Thanks Ted. Interesting. Especially the bit: "The ECHR may contain a right to remain silent (in a criminal law context), but does not encompass a right to silence…", which is the bit developers and lobbyists like the BWEA (recently renamed RenewableUK to avoid the bad publicity wind farms are attracting now) will push.

No one has a right to silence - you couldn't have any urban environment etc etc if that was the case. There is noise everywhere but some people are more sensitive than others. It boils down to what is reasonable. Once had someone staying in their holiday home complaining about us cutting silage at a weekend! They soon when quiet when I told them that I hadn't had a holiday for 10 years let alone the luxury of a weekend.
PS I'd wish I could get some peace from these low flying jets!!

The link in the blog report I posted a link to doesn't reference the correct ECHR document.

This is the correct link - http://bit.ly/AiEW2f

Interesting djh. Very interesting. Did any of the adverse studies cited in the rebuttal refer to the evidence that supports the assertions in the BMJ article?

It still comes down to each side fighting its own corner.

I didn't think I'd have to say it again quite so soon, but: "I've said it many times before and I'll say it again, the bulk of what we're hearing now about noise from wind farms is not about OBJECTIONS to wind farms but COMPLAINTS about existing wind farms, those complaints frequently coming from people who had oiginally SUPPORTED the development, having believed all the assurances from the developers about noise."

Posted By: windy lambNo one has a right to silence - you couldn't have any urban environment etc etc if that was the case. There is noise everywhere but some people are more sensitive than others.

That was the argument they used in the Davis case. They tried to make out the couple were somehow being over sensitive. After weeks in court the wind farm company suddenly settled just before the Davis were due to present the noise data recorded by expert witness.

CWatters - just to mention a couple of things 1. you can't have a loud noise that you cannot hear (low frequency or otherwise) because loudness is a description of the amount of sound you perceive or hear. And
2.as noise is unwanted sound then if you can't hear something it isn't noise. It may still be low or high frequency pressure waves but that only becomes noise when it is heard.
3. Sound level meters use an A-weighting - basically changing the pressure wave monitoring device (sound meter) to respond more closely to the audible range of the human ear. A pressure wave only becomes sound when it can be heard. So pressure waves as generated by a bat (echo location) are not heard by a human and the human cannot describe them as sound - the bat could, but we can't. You don't really want your sound level meter picking up bat calls when you are monitoring a factory at night because the bat calls don't keep you awake.
3. So if you are experiencing a low frequency pressure wave which isn't audible then it can't be noise. It is nonsense to complain of a "noise" you cannot hear - This is where the wind farm people start to trip you up. Perhaps if the complaint was described as a low frequency pressure wave manifesting as a vibration then ......

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>Apart from the blades, what else on a turbine could be causing a low frequency in the sub 100Hz range? A direct drive generator will be 50Hz, a geared one is geared up rather than down so probably not a gearbox.</blockquote>

Probably tip vortices, I think. These are responsible for most of the noise propellers make. The advent of electric powered very light aircraft has surprised a fair few people who assumed they'd be quiet, the reality is that they sound much the same as aircraft driven by internal combustion engines, as it's the propellers making the noise (listen to this for an idea of what I'm on about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEqz0rSZ0v8&feature=related).

Haven't we been down the Amplitude Modulation route forever in other threads?

Note the conclusion here about how little is understood of AM and how further research is needed...
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/1554/ ... nothing has changed since 2007.

And again... "COMPLAINTS about existing wind farms, those complaints frequently coming from people who had originally SUPPORTED the development, having believed all the assurances from the developers about noise."

Dominic - yes exactly.
My planning noise conditions for my Gaia are the same as those imposed on the 10 x 2MW wind farm up the road. It's complete rubbish for such a tiny turbine, waste of paper and shows no understanding of acoustics or planning law.... perhaps the Planners should spend more time learning facts.
Just like all that crap about bats and turbines - that was all based on migratory North American bats species flying into a set of turbines placed across the mountain pass on the migration route and suddenly you can't put up a 10kW turbine in a field in Yorkshire. Didn't anyone in English Nature realise that we don't have the same bat species as America? And wasn't it preferred (by Planning Depts) to put small wind turbines in hedge lines before all that?
Saying all that, Dominic, I'm glad my Gaia is more than 300m from my neighbours. My house is 150m away and you can hear real audible noise from the turbine - you know the sought you can hear, when I say noise I mean sound (noise being unwanted sound) Sound which means I can put the kettle on and do the vacuuming at no extra cost!

This is about wind FARMS. I have no objection in principle to a small-scale turbine installation for immediate local use and, as you may remember, I've said that installers of smaller commercial and domestic turbines would be following best practice if they used your guidelines, ‘windy’.

Having experienced first-hand the very real stress introduced into previously close-knit communities by having plans for a "small-scale" (1.5 MW) two turbine installation dropped 600m away from them by people who want a symbolic presence for their eco-credentials and others who want to make a LOT of money, I can testify to the destructive power of the refusal to engage by developers who insist that an entire community is just so much collateral damage in the overall scheme of things. The distress has to be seen first-hand to be believed.

As to the fear of “imagined” noise. The scoping brief prepared by the national company employed to push through the planning application states:

“During the operational phase, there will be low level noise from the operation of the turbines […] ongoing monitoring will be conducted as and when appropriate during the operational phase to inform mitigation, should it be required.”

“Some elements have a continuous impact, for example visual, whereas others would be intermittent, for example noise”.

If the developers themselves acknowledge that turbines can be noisy, then we’re all suffering from the same delusion.

And in case any of the “I think they’re great as long as they’re Not In My Back Yard” faction thinks to call me a NIMBY, the proposed development I’m concerned with is eight miles away. It originally seemed a well-thought-out scheme when I read the leaflet for the public exhibitions, but having attended those exhibitions, talked with the proposers and visited the site, it started to dawn on me that there were a number of things that didn’t square with the developer’s claim to have weighed up the predicted benefits of the scheme against the impact on the local communities, three hamlets, and those who use the area for leisure, particularly horse riders.

There is too much empirical evidence out there to write off AM as being in the imagination of a few hysterics who have had it too quiet for too long and it’s about time they entered the real world the rest of us live in. It is known to exist. It just isn’t fully understood enough to know what can be done to eliminate it.

Meanwhile… http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2012/03/19/shrewsbury-windfarm-in-doubt-as-landowners-pull-out/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I'm with both of you (Candlemaker and Joiner) on the real effects of wind farms. Utility sized wind farms are now too big both in size and numbers of turbines for onshore applications. We have a 10 unit wind farm up the road and although some have/are experiencing ?noise the majority seems not that bothered. However, another proposal for 21 turbines of a bigger size are a different matter - they are too big a scale for the landscape and are of a size that may well be susceptible to AM.

Unfortunately, some objectors seem to think a 10kW turbine will have the same impact as a 2MW one - whether that's noise, bats, birds, horses, space ships or the god of thunder. Objections need to be based on facts and empirical research - not a misguided perception of how things might be. After all it was once thought that travelling over 25mph in a train would be fatal to all. Facts proved otherwise.

There is an interesting thread on the Horse & Hound Forum where an OP asks others to object to a proposed wind turbine.
The vast majority of posters disagree and state that their horses do not have problems with wind turbines.

Interesting, but 2007 was a peak for house prices in most areas. I wonder how much they were paid in addition to the house sale.

Dominic, if you've followed that thread on Horse & Hound you'll be aware that I've been involved with that thread and I'd be inclined to say that the majority who have no issue with turbines is anything but "vast". It pays to read their responses very carefully and then compare them with the comments in the BHS survey. Some examples from that survey...

"Of 5 people who have actually fallen off at least once, 3 of these required hospitalisation and their horse was unable to be ridden after the incident."

"People who encountered no problems stated they were riding horses who were accustomed to turbines or riding very steady older horses. They also acknowledged that they could understand how other peoples horses may be upset by the presence of a turbine and are aware of incidents occurring."

[...] "In the particular instance just given for West Yorkshire, over half the members of Haworth and Oxenhope riding club reported experiencing problems, this being over 100 incidents"

And there is some admirable common sense being shown, as exemplified by this Planning Inspector's decision to dismiss an appeal by a wind farm developer...

"One of the two main issues concerned the effect the appeal proposal would have on highway safety, by virtue of its effect on horses… The British Horse Society’s evidence is that shadows of the moving blades of wind turbines, and the sight of the moving blades, alarm horses, causing disconcerting and unpredictable behaviour by the horse… I have no reason to doubt any of the submissions by the wind farm developer, but the weight of the evidence leads me to the view that passing horses are likely on occasion to be alarmed by the sight or shadow of moving wind turbines… The appellant points out that vehicles are common on the local roads, that vehicles can be more disturbing than wind turbines are to horses and says that, in his view, horses used on the roads should be sufficiently resilient to cope with such hazards. But horses are sometimes disturbed by passing traffic and it seems to me that to add one hazard to another cannot be other than harmful."

David, this about noise. You're aware that not all turbines are without a gearbox and when a turbine starts up it doesn't look around to make sure it isn't going to scare anyone, or any thing (like a horse), as the electricity it is having to draw from the conventional generators on the grid (or, being generous, from offshore UK or a wind farm in Sweden) helps it recover from a period of either low/no wind or too much wind, and the yaw mechanism turns it into wind and the rotors are moved to achieve optimum pitch.