Green Building Forum - Wind farm noise in court

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:08:30 +0100

Old technology now though Ted, surely? So the "continuous whine" complaint wouldn't be an issue with the modern machines, especially the models without gearboxes. Domestic machines have come on by leaps and bounds - always excepting Proven, of course. Wonder how long it'll be before the list gets longer though?

Alison Davies (chair of the Potect Powys Conservation Group) is addressing a meeting of the local protest group next week.

Wind farm noise in court

JSHarris — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:31:24 +0100

There's always going to be some noise from wind turbine blades though, even if the unit makes no mechanical noise from the alternator or any gearbox system. There has been an enormous amount of research done on blade noise over the years, but it's hard to reduce it, other by making the mean blade velocity low, which means big blades turning slowly. The noise comes primarily from tip vortex shedding, so blades with a high aspect ratio and perhaps some means of controlling spanwise flow, should be the quietest, but that is always going to be relative and likely to exceed the background by just enough to be a nuisance, because of its nature.

I doubt that onshore, or local, wind turbines will ever be universally popular because of the noise issue. They may be acceptable in some naturally high background noise environments, but the smaller units are always likely to cause issues in a domestic environment, IMHO. I

Wind farm noise in court

ted — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:12:33 +0100

2007 technology, yes. But the owner is trying to convince prospective purchasers that the machine is identical to the current Evance R9000 (Evance used to be Iskra). It would need to be to benefit from the MCS accreditation of the Evance.

It doesn't have a gearbox.

Wind farm noise in court

CWatters — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:47:03 +0100

Steamytea wrote:

As energy security is destined to become a national security issue (where planning issues are treated totally differently) is it possible that by constantly saying no to windfarm developments you end up having no choice in the location of them?

You don't have a "choice" now. At best you can try to convince an Appeal Inspector that any breeches of Planning policy outweigh the benifits.

PS: Planners aren't allowed to dictate where wind farms should/shouldn't be built in local plans. All they are allowed to do is set out guidance on the basic principles. It's upto the developers where to apply for permission.

Wind farm noise in court

gustyturbine — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:28:44 +0100

I still think onshore wind has a part to play. At a million pound per MW it is approx a third of the cost of offshore. Obviously offshore maintenance and fault repars are also very difficult and expensive. The days of cheap energy are going and turbines are very cost effective. After installation there is no further energy cost. The energy returns are very favourable when compared to most technologies. Other people may have a different view though,
Gusty.

Wind farm noise in court

SteamyTea — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:57:02 +0100

Nuclear capital cost is between Â£2200 and Â£4500/kW, makes wind seemingly very attractive.
Not sure what gas is as it is currently the cheapest to deliver.

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:44:39 +0100

And the value of the lost production of a factory when it can't operate because the wind isn't blowing, or is blowing too much? Or the cost to the consumer in paying the turbine operators to close down?

As other people have pointed out, back-up is needed for those occasions, potentially to the tune of 100% of that missing wind capacity. That's what security of supply actually means. Wishful thinking doesn't keep industry working, nor does it keep the lights on.

The wind lobby claim that wind will REPLACE conventional FF and nuclear generation, not complement it! The intention is to CLOSE conventional power stations. Planned nuclear facilities represent a fraction of existing generating capacity.

I was looking at the Natural England site and they give the figures from CPRE that cause so much anger and frustration at the indifference of the pro-wind lobby to the destruction of the country...

Wind farms need lots of land:

- onshore wind: roughly 2 W/m2
- conventional power stations: roughly 1000 W/m2
- 12GW needs 120,000 hectares of wind turbines

...in fact it's not even indifference, indifference would imply awareness. Instead there is a ferocious determination to spread onshore wind farms wherever the wind blows regardless of their impact on either landscape or people, passing the onus (with the complicity of the government) to those affected to take the time and the cost to challenge what the wind farm lobby claim as their imprescriptable right to milk the system for all they can get. The wind farm developers just shrug and move on to the next campaign. Job done for the investors.

And I'm talking about multi-turbine installations that will go on taking fabulous amounts of money off the tax-/bill-payer long after the costs of installation have been repaid. In other words, these are financial investments, not righteous contributions to saving the planet.

Wind farm noise in court

SteamyTea — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:57:28 +0100

Posted By: Joinerconventional power stations: roughly 1000 W/m2

Just a bit of nit picking, that does not take into account the mining of coal and disposal of ash.

I agree that the pro wind lobby puts forward a very simplistic, hope based argument that is reliant on the general public's ignorance of energy production and basic science/arithmetic (serves them right for not employing me). Luckily the people that run the national electrical grid know better and well understand the variance is weather, human usage behaviour patterns, emissions, intermittent, scheduled closure of facilities and need for back-up (even nuclear and coal need this, when your lights dim and flicker for about 15 seconds is often a nuclear coming off line unexpectedly).

As for the price of wind, or any other low carbon electrical generation, this has come about because we do not have a simple carbon tax. We dress it all up with all sorts of fancy names, FIT, ROC, NFFO, CRC, CCL. None seem to work and just seem to slow the system down. If we just taxed the polluters (don't seem to be a problem with motoring as we all pay those taxes) any viable alternative will soon surface.

Down here there seems to be a lot of support for turbines though there is a lot of grumbling that it does not employ local people, though it does not employ many people anyway, actually not many people in full time employment at all now the summer is over, but that is a different matter.

If you were given the choice of generating your own electricity, no electricity or a turbine somewhere and assuming no government initiatives to encourage a particular technology, which would you choose?

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:47:07 +0100

Generating my own! But the question need not arise because the alternatives are out there and have been for some time, just that irrational fear has stopped the further deployment of known, proven technology (regardless of its widespread use elsewhere without major incident when sensibly sited) and stifled the development of related technologies.

And much of Cornwall has been an industrial site for centuries, which is why I prefer Pembrokeshire!

Wind farm noise in court

JSHarris — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:57:13 +0100

That figure for onshore wind of 2W/mÂ² is pretty shocking. It makes solar PV and solar thermal look terrific by comparison, even biomass may do better (depending on the time-averaged energy per mÂ²).

The major problem with most renewables (solar thermal, PV, wind or biomass), is that they struggle to produce the energy we need when we need it. All need some form of storage, which is the big weak area when it comes to making renewable technologies truly viable. The only renewable that comes close to being universally useful is hydro from stored water reserves, and even that only has limited capacity and depends on rainfall.

At the moment, all we're doing is using renewables to take a tiny bit of load off the grid, which is OK, but we cannot ever provide sustainable power this way, which is where the daft arguments of the extremist lobby groups for wind, solar or whatever fall over.

Personally, I'd prefer that we invested more in nuclear, because of all the evils it presents far and away the lowest risk of death or injury, and only has a modest environmental impact. Coal, oil and gas kill and maim thousands every year, and generate many, many times the level of global pollutants that nuclear does, even when taking into account uranium ore mining (which is far and away the biggest safety and pollution issue with nuclear, but rarely gets a mention).

Until we come up with a way to store renewable energy that is affordable, safe and has minimal environmental impact then we're stuck with making tough choices about power generation. We can't faff about waiting for a miracle as oil runs out, yet that seems to be what just about every nation in the West seems to be doing.

Wind farm noise in court

ted — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:05:17 +0100

I think the quoted 2W/mÂ² is quite misleading as it must be using the full footprint of a wind farm and cannot be taking into account the fact that 99% of the land area is still available for the pre-existing agricultural use.

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:25:54 +0100

The figures are indicative of the turbine density /m2, that's what gives rise to objections.

If you really wanted to scare the crap out of people you could always refer to page 7 of this document...

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalengland.org.uk%2FImages%2Fwind_workshop_outline_tcm6-19370.pdf

We could always engage in the same disingenuous tactics as the wind farm developers and "forget" to mention page 8!

Wind farm noise in court

windy lamb — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:30:25 +0100

We all have differing opinions but we all use electricity, therefore we are all equally responsible. If household usage hadn't increased so dramatically over the last 20 years we wouldn't need to worry.
Gas - we'll soon have to import that in liquid form from the Gulf.
Oil - seems we do the above already.
Coal - got plenty but Maggie shut the mines.
Nuclear - expensive and not figured what to do with the waste.
Tidal - too expensive.
Solar - it's raining.
Wind - plenty of that but might spoil the landscape - a landscape that the vast majority never see because they are too busy shopping or watching telly.
Solution = each household allowed 3500kWHrs per year and when it's gone it's gone. Job done.

Wind farm noise in court

Nick Parsons — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:35:17 +0100

''Solution = each household allowed 3500kWHrs per year and when it's gone it's gone. Job done. ''

Why not 2000? (And I speak as part of a 6-person household with a tumble drier and grown-up kids who don't turn lights offf - if my nagging won't sort it, a black-out might).

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:09:14 +0100

The debate keeps swerving towards domestic concerns, whereas my overriding concern is for industry/commerce and the security of a CONSISTENT supply.

I'm quite prepared for the world as envisaged by John Michael Greer in his thought-provoking book 'The Long Descent', but that means the end of the industrialised world as we know it.

As for nuclear waste, advances in its reprocessing mean that it isn't as great a problem as it once threatened to be, and remember it's dangerous to humans, not to flora and fauna. The French seem to be leading the field in the new reprocessing technologies. Nuclear waste is just another bogeyman trotted out to scare the children. If we'd matched France in our development and use of the process we wouldn't be in the parlous state we're in now. The only reason the future of anyone's children is at risk is because the parents were scared witless by the remnants of CND. And we might have stood a better chance of hanging on to our characteristic English landscapes and the magnificent unspoilt panoramas of Scotland and Wales.

Wind farm noise in court

JSHarris — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:11:01 +0100

If we can't reduce demand by putting the prices up (and then using the excess to fund renewables or long-term secure energy provision) then I think power rationing is the next best thing.

The last time this happened (the power cuts during the miners strike) people started finding ways to manage when the power was off. Those of us who've lived in areas where the power supply tends to fail regularly in bad weather tend to be able to cope OK as well.

If smart meters allow power rationing, perhaps with some form of graceful degradation as the household power allocation for the day starts to run out (turning off power-hungry appliances first, for example) then perhaps that's the way to do it. I doubt that the majority of the population will get the wake-up call about energy resource shortage unless something drastic like this is done.

Wind farm noise in court

JSHarris — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:25:42 +0100

Posted By: JoinerAs for nuclear waste, advances in its reprocessing mean that it isn't as great a problem as it once threatened to be, and remember it's dangerous to humans, not to flora and fauna. The French seem to be leading the field in the new reprocessing technologies. Nuclear waste is just another bogeyman trotted out to scare the children. If we'd matched France in our development and use of the process we wouldn't be in the parlous state we're in now. The only reason the future of anyone's children is at risk is because the parents were scared witless by the remnants of CND. And we might have stood a better chance of hanging on to our characteristic English landscapes and the magnificent unspoilt panoramas of Scotland and Wales.

True. Few people seem to realise how little waste is generated by a nuclear power plant. A typical 1000MW plant would take around 6 years to fill up a single Olympic size swimming pool with intermediate and high level waste. For comparison, a coal fired power station of 1000MW would fill between 250 and 350 Olympic size pools with waste each year.

Wind farm noise in court

windy lamb — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:28:03 +0100

JSH - "For comparison, a coal fired power station of 1000MW would fill between 250 and 350 Olympic size pools with waste".
Yes but you can make concrete blocks with fly ash - same can't be said or high level nuclear waste!

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:14:46 +0100

Ah, but if you did they wouldn't build a very high wall!

Wind farm noise in court

JSHarris — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:37:39 +0100

Posted By: windy lambJSH - "For comparison, a coal fired power station of 1000MW would fill between 250 and 350 Olympic size pools with waste".
Yes but you can make concrete blocks with fly ash - same can't be said or high level nuclear waste!

Fly ash is only a part of the waste. All that CO2 has to go somewhere, for example, plus some of the waste is pretty toxic, some of it is even radioactive.

I often think we should hand out free Geiger-Muller counters to protesters against nuclear power and ask them to go around poking it at natural materials around their area. Many might be surprised to find that a lot of rocks, for example, are more radioactive than would be allowed as acceptable contamination within a nuclear facility. I did this years ago, measuring granite outcrops on Porkellis moor, behind the place where my mother lived at the time. The rocks were massively more radioactive than would be allowed in any workplace, and had been sat there emitting pretty strong radiation for centuries. The same goes for the stone that a lot of old houses are built from. My old cottage in Trewennack had a granite fireplace lintel that would expose unexposed 35mm film in a few days if I was daft enough to leave it on the mantel. That cottage had been built in the mid-1700s, and raised quite a few families over the years, the majority of whom were oblivious to the apparent danger they were being exposed to.

Wind farm noise in court

windy lamb — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 21:41:34 +0100

I suppose that's why we have to put radon barriers in most new builds -point taken

Wind farm noise in court

SteamyTea — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:07:48 +0100

I have heard that the reason that they did not build a nuclear power station in Cornwall was because the background radiation is too high. Not sure of this is a romantic tale or not, but do know that certain areas around these parts seem to have an unusually high incident of lung cancer (correlations does not mean causation), though there are many factors to that, smoking, poor diet, genetics, particulates and the likes.

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:42:23 +0100

...and stress from having to contend with all the incoming Londoners and the seasonal migration of the hordes descending on the place for the peace and quiet of quaint fishing villages...

Wind farm noise in court

SteamyTea — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:03:17 +0100

Can I change 'stress' to 'cash'.
No Cornish around at the moment as they have all gone on holiday, they know when the weather is better

Wind farm noise in court

Brianwilson — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:45:22 +0100

I note concern is being expressed at possible damage to marine life caused by offshore turbine noise emissions. How does noise enter the water? Can it produce greater impact than vessel prop noise?
Would consider it a fallacy but also note two whales have recently beached just to the North of a large turbine array off the UK East coast.

Wind farm noise in court

SteamyTea — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:06:52 +0100

I think it is well studied and monitored area that cetaceans are affected by noise from drilling, shipping, submarines etc, though the research is still ongoing as to the affects it may have on them.
Dolphins wash up here quite often (often wonder if I could make a snazzy leather coat from them in my darker recycling moments) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7443626.stm

There is also some interesting research going on into marine life shifting.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128314.400-marine-life-shifts-as-temperatures-rise.html

and rising sea levels:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128314.700-groundwater-greed-driving-sea-level-rises.html

As will all this environmental stuff we really do not know what is goign on because of lack of decent data and monitoring.

And if you can't read those articles let me know and I shall see what I can do.

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:37:18 +0000

British Medical Journal acknowledges health impacts of wind farms

Roger Helmer MEP

The prestigious British Medical Journal has just published an editorial dealing with the health impacts of wind farms, implicitly criticising the authorised noise levels in the UK as too high, and calling for further research. The piece is entitled â€œWind Turbine noise seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of the evidence is neededâ€ As a very brief summary, it says that â€œThe evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health is overwhelming. Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint. A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise.â€ Amen to that.

Sadly the whole paper cannot be accessed via the BMJ web-site with subscribing to the magazine, and copyright prevents me from publishing it here in full [see copy from http://betterplan.squarespace.com/ below]. But it strongly supports the arguments made by wind farm objectors (and ignored by government Inspectors) for years: that the health impacts of wind farms on local communities are real, and a matter for concern, and that the effects may extend beyond even the 2km range that has been adopted by some local authorities in planning guidance. It also argues that the noise limits in current UK legislation, and especially the governmentâ€™s ETSU-R-97, may be set too high. It calls, quite rightly, for an independent review of the evidence so that the public can be reassured, and so that planners and legislators have data they can rely on.

I am delighted that a publication as authoritative as the BMJ has made this point. It would not publish such comments lightly. I am doubly pleased that a co-author of the paper was my friend and neighbour Dr. Chris Hanning, a highly reputed specialist in sleep disorders who worked for years at the Leicester General Hospital. Dr. Hanning advised the local wind farm protest group.

There is a serious issue here, which affects the lives of more and more families and communities as wind farm planning applications break out like a rash over Englandâ€™s green and pleasant land (and over the moors of Scotland). There are powerful technical and economic arguments against wind farms, but itâ€™s also time for the government to look seriously at the health impacts.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

British Medical Journal: Wind Turbine Noise

Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 01:28PM

Note: The British Medical Journal is an international peer reviewed journal of medicine.

Wind turbine noise seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed

SOURCE: British Medical Journal, www.bmj.com

March 8, 2012

Authors: Christopher D Hanning, honorary consultant in sleep medicine, Sleep Disorders Service, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK

Alun Evans, professor emeritus, Centre for Public Health, Queenâ€™s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, UK

The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise.1 However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside.

The impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on sleep and daytime functioning (sleepiness and cognitive function) is well established.1 Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint.2 Such reports have been dismissed as being subjective and anecdotal, but experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep.3

The noise emitted by a typical onshore 2.5 MW wind turbine has two main components. A dynamo mounted on an 80 m tower is driven through a gear train by blades as long as 45 m, and this generates both gear train noise and aerodynamic noise as the blades pass through the air, causing vortices to be shed from the edges. Wind constantly changes its velocity and direction, which means that the inflowing airstream is rarely stable. In addition, wind velocity increases with height (wind shear), especially at night, and there may be inflow turbulence from nearby structuresâ€”in particular, other turbines. This results in an impulsive noise, which is variously described as â€œswishingâ€ and â€œthumping,â€ and which is much more annoying than other sources of environmental noise and is poorly masked by ambient noise.4 5

Permitted external noise levels and setback distances vary between countries. UK guidance, ETSU-R-97, published in 1997 and not reviewed since, permits a night time noise level of 42 dBA, or 5 dBA above ambient noise level, whichever is the greater. This means that turbines must be set back by a minimum distance of 350-500 m, depending on the terrain and the turbines, from human habitation.

The aerodynamic noise generated by wind turbines has a large low frequency and infrasound component that is attenuated less with distance than higher frequency noise. Current noise measurement techniques and metrics tend to obscure the contribution of impulsive low frequency noise and infrasound.6 A laboratory study has shown that low frequency noise is considerably more annoying than higher frequency noise and is harmful to healthâ€”it can cause nausea, headaches, disturbed sleep, and cognitive and psychological impairment.7 A cochlear mechanism has been proposed that outlines how infrasound, previously disregarded because it is below the auditory threshold, could affect humans and contribute to adverse effects.8

Sixteen per cent of surveyed respondents who lived where calculated outdoor turbine noise exposures exceeded 35 dB LAeq (LAeq, the constant sound level that, in a given time period, would convey the same sound energy as the actual time varying sound level, weighted to approximate the response of the human ear) reported disturbed sleep.4 A questionnaire survey concluded that turbine noise was more annoying at night, and that interrupted sleep and difficulty in returning to sleep increased with calculated noise level.9 Even at the lowest noise levels, 20% of respondents reported disturbed sleep at least one night a month. In a meta-analysis of three European datasets (n=1764),10 sleep disturbance clearly increased with higher calculated noise levels in two of the three studies.

In a survey of people residing in the vicinity of two US wind farms, those living within 375-1400 m reported worse sleep and more daytime sleepiness, in addition to having lower summary scores on the mental component of the short form 36 health survey than those who lived 3-6.6 km from a turbine. Modelled dose-response curves of both sleep and health scores against distance from nearest turbine were significantly related after controlling for sex, age, and household clustering, with a sharp increase in effects between 1 km and 2 km.11 A New Zealand survey showed lower health related quality of life, especially sleep disturbance, in people who lived less than 2 km from turbines.12

A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children,1 and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e1527

Footnotes

Â§ Competing interests: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; CDH has given expert evidence on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep and health at wind farm planning inquiries in the UK and Canada but has derived no personal benefit; he is a member of the board of the Society for Wind Vigilance; AE has written letters of objection on health grounds to wind farm planning applications in Ireland.

Â§ Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

1. â†µ
WHO. Burden of disease from environmental noise. 2011. www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf.
2. â†µ
Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bull Sci Tech Soc2011;31:334-9.
OpenUrlCrossRef
3. â†µ
Phillips C. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bull Sci Tech Soc2011;31:303-8.
OpenUrlCrossRef
4. â†µ
Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noiseâ€”a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am2004;116:3460-70.
OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
5. â†µ
Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound.Energy Policy2010;38:2520-7.
OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. â†µ
Bray W, James R. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011, Portland, Oregon, 25-27 July 2011. Curran Associates, 2011.
7. â†µ
MÃ¸ller M, Pedersen C. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. J Acoust Soc Am2010;129:3727-44.
OpenUrlWeb of Science
8. â†µ
Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bull Sci Tech Soc2011;31:296-303.
OpenUrlCrossRef
9. â†µ
Van den Berg G, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20. Specific support action project no 044628, 2008. www.rug.nl/wewi/deWetenschapswinkels/natuurkunde/publicaties/WFp-final-1.pdf.
10. â†µ
Pedersen E. Effects of wind turbine noise on humans. Proceedings of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg Denmark 17-19 June 2009.www.confweb.org/wtn2009/.
11. â†µ
Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Proceedings of 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), 2011, London, UK. Curran Associates, 2011.
12. â†µ
Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks K, Hill E. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise Health2011;13:333-9.
OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
Christopher D Hanning, honorary consultant in sleep medicine 1,
Alun Evans, professor emeritus 2
1 Sleep Disorders Service, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK
2 Centre for Public Health, Queenâ€™s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, UK

Article originally appeared on Better Plan: The Trouble With Industrial Wind Farms in Wisconsin (http://betterplan.squarespace.com/). See website for complete article licensing information.

Wind farm noise in court

JSHarris — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:52:08 +0000

It is serious, but I think that some who've not experienced the sleep disturbing effect of relatively low level, low frequency, noise may well dismiss this research.

Years ago we bought a house on the opposite side of Loch Ryan from the port at Cairnryan. Our house was about 2.5 miles away from the port, but there was only open water over most of that distance. The low frequency rumble from ferry engines idling in the port at night was incredibly disturbing to sleep, even though it was barely audible. We moved house after a year, in part because of that problem.

I've no doubt that wind turbine noise is similar in many respects, with the same sort of effect of our ability to sleep. The odd thing is that we seem able to tolerate higher levels of noise from other sources without too much of a problem - traffic noise, for example. There is something specific about continuous low frequency noise that makes its impact more significant.

Wind farm noise in court

Joiner — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:00:44 +0000

And impeccably peer-reviewed, too, so that will hopefully stop the carping from the NIMBYs who are quite happy to see onshore wind in other people's backyard.

Wind farm noise in court

ted — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:58:52 +0000

I'm still waiting for the first wind farm protestors to use the ECHR to successfully stop a wind farm on the basis that the noise interfered with their rights (if this has already happened anywhere then I've not heard of it). This would set a precedent that would prevent any wind farms within, say, 2km (or maybe even more) of any existing dwellings.