March 12, 2011 | 12:47 AM | By

Why not to dismiss health impacts of wind turbines

FILED UNDER: Mitigation, health, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy

Heather Goldstone

The wind energy movement bills itself as an integral part of efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage and curb climate change while helping build the new green energy economy. But complaints about adverse health impacts – loss of sleep, headaches, depression – have surfaced in communities around the world where wind turbines are located in close proximity to homes, including here on Cape Cod. In their efforts to dismiss claims of adverse health impacts caused by nearby wind turbines, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) comes out looking more like big industry than grassroots environmentalist.

I was a toxicologist in a former career, and I see a lot parallels between this debate and debates about the toxicity – or not – of chemical pollutants. So, here are three reasons not to dismiss arguments for and against dismissing complaints about wind turbines drawn from the environmental movement and the science of toxicology.

Argument: It’s all in their heads

An AWEA-commissioned review of the science surrounding wind turbines, sound, and health asserts that the main impact of wind turbine noise is to annoy people:

A feeling described as “annoyance” can be associated with acoustic factors such as wind turbine noise. … Annoyance is clearly a subjective effect that will vary among people and circumstances. … the main function of noise annoyance is as a warning that fitness may be affected but that it causes little or no physiological effect. Protracted annoyance, however, may undermine coping and progress to stress related effects. … The main health effect of noise stress is disturbed sleep, which may lead to other consequences.

And yet, they draw a line between “annoyance” and a health impact: (my emphasis)

There is no evidence that sound at the levels from wind turbines as heard in residences will cause direct physiological effects.

Rebuttal: Immune suppression

AWEA’s argument seems to hinge on dismissing annoyance as a subjective, emotional response and, thus, dismissing the secondary health effects of annoyance. But consider this: certain chemicals can alter the immune system, impairing its ability to fight off infections. This might not be a problem if we lived in germ-free bubbles (i.e. not a direct health problem). But in the real world, the increased risk of infection poses a serious health threat. Not satisfied? I won’t claim this is a perfect analogy, but my point is that it seems disingenuous to dismiss the end results of a chain reaction because the first step isn’t severe enough.

There are also deeper flaws in AWEA’s argument that there are no direct health impacts:

  • As discussed earlier this week, the word “annoyance” as it is used by several researchers addressing the wind turbine issue has a technical definition that encompasses “a significant degradation of quality of life.” As such, some scientists and medical professionals consider annoyance to be an adverse health effect in itself.
  • Sleep disturbance and deprivation need not be a secondary effect of stress; noise at levels typically produced by large turbines is capable of partially or fully waking a person some people. Prolonged sleep deprivation constitutes a medical issue in itself, and is also a trigger for other health problems.
  • Some residents report physical sensations – like ear popping – not related to stress. There is little or no scientific data to address these claims … a point I’ll get to shortly.

Argument: It only affects a small number of people

Dr. Robert McCunney is an MIT researcher and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He was a member of AWEA’s expert panel that reviewed the available science and determined that there is no evidence that wind turbines directly cause health effects. He has also provided expert testimony in court to that effect. He says it’s important to remember that most people aren’t negatively affected by wind turbines:

… at least in the studies that are available, the percentage of people who report annoyance in the proximity of wind turbines tends to be a relatively low… it’s not the predominant effect, and it’s not a majority of people who report these symptoms.

Furthermore, the AWEA report states that “a small number of sensitive people … may be stressed by the sound and suffer sleep disturbances,” citing above-average sound sensitivity, as well as personality traits and pre-existing negative attitudes toward wind turbines as factors predisposing persons to such impacts.

Rebuttal: Cancer clusters

To only consider impacts that affect the majority of people holds wind turbines to a standard that would be unthinkable for chemical pollutants.

Did drinking water contaminated with industrial chemicals give the majority of children in Woburn, Massachusetts leukemia? Or did chromium give the majority of people in Hinkley, California cancer? Absolutely not. If they had, documenting those cancer clusters would have been far more straightforward. But both were eventually validated and resulted in court settlements (check out A Civil Action and Erin Brokovich this weekend for the full stories, if you’re not familiar).

For that matter, is lead any less of a concern because it mostly impacts young children and unborn babies – a particularly sensitive portion of the population?

The standard is not a majority effect, but rather, a greater than expected occurrence of symptoms in any segment of the population, based on comparison with other turbine-free areas of similar geography, demographics, etc.

Argument: There’s not enough evidence

AWEA doesn’t deny that people living close to wind turbines around the world are reporting negative impacts. However, most of the surveys and case studies that currently exist are what scientists call anecdotal data – personal stories that have not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation or the quality-control process of peer review. Thus, Dr. McCunney and the AWEA panel insist that there’s not enough scientific evidence to conclusively link wind turbine noise to health complaints.

Rebuttal: Precautionary principle

Here we can draw on an idea long embraced by the environmental movement and the scientific community (although less so industry or government) – that of the precautionary principle. The 1998 Wingspread Conference convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network crafted and adopted the following definition (my emphasis):

Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

In 2005, UNESCO released a report aimed at clarifying when and how the precautionary principle should be applied:

The [precautionary principle] applies when there exist considerable scientific uncertainties about causality, magnitude, probability, and nature of harm;

This would certainly seem to be the current situation with regard to claims of health impacts caused by wind turbines. We do not yet have controlled, peer-reviewed studies that nail down exactly how many people are affected, what their symptoms are, when they began, and at what distances and sound levels they occur. Establishing the who, what, when and where of a problem is an important first step before moving on to the more intricate questions of how and why. So there’s a long way to go before we reach a rigorous scientific understanding of the relationship between wind turbines and health. But the highly suggestive evidence at hand almost certainly meets the standards of the precautionary principle, and warrants further consideration by scientists and public policymakers.
For more on this issue, see our series The Falmouth Experience: The Trouble with One Town’s Turbine.

  • ChrisKapsambelis

    The use of the L90 Metric Descriptor which measures the quietest 10% portion of the wind turbines pulsating sound should not be allowed. State regulations call for no more than 10 dBA above ambient, and does not specify how this level is derived. The ear responds to the peaks of the pulsating sound. L90 measures the valleys. The difference could be as much as 15 dBA higher than the L90 measurements. That would place Wind-1 out of compliance.

    Chris Kapsambelis

  • Lisa

    It seems that everyone accepts the theory that there are significant health effects for people who are sensitive to noise and are forced, due to no fault of their own, to live near wind turbines. Whether it is a minority of people or not, is immaterial. We need to have safeguards in place and hold wind companies and community wind companies accountable for putting neighbors of wind farms at risk. The neighbors of wind farms need to be offered property guarantees so that they can afford to move. This should be a matter of state or federal law. If wind energy is to succeed in the US, property setbacks need to be in place and property
    guarantees need to required. These laws need to be retroactive for those people who are victims of irrresponsible wind farm siting and who would like to move, but can not afford to sell their homes due to the drop in property value associated with their proximity to wind turbines.

  • Stuknole

    From my personal experience, I have the same valid argument against motor vehicle noise. In the vicinity of major roadways the noise is pervasive. It may be noted that where a freeway has been constructed through through a residential area, sound walls are erected. Of course, this is not required when human habitation structures are then built near a freeway. Also noted is how some of the population take measures to increase their production of motor vehicle noise. Yet, there seems no organized argument against this noise, as there is here with wind energy harvesting. It does not invalidate the argument against noise pollution, but the way it is used. It is good to focus on health.

  • Skiax

    What about trains and their impact? Didn’t we just get used to them?

  • Capn0ok

    One thing about wind turbines is that they can be picked up and moved if there is a problem. But I’m not entirely convinced this giant 3-bladed configuration is the optimal design. I see advantages in he vertical turbine, which would not have the same low frequency noise.

  • 723frank

    Are you kidding me? The DB level put out by many wind tubines is less than that or your refridgerator…Noise pollution, get rid of your tv, radio, cat, dog, car…this article is crap. The author’s argument isnt supported, it’s editorialized. So, would you prefer a much greener solution…how about nuclear…ask Japan how that’s working out for them.

  • Bowin Mark

    Factory noise, planes, trains, auto noise, televisions and radios blaring, but the sound of wind generators causes depression and cancer? Be serious. The problem with wind turbines is that they remind us that we have to be willing to change our way of life.

  • 723frank

    This article is rubbish…what was proved here? Nothing…Report the facts, not the spin please! Fact, there was no connection. Fact, do more research, then I’ll listen. Fact, sounds like people are annoyed by the turbines. Fact, annoyance rasies BP, then rasies anxiety, then increases bouts of depression. RELAX, just look at your energy bill. Fact, Cell phone towers are just as tall, and hum just like power lines…maybe we should take those down too. They are annoying, too.

  • Coreanhero

    I think there is some information missing in the above article. How close were the people reporting symptoms to the turbines? At what decibel level were people having the reported adverse reactions? If this data was available, the problem could be worked around.

  • matt256

    Wow. Was this article a joke? Or maybe the author has family living in Cape Cod? I agree with most of the other posts. Noise is pervasive in many areas, and we live with it. I lived in Wyoming for a few years and I’ve stopped to look at the extremely large wind farm there right off interstate 80. The only thing I have heard there was the wind blowing over my ears which can itself be loud in heavy wind. Does that cause depression?

  • Lisa

    Frank, I live within a half a mile of three 400 foot 1.5 GE turbines and we were told that same garbage that you are professing. We were told that the sound of the turbines would be like a quite conversation in your livingroom. OK. On good days it sounds like someone is babbling in your ear all day long, during breakfast, lunch and dinner, out

    when you are hanging up you laundry, in bed at night, all night long. This is the kind of quiet conversation that is enough to drive anyone NUTS and that is on a GOOD day. On a bad day, it sounds like a jet is landing in your back yard or you can feel the WHUMP WHUMP WHUMP punch of the turbines as the infrasound hits your chest. Believe me, it is as bad as people say.

  • Cosmicsax

    I can’t believe npr would publish this complete pile of rubbish. Who paid for this? The coal industry? npr please don’t be just like fox news and report what the corporations tell you to.

  • Cosmicsax

    I mean seriously, nuclear power plants are exploding in japan, talk about health effects and depression. NPR PLEASE REMOVE THIS CRAP IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Karen

    My first reaction was to dismiss this report also, but . . . all of the sounds the posters here talk about aren’t in your ear CONSTANTLY. Just something to think about.

  • felix culpa

    Attention acoustic engineers! Is it not possible to broadcast the inverse of the frequency and amplitude–like noise canceling headphones, only more expensive. If so, can it be done under water so the engine noise from sea-going vessels doesn’t piss off the marine mammals? While you’re at it, my mom needs a hearing aid.

    So, could you attach whistles to the blades so that as they spin they toot like a calliope? Or if they’re on the water one designated turbine could pump water over a faux waterfall, making that soothing–ooh, I gotta go…

  • Felixculpa

    I think you’re on to something. Vertical axis turbine + mag-lev. Hell, we seem to know how to dig deep holes to get oil. I can’t believe we can’t find some geothermal solution everywhere. There’s probably a patent for one in T. Boone Pickins secret files. The fracin’ jerk.

  • Freethought

    NIMBY is nothing new. The issue is where to put wind turbines, not whether they have effects on people living nearby. Ask the Japanese whether it’s a good idea to have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood. Ask the Chileans or Massey employees if coal mines are safe. Do I need to mention Deep Water Horizon or Valdez? Guess I just did. But conservatives will dismiss these issues without a second thought.

  • Nl

    take a look at NVO and you will know

  • http://www.facebook.com/aprilwriter April Galarza

    I agree with Frank. Please NPR, I expect more of you. Thank you.

  • Matt

    This article made me annoyed and depressed. Now my immune system is probably supressed and I also believe my ears just popped.

  • felix culpa

    Is it possible to broadcast the inverse frequency and amplitude? Something similar to noise-canceling headphones. only more expensive. If it’s fracing up people, it must be pissing off the other animals too. The lesser of evils is still, well, evil. We should shoot for good for a change.

    I have to say, I’d rather see this kind of argument than the one where somebody’s insisting on poking more holes in the world. Feels like progress to me (however slight). There’s that.

  • Lisa

    For those people who are interested in learning about the impact of turbine noise, the acoustic ecology site is very well respected and a good place to start for information. http://www.acousticecology.org/srwind.html

  • VDA135029

    I concur, very weak arguments. You can say the same things about highways or anything that makes noise for that matter. If this is the worst that comes from wind as an energy source it is still better than most of the current alternatives.

  • John

    There is a very important aspect of this story that is glossed over, and in two ways. That is the comparison to the alternative methods of generating electricity.

    Burning coal and other fossil fuels, not to mention nuclear reactors all have great negatives in terms of pollutions and operating hazards, including noise and other vibrations.

    The most important factor is the contribution to global warming, which is the greatest hazard to our entire species, including those who live near an electric generating station! Wind is almost as good as conservation in that regard.

  • Ctygrn

    Really does not seem quite straight up, this article. If the turbines bother people, it would seem most useful to place them farther away from the people they bother. Of course this should be taken into consideration. In my experience, you have to be awfully close to one to even hear it at all. But I live in France, maybe those in the US are differently made. A lot of people here complain that they ruin the view. I think they’re lovely, giant arms waving hello to the universe, saying let’s all live together in peace, no exploitation, no unnecessary destruction.

  • NoFreeWind

    To all those who want to use the tragedy in Japan to promote wind energy:

    Regardless of how many wind turbines are erected, the need for conventional power plants is not reduced for the very simple reason that whole regions can be left without wind for days, weeks, and even months.

    For wind energy to be a practical replacement for nuclear power, it needs to be coupled with bulk energy storage. That way, when the wind stops blowing, we can use stored wind energy to keep the lights on.

    Currently there is no way to store the very large amounts of energy needed for this purpose.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JAGBIT5Q4RYBJDRMFCVSOSEJJA Bob Smith

    To the many posters who have immediately dissed Goldstone’s work here because it doesn’t nicely fit into your reaction to the Industrial Wind Turbine (IWT) brand (a brilliant white turbine, usually out of proportion on a green field with a blue sky), if you’re really liberals, you have a responsibility to question industrial hype. Wind co operators like NExtra, Horizon, Suncor etc. don’t behave any differently when they’re putting up Wind Turbines than when they are fracking for shale gas. I urge you to look beyond the branding, take the time to read the science (not the “literature reviews” that AWEA is so fond of) and study the anecdotes – the reports from your fellow citizens who are now living with the impacts.

    Many of the people who are now feeling these impacts were once supporters of IWTs, a few have gone public who even leased their farmland to these Wind Co’s. The impacts are NOT felt by everyone but they are real and they happen to a significant percentage of the people within a few miles of the IWTs (Reference: Dr. Hazel Lynn, RMO, GreyBruce, Ontario). There are many doctors and scientists starting to engage on this impact and despite every effort by Big WInd – (e.g. contractual “gag” clauses in leasing contracts, “good neighbour contracts”, paid consultants who issue rebuttals to every doctor’s report, personal attacks on doctors and scientists such as Nissenbaum, McMurtry and Salt). In Europe the setbacks are stretching farther away from people – often 2kms) and most of the IWTs are now being installed offshore (see Denmark, Holland, France, Germany).

    This is not simple annoyance. Families are abandoning their homes.

  • eardoc

    Frank. You speak like you understand wind turbine sound levels. Then you know that they only register 40 dB when the sound is A-weighted, a procedure that ignores the infrasound. If you don’t do this A-weighting, they can measures up in the 90 dB range. It’s the infrasound that makes wind turbine noise different from other noises. That’s why it only takes 40 dB of wind turbine noise to annoy people, while it takes over 70 dB of aircraft, road or train noise to give the same annoyance.
    Wind turbine noise is different. It has high levels of infrasound that pass right into your home and you can’t stop it.
    The health effects are only now starting to be realized because there are no studies of how long term (hours to days to weeks to years) infrasound affects people.
    People who live near these machines are presently the guinea pigs.

  • Willis Montgomery III

    Hey the Harley’s are out in full force here in Falmouth and all day in my back yard in Teaticket, I got to listen to dirt bikes wasting fuel going around in circles, but not making any electricity. The sound of these dirt bikes in the back and the Harley’s on 128 are making me crazy! I have a headache, and my blood pressure is going up. It’s so noisy and when they drive by my house at about 3 AM and “punch it” they wake me up. I have to keep my windows closed all summer long to keep out sound of artificially loud motorcycles designed to make extra noise (noise that most definitely does not benefit society in any way) . So, take the turbines down or shut them off and make sure you take care of the noise that bothers me too.

  • Willis Montgomery III

    VAWT are not as efficient. Sorry Capn0ok

  • Willis Montgomery III

    Well said.

  • Heather Goldstone

    “If the turbines bother people, it would seem most useful to place them farther away from the people they bother. Of course this should be taken into consideration.”
    A great point. Responsible policy can’t be shaped around unrecognized and understudied problems, though.

  • Heather Goldstone

    The repercussions of fossil-fuel-based energy production for human health, the environment, and climate are enormous, and well documented.
    Wind energy has a lower carbon footprint and, in many cases, wind turbines seem not to be problematic for their nearest neighbors. However, in other cases, health problems are being reported.
    My argument is simply that, based on the lack of scientific evidence to directly confirm or disprove these claims, it’s too early to dismiss them.

  • suehobart

    All anybody on this forum needs to do to believe something is wrong is to live in my house for a month in the winter. I live <1500 feet from the WEBB turbine… which is not in this debate but identical to Wind 1 in Falmouth, privately owned, permitted by grossly minimal and ignorant standards and darn near killing me.
    Allover the world the same sets of issues arise…this information is not new at all … it's head in the sand stupidity not to look at that BEFORE we start installing huge and by the way VERY PROFITABLE power stations on every available part and parcel.
    (funded by government grants by the way…. grants, not loans)
    Greed..
    So what the sam he-l am I supposed to do? Want to buy my house… It's beautiful and new and energy efficient and on 6 pristine acres! It's everything I have in the world and my head is imploding here…so I start over at 53 years old!!!! What gives them the right to do THAT!

    WAKE UP! its simple greed.
    Turbines are fine in remote areas. Do it there … but it is supposed to be the Governments job to protect the people…
    It takes years to release drugs …
    we still sell tabacco…
    we are required to wear seatbelts…
    sunscreen, mammograms, 5 a day for good health….
    Are you tracking with me or lost….?

    ITS ALL POLITICS AND MONEY!!!!! And we are all in big trouble because we pit people against people instead of FOR people. All the politicians care about here are the feathers in their caps… GO FING GREEN!

  • suehobart

    Thanks Ms Goldstone for getting the word, however complex, out about the turbine and health problems…At least somebody is listening. Bless you and PBS for challenging the political wind… So far you have been the only ones to listen.
    I’m sitting in my living room listening to the Webb turbine pound away and my head is splitting and my ears just popped. The science might not all be together yet but heres another scandal and coverup in the making for sure…
    He’s making money…I’m going mad…
    And I never chose any of this.

  • suehobart

    Wouldn’t it be better to pour all this government money into research on storing this energy to really make a difference? Still makes “stimulating” jobs and maybe just maybe there might be a REAL breakthrough.
    But no… we havent the patience for that….
    Or maybe we can just shut off more lights once in a while…

  • suehobart

    B. S. This isnt about WE… its about improper siting of an otherwise good idea. 1500 feet from places where people sleep is too close…. If you can’t find a place with a mile and a half setback then why are you doing it in the first place.
    Because you got a grant from the government and are greedy.

    We can decrease our carbon footprint just as well and better with well placed wind farms run by appropriate methods. These one off badly sited projects are inherently wrong.

    We simply don’t need to sacrifice people for the sake of a green stamp…

    there is plenty of open space in this country where these things wont cause problems…

    Animals and wildlife can migrate… houses cannot!

  • suehobart

    try it 24/7 Matt….

  • suehobart

    Excuse me… but CApe Wind didn’t get approved until Senator Kennedy finally died… Heaven forbid he have to sail around it!

  • http://theflotsamdiaries.blogspot.com/ Harold Johnson

    I watched a great ecology series a while back. The biggest take-away I got from it was that “You can’t do just one thing.” Every choice we make has a trade-off. With energy, there is no silver bullet for harnessing it and turning it to our uses. The trick is learning which trade-off is least harmful. I’m enjoying the discussion here, precisely because it’s an honest back-and-forth that really is trying to look at all sides & move thoughts forward..

  • Willis Montgomery III

    “Pour money?”, from where? We are gutting research and development funding and funding for science to study this stuff. Also, we cut education so we will have fewer scientists to study it anyway. My guess is that cutting teachers salaries and increasing class sizes to encourage kids to become scientists is not helping in the long term here. I thought we wanted lower taxes around here? What happened to cutting spending and lowering taxes? My taxes just went up and it’s louder than ever in Teaticket.

    Great article in the NYT about liberal greens balking at green development when it affects them.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/weekinreview/13nimby.html?_r=1
    It’s so funny to hear people complaining about bicycle lanes being a nuisance. It makes you realize how little we care about the greater good and how much we just want to “keep doing things the old way”.

  • Willis Montgomery III

    Seems like the real problem for you is the fact that “he’s making money”. Put one up on your property and make money too.

  • Willis Montgomery III

    just because the noise pollution isn’t constant, doesn’t make it less annoying.

  • Bookirishmusic

    Listen to the 5 stories.

    Goldstone is saying not to simply dismiss these people’s concerns. Someone erected something next to their homes and it is affecting their lives.

    Listen to what regular, working-class people say about their health and homes. Is it possible that people should be compensated or allowed to relocate if a town or a business erects a turbine next door?

    Almost no one in this debate is saying don’t erect turbines (unless they are making a financial argument). People are saying: don’t put a turbine next to someone’s home and pretend there is not the very real potential of an impact. Have a process and a plan.

    If a 400-foot turbine went up within a half-mile of your home, what would you do if you could no longer get to sleep and your wife began grinding her teeth? What if every time you went outside your head hurt?

    This appears to be an awful truth. But there are options.

  • Heather Goldstone

    Thank you for making my point more clearly and concisely than I appear to be able to.

  • Liz Argo

    This week’s natural disaster in Japan has become terrifyingly complicated by man’s use of nuclear devices to produce electricity. The coincidence of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe coming at the end of the WGBH/WCAI piece on wind should not be lost on the NPR audience. Despite the reports from the 12 people suffering from noise in Falmouth where an older stall-regulated turbine was installed, the overwhelming majority of people in the region living right next to more modern wind turbines (Hull, Portsmouth, Bourne) – and the majority of people in Falmouth itself- find wind to be a terrifically benign, welcome, and economic source of electrical power. Let us not lose sight of this greatest of facts about wind energy: wind turbines are safe and economic. To many of us the “threat” of wind is far preferable to the real threats we live with everyday due to our continued preference for fossil fuels & nuclear power, which bring mercury poisoning, asthma, oil spills, and nuclear meltdown.

  • John Norton

    I’m not a scientist, but I live on the Cape, and have visited Wind I (multiple times),Notus (multiple times), Mass Maritime (twice), Country Gardens (multiple times), CCRTA (multiple times), Hull, and Portsmouth RI wind turbines. My own anecdotal observations are that the “community scale” turbines manufactured by Northwind are significantly quieter than their industrial scale counterparts, especially Wind I and Notus, which seemed to be the noisiest, by far. My understanding is that the Northwind turbines work with magnet drive technology, which eliminates the gearing found on more conventional designs.

    Everyone wants to put up the big turbines because there is a better “bang for the buck” currently. I feel that there are very few places on the Cape that are “appropriate” sites for the big turbines, but there are a lot of places that would work much better for the smaller ones. If the governor wants to drastically increase wind energy production it might make sense to alter the incentive scheme to make these quieter, smaller turbines more attractive. That would seem to be a win/win situation, instead of trying to ram those larger models down everyone’s throat, IMHO. Plus, Northwind is a Vermont-based company, and it would be nice to see a regional manufacturer gain from this industry. And no, I do not work for them, nor am I connected to the wind industry in any manner.

  • NoFreeWind

    The basic assumption that wind energy has a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuel is being challenged by the following references:

    http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/

    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/for-whom-the-wind-blows/

    http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/04/19/daily11.html

    http://bentekenergy.com/files/userfiles/file/BENTEK%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20How%20Less%20Became%20More_100416.pdf

    http://windfarmrealities.org/wfr-docs/degroot-fuel-consumption.pdf

    To the degree that these references are correct, the suffering that the Falmouth residents, and others around the world from the effects of wind turbine syndrome is for nothing in return.

  • Anonymous

    Only a few people may suffer the bad health effects of wind turbines. That alone is a good enough reason to put strict setbacks and property value gurarantees on the line for every developer.

    But seriously, all people will suffer from the economic foolishness that wind turbines truly are. If they do not reduce CO2 significantly (reported around 1-3%), do not significantly reduce the coal burned in the baseload power plant, are subsidized 50-90 times more than any other baseload power source per MWH, and raise the utility costs for ratepayers, what good are they?

    They cannot take the place of a base load power plant. You know that the wind doesn’t always blow, right? So when the baseload power plant needs replacement, can wind take over? NO, taxpayers and ratepayers lose again. We will need to build a new base load power plant. We will end up paying for BOTH wind and baseload.

    We all want clean air and a clean environment. The best way to ensure that is to invest in the cleanest “baseload” energy source. An investment in wind is a poor, short term fix that can only lead to economic problems when the subsidies aren’t sustainable and new baseload energy plants need to be built. How much money can the federal government keep handing out?

  • Anonymous

    But John, which baseload energy source do you think is the best “value”? Wind does not provide baseload, energy cannot be stored. It usually only produces power when demand is low. The EIA concurs in its 2011 Outlook report on levelized costs that wind does not have the same “value” as other energy sources. Wind is not a choice for replacing coal, gas, or nuclear. It has a capacity factor of about 20% compared with baseload energy sources with 90%. That is a very large difference and should impact the way we evaluate this. That fact also raises the true costs of wind.

  • Conserving in Falmouth

    I live near the Woods Hole Research Center wind turbine and every night there is a low vibration that keeps me up. I hope people who make these anonymous comments will have some compassion as you can’t imagine what it’s like unless you are experiencing the effects. What I’m not hearing overall in our country is a maximum grasp for conservation so that we don’t have to use so much energy.

  • Willis Montgomery III

    Is the noise pollution caused by vehicles on Woods Hole Road OK?

  • Anonymous

    Economic? are you sure? If you looked into the true costs of wind, you would find that because they need constant back up from a baseload energy source such as coal, they contribute very little, and cost ALOT. Wind reduces the efficiency of your base load energy source, using more fuel. How does that improve health? Wind proponents give nameplate capacities when proclaiming the power of wind. But the real capacity value is only 24% of that. And that is if it contributes during demand times. It doesn’t. Makes the cost go up again. Everyone wants to believe in the fairy tale that wind is clean. It is, but the back up power that it is connected to and is dependent on is not. So the fairy tale cannot be true because it is always connected to the big bad coal plant.

  • Anonymous

    Sue, Please reply to the comments made recently here in MIchigan in the Ludington Daily News, “200 hear about wind energy”.
    a college professor said, “People will have to decide what the acceptable level of bird and bat kill is”. as if this is the only concern. Also, “most impacts of wind energy that are negative tend to happen locally and are short-term.”
    Mi state university Dr. “a community should decide how much annoyance it can handle.” He said the decision in MI for 55 decibels “was the right level so that it wouldn’t interfere with speech conversation.”
    This is how our Michigan public is being educated about the proposed wind farm in Mason County.

  • Conserving in Falmouth

    The vibration from the wind turbine is a constant, vibrating my whole house and has increased my resting heart rate 20%. It’s such a strong vibration that my heart is trying to keep time with the vibration. It is vibrating a steel pole in my yard-you can see it. I hardly hear the traffic on Woods Hole Road compared to this.

  • lea1941

    The Cape does not have a “lack of wind” problem. This s a red herring. Stick to the local problem.

  • Luean

    Does anybody know what the objective of the abutters sueing the town of Falmouth??
    Shutting down the turbines is not going to happen. Do they want money? The lawyers will get most of any proceeds. Do they want the town to buy their property???
    Many abutters have written letters in the Falmouth Enterprise stating that they are not bothered.
    I have lived near a major freeway; traffic woke me up every morning Mon. thru Fri.
    Did it make me sick?? Hell no.

  • All for wind in East Brewster

    I have been a WCAI member for a few years, and I have always been impressed with your willingness to address multiple sides of an issue. I am sorely disappointed, however, in your recent coverage of wind power on Cape Cod. Did you visit any wind turbines that didn’t have loud complainers living near them – say, in Hull, MA, or in Portsmouth, RI? It’s been an uphill battle to get wind turbines in towns across the Cape, and your week-long “study” of the problems just made it harder to be a leader in green energy generation. I truly hope you address the benefits of wind power in a similar series.

  • Capeyankee

    What is the source of the energy to be stored ? It could be wind at a time not needed, used instead for electrolysis to spearate free hydrogen from water and it could be stored. But the proper sisting of turbines taking into account the actual and excellent points Heather Goldstone has made is crucial. Falmouth is a case in point not to ignore.

    Cape Wind is the biggest example of the right thing done the wrong way in the wrong place. This is an ocean park belonging to everyone and every creature — anything but a nimby issue. In my considered opinion.

  • Amy

    I personally spoke with someone who lives in Hull.  She was crying for help because when the sun sets behind the turbine, her home is worse than a fun house at a carnival.  The flashing of the on and off lights makes her dizzy and she just cant stand it anymore!  Would you want that happening constantly in your home?  Maybe you can ask to stay in her home for a week or two and see how you feel then!

    PROPER SETBACKS NEED TO BE MADE!!!!!