbines along the power grid to the nearby homes, which is a common occurrence with wind factories since nearby strikes to either turbines, external power systems or the ground can send several tens of kilovolts along telephone and power lines.  Replacements for the computers and television were paid by the residents.

e. Other problems (continued)

On the survey, several residents showed concern over hazardous traffic conditions during and after construction of the turbines.

Additional write-in comments from survey:

• “People driving and stopping.”
• “While they were being installed the destroying of the roads, noise, and extra traffic have been negative.”
• “More traffic and have to back out of driveways (live on hill, hard to see).”
• “More traffic. I used to feel safe walking or riding bike (sic).”

In addition, Mrs. Yunk said that especially when the turbines first went up, other drivers would be looking up at them and they would “dead stop in front of you.”  She said she narrowly avoided colliding with a car that had stopped abruptly in front of her.

Question: In the last year, have you been awakened by sound coming

from the wind turbines?

residents w/i                          residents w/i

800 ft. – 1/4 mi.                                  1/4 mi. – 1/2 mi.

_____________________________________________________________________________

67% yes                                35% yes

Additional write-in comments from survey:

• “Enough to go to the doctor because I need sleeping pills. Sometimes it absolutely drives you ‘nuts.’ “
• “I wake up with headaches every morning because of noise. Causes my (sic) to have very restless sleep at night!”
• “We have no way of knowing long-term affects (sic). Growing concerns with stray voltage and its affect (sic) on health. We’ve had frequent headaches, which we didn’t have before. Especially in the morning, after sleeping at night. We need answers!”
• “Not awakened but found it hard to fall asleep!!!”

Question: How close to the wind turbines would you consider buying or building a home?

The results for all survey respondents in the study, including those living over 2 miles away are as follows:

• 61% would not build or buy within 1/2 mile of turbines
• 41% would have to be 2 or more miles away from turbines in order for them to build or buy
• 74% would not build or buy within 1/4 mile of turbines

These are people who know first-hand about the problems caused by the wind factories.  They have lived with the turbines for three years.  Again, 74% responded that they would not build or buy within 1/4 mile of turbines.  Common sense dictates that if a 38-story skyscraper is built next to any home and it obstructs the view, that home would not be as valuable on the market as an equivalent home sited away from such an obstruction.  Common sense also dictates that if the skyscraper had moving parts that contribute to or have the potential to contribute to blinking lights, strobing, noise, stray voltage, ice throws, and health problems, that home would not be as valuable as it had been previously.  The above numbers from Lincoln Township corroborate that common sense.

Additional write-in comments from surveys:

• “Ugly, would not buy in this area again.”
• “25+ miles. They can been seen from this distance.”
• “Would never consider it. Plan on moving if we can sell our house.”
• “No where near them never ever!! Not for a million dollars.”

A sampling of some of the overall write-in comments from the survey is as follows:

• “I live approximately 1 1/2 miles from the windmills. On a quiet night with the right wind direction, I can hear the windmill noise. People living within a 1/4 mile should probably be compensated for the noise and the nuisance.”

• “The noise, flashing lights, interrupted TV reception, strobe effect and possible effect of stray voltage has created a level of stress and anxiety in our lives that was not present before the turbines’ installation. From the beginning there has been a lack of honesty and responsibility.”

• “Let other counties or communities be the guinea pigs with the long-term effects or disadvantages of having the windmills. All the landowners who put the windmills up have them on property away from their own homes but on the fence lines and land near all other homeowners.”

• “Our whole family has been affected. My husband just went to the doctor because of his stomach. He hates them. We have fights all the time about them. It’s terrible. Why did you put them so close to our new home and expect us to live a normal life. If it isn’t the shadows it’s the damn noise. The only people that think they are so great and wonderful are those who really don’t know.”

• “When we were dating back in the 1970’s we always said that someday we were going to build a home here. It was great and then you guys did this . . . This should have never happened. If only you would have taken the time and study this more. Everyone was thinking about themselves and money. No one cared about anything else.”

WPSC’s buyout offer

During the two years of the Moratorium Committee work, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation made offers to buy houses and property to six property owners around the WPSC wind factory site.  Offers were made to property owners who vocalized complaints about the wind factory’s effects on their quality of life after construction.  According to Lincoln Township Supervisor John Yunk, some of these residents were identified on the Noise Complaint Log record kept by the township.  Over 90 complaints were logged in one year.

According to the Moratorium Committee report, WPSC publicly stated the buyout was to establish a buffer zone around the wind factory. The Noise Complaint Log was discontinued by WPSC after the buyout offer.

According to the Moratorium Committee report, WPSC’s intention was to bulldoze the houses and subsequently keep the property from being developed for rural residences.  Owners were allowed only one month to consider the offer.

According to the Moratorium Committee report, “This tactic did not sit well with the Committee.  In response the Committee drafted and approved a resolution condemning the WPSC ploy, and requesting that WPSC meet with the town board to develop a better solution for the township.”

WPSC officials met with the town board and concerned citizens at the August 6, 2001, regular board meeting, reiterated their policy to purchase property and destroy the homes, and stated that they had no intention of meeting with the town board or changing their policies at the request of the town board.

Mrs. Heling was offered the buyout, but she said she and her family were allowed only one month to make the decision and only six months to move.  In addition, the buyout offer was based solely on an appraisal by someone hired by WPSC. Mrs. Heling said WPSC refused to consider independent appraisals.  Mrs. Heling said she couldn’t obtain another property within six months, so she and her family rejected the buyout.

• The Gabriel household was set back 1000 feet from the nearest turbine. The family took the buyout. The county no longer receives property taxes on that raised homestead. The family no longer lives in the area.

• The Kostichka household was set back 1200 feet from the nearest turbine. The family took the buyout. The county no longer receives property taxes on that raised homestead. The family no longer lives in the area.

• Four remaining homeowners are suing WPSC.

The most recent development is that one homeowner contacted Township Supervisor Yunk during the week of September 11, 2002, and asked what the process would be to request MG&E to buy out her home.  She said she has a new baby and two other young children and that she does not want to live in her house any longer because she is too scared about the effects on her family by electronic radiation, stray voltage and other electricity associated with the turbines.

Property values

The following information will directly refute the “Market Analysis: Crescent Ridge Project, Indiantown & Milo Townships, Bureau County, Illinois” report submitted by Michael Crowley to this board.

Mr. Crowley, a paid consultant to the Crescent Ridge developers, alleges in his report that property values won’t be affected in Bureau County, based on his analysis, in part, of property values in Kewaunee County.

However, Town of Lincoln zoning administrator Joe Jerabek compiled a list of properties that have been sold in the township, and their selling prices.  The list compared the properties’ selling price as a function of the distance to the wind factories, using real estate transfer returns and the year 2001 assessment roll.

Conclusions were as follows:

• “Sales within 1 mile of the windmills prior to their construction were 104 percent of the assessed values, and properties selling in the same area after construction were at 78 percent, a decrease of 26 points.”

• “Sales more than 1 mile away prior to construction were 105 percent of the assessed values, and sales of properties 1 mile or more after the construction of the turbines declined to 87 percent of the assessed value, an 18 point decline.”

Furthermore, not taken into account in Mr. Jerabek’s conclusion are the homes that were bought out and bulldozed by WPSC.

Also not taken into account is the fact that of the homes that sold within one mile of the turbines since their construction, four of them were owned within the Pelnar family as the family members shuffled houses.  One brother sold to another brother.  One brother purchased his father’s home.  The father built a new home.  And a sister purchased land from one brother and built a home.  It is important to note that two of the family members are turbine owners themselves.

Subsequent to the zoning administrator’s report, homes have gone on the market that are still for sale.

• 1 home, sited across the road from the wind factory, was constructed after the turbines were built and has been on the market for over 2 years.
• 2 homeowners adjacent to the turbines are contemplating selling to WPSC, which may bulldoze the homes, according to neighbor Scott Srnka.
• 1 homeowner is in the process of finding out if MG&E will buy out her home.
• 1 homeowner, Mrs. Heling, who previously was offered the WPSC buyout, said she would sell if she thought she could get fair value for her home and if it would sell quickly enough that she wouldn’t be paying on two properties at once. She said she doesn’t believe that can happen, so she has not put up her home for sale.
• 1 homeowner, Mrs. Yunk, who lives across from the WPSC turbines, said she and her husband have decided that after having lived in their home for 28 years, they will be putting it up for sale to move to property farther away from the turbines. She said they are worried about selling their current property because of its proximity to the turbines. They will have to find a buyer who doesn’t mind the turbines, she said.

Stray voltage

Another issue addressed by the Moratorium Committee is that of stray voltage and earth-current problems that may be exacerbated by the wind factories.  This issue was brought to the attention of the Lincoln Town Board by the committee and concerned residents.  An ordinance was passed by the Town Board to study the potential effects and to declare a moratorium on any further turbine development.  The Committee agreed that any study of earth currents and stray voltage issues must include an analysis of the distribution system, analysis of the wiring from the utility’s grid to the wind turbines, and an analysis of the grounding system used for the wind turbines.  They also drafted a request for proposals to identify an expert that could help pinpoint the issues surrounding stray voltage and earth currents.  The issue has yet to be resolved.

In the meantime, farmers and their livestock in Lincoln Township have been suffering.  There are over four farms that are battling — among other problems — herd decline due to diseases that were not present in the herds prior to turbine construction, but are present now, according to farmer Scott Srnka.  These problems are not limited to non-participating leaseholders.  Farms with turbines have been affected as well, as evidenced by the trucks, which have grown more and more frequent, hauling away animal carcasses, Mr. Srnka said.

Mr. Srnka is a former supporter of the WPSC wind power project that is across the road from his family farm.  His dairy herd is about 175 cows on 800 acres of land.  Mr. Srnka said, “Thirteen turbines were proposed for my land, but we decided to wait.  Thank goodness we did or we’d be out of farming.”

Mr. Srnka has traced the decline of milk production and increase of cancer and deformities in his formerly award-winning herd to an increase of electrical pollution on his farm after turbine construction.  He also has seen the same chronic symptoms that are in his herd in his family.

Animal health problems in the Srnkas’ formerly award-winning herd include cancer deaths, ringworm, mange, lice, parasites, cows not calving properly, dehydration, mutations such as no eyeballs or tails, cows holding pregnancy only 1 to 2 weeks and then aborting, blood from nostrils, black and white hair coats turning brown, mastitis, kidney and liver failure.

Within a few months in the first year after the turbines were erected, 8 cows died of cancer.  No previous cases of cancer were detected ever before in the Srnka herd, which is a closed herd, according to Mr. Srnka.

Mr. Srnka also detected a change in well water on his property, and there has been a definite change in taste, he said, which has contributed to the decrease in water consumption by his herd.  In the past his cows consumed 30 gallons of water a day, but that figure declined to 18 to 22 gallons of water a day after turbine construction.  As a result, cows became dehydrated and terminally ill.

——————

Video: What the Zoning Board of Appeals members saw was a brief, unedited video interview with Mr. Srnka in his dairy barn, taken this spring.  In it there were some of the cows in his herd and Mr. Srnka talking about some of the rewiring that he has had to install to try to combat problems of electrical pollution.  Mr. Srnka said that he has had to resort to insulating the farm through electrical wiring to put his farm, in effect, on what he calls its own island.

Dr. Pettegrew, testifying before the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals, said he would be remiss as a doctor if he didn’t tell the board that he thought the weaknesses and illness he saw in the cows in the video were most likely caused by EMFs or electrical pollution.  Dr. Pettegrew also said the risk would be greater in Indiantown and Milo for animals and humans to become ill than in Wisconsin because the proposed turbines would be taller and would produce more electricity.

——————

Back to what Mr. Srnka has personally experienced.  Mr. Srnka and neighbors report serious health effects on not just dairy cows.  Health problems in residents include

• sleep loss
• diarrhea
• headaches
• frequent urination
• 4 to 5 menstrual periods per month
• bloody noses: Mr. Srnka had cows bleed to death from uncontrollable bleeding from the nostrils
• inability to conceive

Sometimes even short-term visitors to the farms or homes contract the symptoms, including construction workers on the Srnka property who broke out in nosebleeds after only a few hours.  One of the workers left and refused to return.

The Srnkas are so concerned with health effects that they “aren’t going to have kids anymore because we’re so afraid.”

At the time of his testimony before the Bureau County ZBA in October, Mr. Srnka said he had spent upwards of $50,000 of his own money to try to remedy the electrical pollution in his home and on his farm.  Mr. Srnka stated that in his opinion, there were three other farms in the area facing enough problems with their herds in the aftermath of the turbines going online that those three farms are “almost ready to sell out.”

Representatives of WPSC have denied that there are stray voltage or earth currents affecting Mr. Srnka’s family or livestock and will not compensate him for his family health bills, electrical system upgrades, loss of herd or decrease in milk production.

How did the situation become so grave when wind factory developers swore there would be no problems?

Even if a wind developer may claim that the wind factories, substations and power grids will not contribute to stray voltage or electrical pollution because 1) insulated cable will be used, 2) all cable will be buried feet beneath the surface, and 3) cables are laid in thick beds of sand — these statements should be viewed with suspicion because of poor project track records, according to Larry Neubauer, a master electrician with Concept Electric Inc., in Appleton, Wisconsin.  Mr. Neubauer, who has customers who are dairy producers, who are homeowners with stray voltage problems, and who are farmers with turbines on their property, said that currents from each ground on the cables and project substations, as well as the regional transmission lines that receive electrical energy and that are electrically tied together, do not harmlessly dissipate into the soil.  Energy disperses in all directions through the soil and these currents seek out other grounded facilities, such as barns, mobile homes and nearby residences. Only in California is it illegal to use the ground as an electricity conductor.  In the rest of the country, including Wisconsin and Illinois, power companies are allowed to dump currents into the ground, according to Mr. Neubauer.

Residential properties that are in a direct line between substations and the ground conduits are particularly at high risk since electricity takes the path of least resistance.  Mr. Neubauer said that burying the cables, as the Illinois Wind Energy, LLC, project intends to do, “makes it worse,” citing the short lifespans of buried cables, frosts that wreak havoc on the cables, and the problems of locating trouble spots that cannot be seen without digging up the cables.

Two of Mr. Neubauer’s clients, who were interviewed in October, are dairy farmers who have spent over $250,000 and $300,000 trying to rewire their farms to reduce stray voltage.  That cost does not included herd loss or losses from diminished milk production.  Mr. Russ Allen owns 550 dairy cows in DePere, Wisconsin.  His farm is in a direct line between nearby WPSC turbines and a substation.  Mr. Russ said he was losing one or two cows a day during the three years prior to his installing electrical equipment to help reduce currents on his farm.  About 600 cows died, he said. Mr. Russ said he has so much electrical current on his farm that he laid a No. 4 copper wire around his farm for 5,000 feet.  The wire is not attached to any building or additional wires; yet it can light up a lightbulb from contact with the soil alone.  Mr. Russ has scheduled a media day on October 24 to draw awareness to the problems of stray voltage and he said to encourage everyone in Bureau County to attend.

“What scares me more is that I know . . . they’re pumping current through people.  They’re pumping current through kids,” Mr. Allen said.

It is important to note that Mr. Noe and his electrical engineer, Mr. Pasley, deny that there will ever be EMFs or stray voltage resulting from the proposed Indiantown/Milo turbines.  Just as WPSC has dismissed any problems in the face of mounting evidence, Mr. Noe testified that he will never implement electrical pollution studies and that he thinks they would be a waste of money.

Moratorium Committee findings

As a result of the aforementioned concerns and problems with wind factories in Lincoln Township, the Moratorium Committee recommended, in brief, the following changes from the original conditional use permit:

Insurance. The town is named as an additional insured and the town is held harmless in any litigation.

Fees. Wind developers pay for all costs associated with the permitting process, including hearing costs plus attorney fees — up front.

Wells. Residents’ wells are protected against damage from any type of foundation construction, not only blasting, within a 1-mile radius of each turbine.  This includes the requirement that wind developers will pay for independent testing of wells within 1 mile of the project for flow rate and water quality.  Developers also must pay for remediation and fix problems within 30 days of complaints.

It is important to note that no well water studies of properties adjacent to the proposed Indiantown/Milo project are planned to assure that all well wills retain the same quality of water before and after turbine construction.

• TV reception. Wind developers will pay for testing of television reception prior to construction and pay to correct degradation of TV signals. Wind developers will expand the potential problem area to a 1-mile radius for all complaints — period.

It is important to note that despite claims that television reception would not be affected, the wind factory developers in Lincoln Township had to pay for power boosters and reception equipment to counteract the effects of the turbines.  The residents also had to fight with the utilities when an additional local station was added and the utilities refused to pay for any more TV reception improvements for the duration of the 30-year turbine contract.  Residents had to fight to get the power company to add the station.  Three years later, residents are still unhappy about how the turbines continue interfere with their reception, in many cases observable in unclear stations and in the color flashes that coincide with the turning of the blades, according to Mrs. Heling.

It also is importation to note that no television reception testing is planned prior to turbine construction in Indiantown or Milo townships and that Mr. Noe said steps taken to correct reception problems would have to be reasonable.

• Noise. 50 decibels for noise is too great. Noise shall not exceed 40 to 45 decibels, though 35 decibels was recommended unless there is written consent from affected property owners.

It is important to note that the noise study submitted by Illinois Wind Energy, LLC, uses theoretical generalizations about topography and noise conduction and does not use the same height or turbine models proposed for Indiantown and Milo.

As a side note, according to Walgreens Drug Store Web site, the “most sensitive” earplugs they sell only block out noise at 30 decibels.

• Tower removal. Turbines and all relegated aboveground equipment shall be removed within 120 days after the date the generators reach the end of their useful lives, the date the turbines are abandoned, the termination of the landowner lease, or revocation of the permit. An escrow account will be established or bonding provided by the wind developers to ensure tower removal.

• Tourism. Wind developers are banned from promoting the project as a tourist destination, will not provide bus or tourist parking and will not provide promotional signs located at the projects or elsewhere.

It is important to note that despite the ordinance prohibiting promotion of the wind turbine project, WPSC was caught red-handed by Township Supervisor Yunk last month in August filming a promotional video with child actors riding bicycles in front of the turbines.  Mr. Yunk ordered the film crew to leave, but they refused and continued filming.  The township has found that once the turbines were constructed, it has been practically impossible to enforce the ordinance or gain cooperation from WPSC or MG&E.

• Road damage. Wind developers will pay for the total cost to return the towns’ roads to town standards, not just pay for damaged areas. Any road damage caused by the wind developers during the repair, replacement, or decommissioning of any wind turbines will be paid for by the wind developers. An independent third party will be paid by the wind developers to pre-inspect roadways prior to construction.

It is important to note that Township Chairperson Monfils said that it’s not a matter of “if” there will be road damage.  There will be road damage.  The wind factory developers in Lincoln Township said originally that they would fix the roads if there were damage.  But when it came time to fix the roads, the township had to “scrap with them to get it done,” according to Mr. Monfils.  He said the developers disputed the costs and he had to battle with them two or three times to get repairs paid.

• Periodic review. Every year the project will undergo a periodic review for the purpose of determining whether wind developers have complied with the permit and whether wind projects have had any unforeseen adverse impacts. Any condition modified or added following the review will be of the same force and effect as if originally imposed. Wind developers will send a representative at least once a year to report the operating status of the projects and to receive questions and comments from the governing body and township residents.

It is important to note that even with the review, Lincoln Township residents reported being dissatisfied with the developers’ response to their complaints.  Mrs. Yunk said the developers were readily available prior to construction, but afterward were scarce.  She said she fielded calls from residents who could not reach developers and residents who were given the run-around, being told they needed to contact other people within the organization.  She said residents’ concerns and problems were deflected by the developers, who said residents had to prove that problems did not exist previously and residents had to prove that without a doubt the problems were the result of the turbines.

• Health and safety. If a serious adverse unforeseen material impact develops due to the operation of any of the turbines that has a serious detrimental effect on the township or a particular resident, the township has a right to request the cessation of those turbines in question until the situation has been corrected.

• Strobing effect, blade shadows and stray voltage earth currents are some other issues to be addressed.

In effect, with these guidelines, Lincoln Township is making construction of new turbines unattractive to further development.  They are finding it almost impossible to remedy problems with the current turbines and restore a former quality of life to residents.  However, they are trying to ensure no more mistakes will be made.

As Mrs. Yunk plainly said, “Anyone that thinks there aren’t going to be problems resulting from the turbines has got another guess coming.”  She said that she and other residents felt like the bad guys for opposing the turbine project and warning other residents that the project would spell disaster.  She said she hates now that what they feared has come true; there isn’t any self-satisfaction in being able to say, “I told you so.”

The board must weigh heavily the situation of Kewaunee County and the voices and experiences of residents who have no vested interest in wind development in Bureau County.  They have no vested interest in telling anything but the truth.  They are telling it like it is, and unfortunately, like it was.

For additional information

Dale Massey, Lincoln Township clerk: 920-837-7298

Prepared by Elise Bittner-Mackin, former Chicago Tribune reporter

Here is a reference to the full 177 page report :  Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium