Human Impacts

How a changing ocean and climate impacts our daily lives.

Key topics in this category:

RECENT POSTS

January 18, 2012 | 10:26 AM | By

State report on wind turbines makes headlines

I’m traveling today … ScienceOnline2012, here I come! But the world marches on, so here’s a quick roundup of news coverage of the report on wind turbines and human health released yesterday by Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health.

I’m sure I’ve missed many, so feel free to add interesting accounts you come across.

UPDATE: Just came across this NY Times Green Blog post: Wind Turbines and Health Hazards. Leslie Kaufman’s take on the Oregon review I mentioned yesterday is a bit different.

FILED UNDER: Energy, Human Impacts, health, wind energy
January 17, 2012 | 1:49 PM | By

Expert panel finds “no evidence” that wind turbines cause health problems

Better late than never. A panel of medical and technical experts convened by the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health (DEP and DPH) has released a draft of their much-awaited review of the science regarding wind turbines and human health. The bottom line: they concluded that “there is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome.’”

Additional key findings include:

  • Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically. Available evidence shows that the infrasound levels near wind turbines cannot impact the vestibular system.

For an interesting counterpoint to that particular conclusion, see my previous post.

Continuing on:

  • The weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.
  • None of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine.
  • Continue reading →
FILED UNDER: Energy, Human Impacts, health, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy
January 17, 2012 | 10:00 AM | By

New report on wind turbine sound provides suspect but no smoking gun

Wind One is seen in Falmouth, Mass. Some residents who live nearby say the noise of the turbine is causing them health problems.

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

Falmouth's Wind One (foreground) has been dogged by complaints from abutters about adverse health impacts.

Some wind turbines spend their lives spinning in peace, while others generate more complaints than electricity. So what differentiates the troublesome turbines? As yet, there’s no good answer for that question. And that’s what Steve Ambrose says has him so interested.

Last spring, Ambrose and fellow acoustic engineer Robert Rand conducted a brief study of sounds produced by a privately-owned wind turbine in Falmouth, MA. One neighbor has complained vehemently about the turbine, which is of the same make and model as the embattled town-owned turbines located less than a mile away at the wastewater treatment plant.

Of course, there have been previous sound studies. Two consultants – one hired by the town, and one hired by disgruntled abutters – conducted sound studies of Falmouth’s Wind 1 in fall of 2010. But those studies, as with most sound studies, focused on audible sound (in tech-speak, A-weighted sound or dB(A)). Meanwhile, the debate about whether and how wind turbines cause the health woes of nearby neighbors has largely come to focus on the possible role of infrasound, sound waves that are too low-frequency to be heard by most people.

So Ambrose and Rand set out to measure the low-frequency sounds generated by one of the turbines. They set up shop at the home of Sue Hobart, who has been vocal in her complaints about the privately-owned turbine near her house, and prepared to spend a couple of long, fairly mundane (they’ve done this plenty of times before, mind you) days and nights with their equipment. Instead, they almost immediately began to suffer symptoms similar to motion sickness – headaches, nausea, lethargy, and anxiety – that they say made it difficult to even do the job they came to do.

Much of the report, released in late December, focuses on the personal experiences of Ambrose and Rand, and that is what has generated the most comment from both sides of the debate (see here and here for examples). But, in the end, what I found most interesting – potentially game-changing – were their sound data.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Human Impacts, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy
January 12, 2012 | 10:50 AM | By

Timeline tracks rollercoaster of U.S. fisheries management

Dave Bard, Pew Environment Group

In honor of the 35th anniversary of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the legislation that mandates federal fisheries oversight, Pew Environment Group has produced an interactive timeline of fisheries management milestones. The emphasis is definitely breadth, not depth (don’t look for a detailed history of your favorite fish stock). But a brief perusal left me with three very strong messages.

The first might be summed up as “holy rollercoaster, Batman!” Fish stocks are being declared disasters left and right while seafood consumption is skyrocketing; there’s certainly no shortage of drama. And while thirty five years may seem like a long time for individuals, this timeline emphasizes just how short a time it really is in the big picture.

Which brings me to my next point: just how new science-based fisheries management really is. The first comprehensive report on the status of U.S. fisheries was produced a mere fifteen years ago. And it’s only now that we’re reaching the milestone of having management plans and catch limits in place for all U.S. fisheries.

But for all the ups and downs, all the eye-opening, jaw-dropping “you mean we haven’t been doing that all along?!?” moments this whirlwind tour could elicit, it ends on a distinctly optimistic note: we’re on the right track. We are keeping track of our fish stocks, making efforts to rebuild them and plan for their sustainable use. It’s not a perfect or painless process, by any stretch of the imagination (and anyone involved in the process – fisherman, scientist, or otherwise – would tell you as much). But it’s something, and that’s a lot more than many fisheries around the world have.

FILED UNDER: Fish & Wildlife, Human Impacts, fisheries
January 9, 2012 | 12:45 PM | By

Catch limits not the end of overfishing

Olga Caprotti / Flickr

Last January started with announcement by the outgoing head of federal fisheries science, Steve Murawski, that 2011 would be the year overfishing was ended in U.S. waters. What he actually meant was that 2011 was supposed to be the year by which sustainable, science-based catch limits were set for each and every fishery taking place primarily in U.S. waters.

So did it happen? WaPo’s Juliet Eilperin reports federal fishery managers are close.

Although NOAA didn’t meet the law’s Dec. 31 deadline – it has finished 40 of the 46 fishery management plans that cover all federally managed stocks – officials said they are confident that they will have annual catch limits in place by the time the 2012 fishing year begins for all species. (The timing varies depending on the fish, with some seasons starting May 1 or later.) Some fish, such as mahi mahi and the prize game fish wahoo in the southeast Atlantic, will have catch limits for the first time.

Having science-based catch limits for all U.S. fisheries will be a world first – an undeniably historic milestone worth celebrating. But before we get carried away with champagne and confetti, it’s worth remembering that catch limits aren’t necessarily a guarantee of no overfishing, even if everybody stays within the limits. After all, science-based catch limits are only as good as the science upon which they’re based.

The science of counting fish is notoriously difficult. I recently saw it described as being just like counting trees, except that you can’t see the trees and they’re constantly moving. And it gets worse. Based on the number and size of fish around today (coupled with knowledge about growth and reproduction), scientists have to estimate how many and what sizes of fish will be available for harvest in future years.

Even when done as well as humanly possible, stock assessments are tricky – and the scientists who produce them are the first to admit that. That’s why federal officials will continue to list 40 stocks as actively overfished until new assessments confirm that current catch limits are actually appropriate. That’s why Gulf of Maine cod has been added back to the ranks of the overfished, even though the fishery has been operating within its catch limits. And that’s why scientists are constantly working to develop newer and better technologies for counting fish.

In reality, establishing catch limits for all U.S. stocks is neither the end nor the beginning of anything. It is simply one more step along the way to sustainable fisheries.

FILED UNDER: Fish & Wildlife, Human Impacts, fisheries
January 6, 2012 | 9:14 AM | By

Why we can’t link extreme weather events to climate change

Mercy Health / Flickr

The science linking tornado outbreaks, like those that devastated the southeast last spring, to climate change is tenuous. But, for other extreme weather events, the biggest obstacle to connecting the dots may be political, not scientific.

Extreme weather was hands-down one of the top stories of 2011, science and otherwise. With the most extreme year on record and 12 billion-plus dollar disasters in the U.S. alone, the question on many people’s minds is: is this climate change? The short answer is: in many cases, probably … or at least quite possibly. Not very satisfying, heh? I, for one, would like to know which events and how “probably.”

So what’s standing in the way? NY Times reporter Justin Gillis took a look at that question, and the answer is surprising … or maybe not. Anyway, let’s start with Gillis’ description of where the science stands, if for no other reason than I think it’s one of the strongest I’ve read.

Researchers have proved that the temperature of the earth’s surface is rising, and they are virtually certain that the human release of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, is the major reason. For decades, they have predicted that this would lead to changes in the frequency of extreme weather events, and statistics show that has begun to happen.

For instance, scientists have long expected that a warming atmosphere would result in fewer extremes of low temperature and more extremes of high temperature. In fact, research shows that about two record highs are being set in the United States for every record low, and similar trends can be detected in other parts of the world.

Likewise, a well-understood physical law suggests that a warming atmosphere should hold more moisture. Scientists have directly measured the moisture in the air and confirmed that it is rising, supplying the fuel for heavier rains, snowfalls and other types of storms.

“We are changing the large-scale properties of the atmosphere — we know that beyond a shadow of a doubt,” said Benjamin D. Santer, a leading climate scientist who works at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “You can’t engage in this vast planetary experiment — warming the surface, warming the atmosphere, moistening the atmosphere — and have no impact on the frequency and duration of extreme events.”

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Human Impacts, extreme weather
December 9, 2011 | 4:31 PM | By

Money suggested as a way to calm wind turbine controversy

Andrew Magill / Flickr

Could cold hard cash help allay tensions about the impacts of wind turbines on their nearest neighbors?

Last Wednesday, the New England Wind Energy Education Project held a webinar entitled “Wind Power as a Neighbor: Experience with Techniques for Mitigating Public Impacts.” For those already embroiled in controversies over existing turbines (a thinly veiled reference to the situation here in Falmouth, MA, as well as a handful of other communities around New England) there were few revelations on offer. But a recurring theme – one that has not, to my knowledge, featured prominently in wind development deals around the Cape – was the power of money.

Nothing made this point more clearly than John Knab’s story of wind energy development in Sheldon, NY, where he has served seven terms as Town Supervisor. Much of what Knab had to say wasn’t terribly applicable to southeastern Massachusetts. Sheldon is a town of 2,550 and “twice as many dairy cows.” There’s lots of space to work with – not a common situation hereabouts. To give you an idea of the difference in scale, a private developer installed 75 turbines in Sheldon; some of the larger proposals on and around the Cape have involved seven or eight turbines.

But the interesting part was the financial arrangement the town negotiated with the developer. Not to be crass, but they milked Invernergy good – a huge up-front payment to the town, annual payments to neighbors, school and park improvements, the list went on and on – and still Knab says he thinks they should have pushed harder for more money from the developer! Town officials everywhere, are you listening?

But back to the webinar. Charles Newcomb, from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, provided an overview of impact mitigation strategies for the pre- and post-installation phases, while Nils Bolgen from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center went over several case studies in New England, including Falmouth. Together, they provided a nice picture of what is and isn’t working.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Human Impacts, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy
December 7, 2011 | 12:30 PM | By

The billion-dollar disasters of 2011

Call it global weirding. Call it extreme weather. Call it whatever you like, 2011 has been a record-setting weather year. So far, the U.S. alone has experienced 12 billion-dollar natural disasters, and there are still 24 days to go. Here’s the official rundown, courtesy of NOAA:

Snow IconGroundhog Day blizzard »
January 29-February 3, 2011
Tornado IconMidwest/Southeast tornadoes »
April 4-5, 2011
Tornado IconSoutheast/Midwest tornadoes »
April 8-11, 2011
Tornado IconMidwest/Southeast tornadoes »
April 14-16, 2011
Tornado IconSoutheast/Ohio Valley/Midwest tornadoes »
April 25-28, 2011
Tornado IconMidwest/Southeast tornadoes »
May 22-27, 2011
Storm IconMidwest/Southeast tornadoes and severe weather »
June 18-22, 2011
Heat IconSouthern Plains/Southwest drought and heatwave »
Spring-Fall, 2011
Flood IconMississippi River flooding »
Spring-Summer, 2011
Flood IconUpper Midwest flooding »
Summer 2011
Hurricane IconHurricane Irene »
August 20-29, 2011
Fire IconTexas, New Mexico, Arizona wildfires »
Spring-Fall 201

As it currently stands, the total toll of these twelve events is more than $54 billion in economic losses and 639 human lives lost. And, as a recent study highlighted, these figures usually don’t include the mental and physical health costs of natural disasters.

NOAA has launched an entire website dedicated to the weird, costly, and deadly weather of 2011. In an introductory statement, Jack Hayes, director of the National Weather Service, emphasized the fact that extreme weather happens every year, but seldom do we get so many events of so many different types that are so extreme.

You know, in my weather career spanning four decades, I’ve never seen a year quite like 2011. Sure, we’ve had years with extreme flooding, extreme hurricanes, extreme winter snowstorms, and even extreme tornado outbreaks. But I can’t remember a year like this in which we experienced record-breaking extremes of nearly every conceivable type of weather.

FILED UNDER: Human Impacts, extreme weather
December 7, 2011 | 10:51 AM | By

Levels of warming previously thought safe may not be

The Daily Climate

Glaciers and polar ice sheets are melting faster than expected - just one indicator that even modest warming may pose serious threats.

The globe is warming, no doubt about it. But just how hot will it get? And what will that mean for things like weather, agriculture, or sea level rise?

Last week, the news from the Durban climate talks was researchers saying that we’re on track for as much as 11ºF warming by 2100 – a scenario pretty universally considered catastrophic for humans. Those claims – based, in part, on the record jump in greenhouse gas emissions seen last year – were only slightly tempered by a new (and very controversial) study suggesting that the climate system may not be as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously thought.

Now, the news from another big meeting of the minds – the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union – suggests there’s cause for concern, regardless. Here’s Douglas Fischer’s report, cross-posted in full from The Daily Climate:

By Douglas Fischer, Daily Climate Editor

SAN FRANCISCO – Amounts of warming previously thought to be safe may instead trigger widespread melting of the world’s ice sheets and other catastrophic impacts, scientists said Tuesday.

Accelerating melting on the world’s ice sheets and other new observations have scientists concluding that even a two-degree Celsius rise in temperatures – a benchmark long seen as safe in global climate talks and other emissions reductions scenarios – could lead to an 80-foot rise in sea levels.

“The dangerous level of global warming is less than what we thought a few years ago,” said James Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “It was natural to think that a few degrees wasn’t so bad…. (But) a target of two degrees is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.”

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Human Impacts
December 6, 2011 | 11:29 AM | By

Climate change a terrifying reality for some children

Luigi Guarino / Flickr

Kids on the small island nation of Kiribati are facing the realities of climate change in a way that American children can only imagine.

As I opened up TweetDeck this morning, I was greeted with this absolutely heartbreaking message:

RT @occupySYDNEY:  “@Thrishni little boy in Kiribati told me he was afraid to sleep, because his small island was slipping under waves – Ban Ki Moon at #COP17.

Amazing what a powerful image one can cram into 140 characters. Turns out, this isn’t the first time UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has recounted this story of the human toll of sea level rise. Back in September, he suggested that climate change skeptics would do well to visit the island nation of Kiribati.

“Look into the eyes of the young boy who told me: ‘I am afraid to sleep at night’ because of the rising water,” he said.

“Talk with the parents who told me how they stood guard fearing that their children might drown in their own homes when the tide came in.”

Kiribati has indicated it is considering building ‘floating islands’ to deal with rising sea levels, ABC reports.

As the parent of very small children, I’m always torn about how much to tell them about climate change. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Human Impacts