[Will]

This is how noisy they are:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TI06Cvf8D-8

[Henry]

Will, on 13 July 2009 - 01:21 AM, said:

This is how noisy they are:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TI06Cvf8D-8

The noise from the youtube clip is irrelevant Will.

Try telling the Davis family in Deeping St. Nicholas that turbines are not noisy.

They have had to leave their farmhouse, 930 meters from a turbine because they cannot sleep at night.
Jane Davis speaks regularly about her plight at a national level and gave evidence to the Lords Committee on renewable energy.

Henry

[Will]

Henry, on 13 July 2009 - 03:17 PM, said:

The noise from the youtube clip is irrelevant Will.

Try telling the Davis family in Deeping St. Nicholas that turbines are not noisy.

They have had to leave their farmhouse, 930 meters from a turbine because they cannot sleep at night.
Jane Davis speaks regularly about her plight at a national level and gave evidence to the Lords Committee on renewable energy.

Henry

Are you saying that the recordable noise of a working windfarm, measurable decibel levels and the experience of those who have visited, or even live next door to, windfarms is irrelevant?

Of all the windfarms currently operational in the UK, only has allegedly driven one couple out of their home. The farm on which that windfarm stands has been highly commended by Farm Life magazine as one of the most beautiful farms in England, and members of a local co-operative have bought two of the wind turbines at Deeping St Nicholas for the benefit of the community.

Perhaps it would be more sensible to question the anomaly of the Davis's experience than to damn all windfarms on the testimony of just one couple. Jane Davis has undoubtedly become the poster-girl of the anti-windfarm movement. She is also the only person who has apparently discovered a meaning for her existence by talking to any anti-windfarm group who'll listen to her. The consequence of this is that the overwhelming testimony of those who live in the vicinity of windfarms is ignored in favour of just one non-representative witness.

[Henry]

Will, on 13 July 2009 - 03:34 PM, said:

Are you saying that the recordable noise of a working windfarm, measurable decibel levels and the experience of those who have visited, or even live next door to, windfarms is irrelevant?

Of all the windfarms currently operational in the UK, only has allegedly driven one couple out of their home. The farm on which that windfarm stands has been highly commended by Farm Life magazine as one of the most beautiful farms in England, and members of a local co-operative have bought two of the wind turbines at Deeping St Nicholas for the benefit of the community.

Perhaps it would be more sensible to question the anomaly of the Davis's experience than to damn all windfarms on the testimony of just one couple. Jane Davis has undoubtedly become the poster-girl of the anti-windfarm movement. She is also the only person who has apparently discovered a meaning for her existence by talking to any anti-windfarm group who'll listen to her. The consequence of this is that the overwhelming testimony of those who live in the vicinity of windfarms is ignored in favour of just one non-representative witness.

[Henry]

No Will, of course the recordable noise is relevant. That is why so much trouble is taken by developers to record the ambient noise before turbine installation.
It is the noise on the Youtube clip that is irrelevant because the sound you hear depends on the volume setting of you PC.

You may wish to check how many of the 50% of windfarm rejections because of noise issues.
You may wish to check how many of the existing windfarms have turbines 100m high less than 1km from houses. This is the real issue. Until recently most turbines have been distanced from housing. The noise only becomes an issue when modern larger turbines are installed next to houses.

Just because you went to Burton Wold on a relatively calm day and concluded that the turbines were not noisy does not mean all turbines are not noisy under windy conditions. Did you log the continuous road noise from the A14 and adjacent A roads? The Burton Wold windfarm is not a particularly good example of a rural windfarm because of the location so close to major roads.

Henry

[Will]

Henry, on 14 July 2009 - 10:23 AM, said:

No Will, of course the recordable noise is relevant. That is why so much trouble is taken by developers to record the ambient noise before turbine installation.
It is the noise on the Youtube clip that is irrelevant because the sound you hear depends on the volume setting of you PC.

You may wish to check how many of the 50% of windfarm rejections because of noise issues.
You may wish to check how many of the existing windfarms have turbines 100m high less than 1km from houses. This is the real issue. Until recently most turbines have been distanced from housing. The noise only becomes an issue when modern larger turbines are installed next to houses.

Just because you went to Burton Wold on a relatively calm day and concluded that the turbines were not noisy does not mean all turbines are not noisy under windy conditions. Did you log the continuous road noise from the A14 and adjacent A roads? The Burton Wold windfarm is not a particularly good example of a rural windfarm because of the location so close to major roads.

Henry

I think you misread my post about Burtonwold. It was certainly not a relatively calm day! There was a strong wind and the turbines were turning at full speed.

Traffic noise from nearby roads was not an issue - the nearest road was not a busy one, and their was no discernible noise from that or any other road nearby.

There are houses 1km from the Burtonwold Windfarm, and the residents have NOT objected to a planning application for an additional seven turbines. There are also houses within the windfarm development at Burtonwold, occupied by farmworkers.

Oh, and by the way, the YouTube clip was of a different windfarm/turbine altogether. And you can judge the turbine volume because the cameraman's voice, adjacent to the camera, offers a comparison.

Basically, Henry, you're making up reasons not to believe how remarkably quiet windfarms are and clutching at straws. Burtonwold Farmm is an excellent example of a modern windfarm in a rural location. There wer no noise conflicts - it's simply the case that modern windfarms are quiet. But you will refuse to believe it, regardless of all the evidence, because you desperately want to believe that they're noisy. Just because certain people keep saying their noisy doesn't magically make them noisy. You're in danger of making yourself ill if you persist in believing somethinbg that isn't true.

[ekky]

Will, on 14 July 2009 - 11:49 AM, said:

I think you misread my post about Burtonwold. It was certainly not a relatively calm day! There was a strong wind and the turbines were turning at full speed.

Traffic noise from nearby roads was not an issue - the nearest road was not a busy one, and their was no discernible noise from that or any other road nearby.

There are houses 1km from the Burtonwold Windfarm, and the residents have NOT objected to a planning application for an additional seven turbines. There are also houses within the windfarm development at Burtonwold, occupied by farmworkers.

Oh, and by the way, the YouTube clip was of a different windfarm/turbine altogether. And you can judge the turbine volume because the cameraman's voice, adjacent to the camera, offers a comparison.

Basically, Henry, you're making up reasons not to believe how remarkably quiet windfarms are and clutching at straws. Burtonwold Farmm is an excellent example of a modern windfarm in a rural location. There wer no noise conflicts - it's simply the case that modern windfarms are quiet. But you will refuse to believe it, regardless of all the evidence, because you desperately want to believe that they're noisy. Just because certain people keep saying their noisy doesn't magically make them noisy. You're in danger of making yourself ill if you persist in believing somethinbg that isn't true.

[ekky]

I cannot understand why Will that you don't want us to make sure about the noise, what is your problem with people collating their own evidence about noise if it is close to where they live, I am at a loss to understand your argument. People are only trying to be careful, and quite rightly, isn't that what the democratic rights of this country have always aloud? This statement by Henry is relevant............


You may wish to check how many of the 50% of windfarm rejections because of noise issues.
You may wish to check how many of the existing windfarms have turbines 100m high less than 1km from houses. This is the real issue. Until recently most turbines have been distanced from housing. The noise only becomes an issue when modern larger turbines are installed next to houses.

This is and will be most important to people who will be living close to these machines, surely you don't wish to take their right to check it out, bearing in mind that there are plenty of places where wind turbines can be positioned away from residential communities.

[Will]

ekky, on 14 July 2009 - 02:03 PM, said:

I cannot understand why Will that you don't want us to make sure about the noise, what is your problem with people collating their own evidence about noise if it is close to where they live, I am at a loss to understand your argument. People are only trying to be careful, and quite rightly, isn't that what the democratic rights of this country have always aloud? This statement by Henry is relevant............


You may wish to check how many of the 50% of windfarm rejections because of noise issues.
You may wish to check how many of the existing windfarms have turbines 100m high less than 1km from houses. This is the real issue. Until recently most turbines have been distanced from housing. The noise only becomes an issue when modern larger turbines are installed next to houses.

This is and will be most important to people who will be living close to these machines, surely you don't wish to take their right to check it out, bearing in mind that there are plenty of places where wind turbines can be positioned away from residential communities.

Hi, ekky!

Believe me, I'm all in favour of local residents checking the 'noise' made by modern windfarms for themselves. On the grounds that fear is largely created through ignorance, it would be of immense benefit to everyone in the area for them to find out for themselves by actually visiting one or, better still, more than one.

The problem I have is that hearsay is replacing personal experience and the testimony of those who are familiar with windfarms. Did you see my post regarding the couple in the Lenches whose Spanish holiday home is next door to a windfarm? They describe the turbines as 'ethereal' and get angry at the constant tafficking in misinformation regarding windfarms.

Or what about this, from a long-term resident of the Lenches:

"Travelling in [Europe] recently we had the oppurtunity to check out for ourselves how 'noisey' a turbine was and was pleasantly surprised to find how quiet they were. Listening specifically for any noise from the turbine we walked towards it (downwind from the turbine) and found we had to be within 200metres from the base to detect any noise at all and this noise sounded like a fan being used to cool the generator, as we walked closer this only increased slightly and the blades could not be heard untill we were within 30 metres (almost at the base) and this noise was a gentle swish (not great thumps). the only other noise we could hear near the base (well within the 200metres!) was periodically a metal on metal clang which was far quieter than our fridge freezer when it is on its defrost cycle. My conclusion is that over 200metres away and downwind the noise would not be a problem even in your garden. It is a pity that more 'concerned residents' do not do their own research into this, especially when given the opportunity."

My own visits to windfarms in different parts of England and Wales were sufficient to reassure me that the noise issue is essentially a canard, repeated ad nauseam by antis who, in the main, have never been near a windfarm. The more recent visit to Burtonwold also demonstrated to me that, when concerned residents actually do get near to a windfarm (with no interference from road noise, and even on a very windy day) they find the experience reassuring.

So please believe me - a visit to a modern windfarm consisting of large turbines in a rural location is a must for those who are concerned about noise, if only to dispel the rampant propaganda which is, in itself, considerably noisier than a working windfarm.

Will

[ekky]

Will, on 14 July 2009 - 03:55 PM, said:

Hi, ekky!

Believe me, I'm all in favour of local residents checking the 'noise' made by modern windfarms for themselves. On the grounds that fear is largely created through ignorance, it would be of immense benefit to everyone in the area for them to find out for themselves by actually visiting one or, better still, more than one.

The problem I have is that hearsay is replacing personal experience and the testimony of those who are familiar with windfarms. Did you see my post regarding the couple in the Lenches whose Spanish holiday home is next door to a windfarm? They describe the turbines as 'ethereal' and get angry at the constant tafficking in misinformation regarding windfarms.

Or what about this, from a long-term resident of the Lenches:

"Travelling in [Europe] recently we had the oppurtunity to check out for ourselves how 'noisey' a turbine was and was pleasantly surprised to find how quiet they were. Listening specifically for any noise from the turbine we walked towards it (downwind from the turbine) and found we had to be within 200metres from the base to detect any noise at all and this noise sounded like a fan being used to cool the generator, as we walked closer this only increased slightly and the blades could not be heard untill we were within 30 metres (almost at the base) and this noise was a gentle swish (not great thumps). the only other noise we could hear near the base (well within the 200metres!) was periodically a metal on metal clang which was far quieter than our fridge freezer when it is on its defrost cycle. My conclusion is that over 200metres away and downwind the noise would not be a problem even in your garden. It is a pity that more 'concerned residents' do not do their own research into this, especially when given the opportunity."

My own visits to windfarms in different parts of England and Wales were sufficient to reassure me that the noise issue is essentially a canard, repeated ad nauseam by antis who, in the main, have never been near a windfarm. The more recent visit to Burtonwold also demonstrated to me that, when concerned residents actually do get near to a windfarm (with no interference from road noise, and even on a very windy day) they find the experience reassuring.

So please believe me - a visit to a modern windfarm consisting of large turbines in a rural location is a must for those who are concerned about noise, if only to dispel the rampant propaganda which is, in itself, considerably noisier than a working windfarm.

Will

[ekky]

You got it in one, rural location - fine, offshore - fine. But lenchwick is semi-rural and home to an awful lot of people, the area in question is far too small, sitting between villages. It is not just noise from the blades. There are issues with the resonating noise, which cannot be known until they are put up - are all the locals expected to hope that it won't effect them! SPR are playing with an awful lot of peoples quality of life, for their subsidies and that of the landowners. Why subject locals to the uncertainty of a disruptive life style which has already been documented as being experienced by others (why would they lie, they only wanted to get on with their lives). Flicker is another area that will effect residents and this will also effect locals.

Can all the people in all the protest groups around the country be that wrong. NO.

[Bilbo]

This is for Will

Here're 2 links which deal with the issues of noise, shadow flicker & inappropriate set back from people's homes.

http://www.youtube.c...er/betterplanWI

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=iyOImGHyJtQ

Will, you can't watch these and tell me there's no noise or shadow flicker & that the turbines have been sensitively sighted.

The turbines proposed for the Lenches are the size of a 40 storey building, the blades are the size of a jumbo jet & they'll be a few hundred yards from people's homes!

Irrespective of anyone's views on renewables, this is just not right.

Bilbo.

[Will]

Ekky -

I take it, then, that when protesters say that windfarms are noisy, they don't actually mean that they're noisy - because they're demonstrably not - but that they might turn out to be noisy, depending on something or other.

It would surely help the debate if protesters were a little clearer about the claims they're actually making.

The same goes for the claim that windfarms are 'inefficient'. Scientifically, this is meaningless. I suspect that when protesters use the word 'efficiency', what they really mean is 'capacity', which is a different thing altogether.

Bilbo -

Two videos from Wisconsin??? Given that American turbines are of a different, less robust design than the Scandinavian ones commonly used in Europe, you're hardly comparing like with like.

There are two aspects to the ethical issue. The first concerns the ethical production of goods and services. The second requires a recognition of shared responsibility.

The windfarm debate has proven that there are a great many fair-weather, part-time 'greens' out there. They profess to be all in favour of renewable energy, just as long as it doesn't come anywhere near them!

All over the country, anti-windfarm groups are flaunting the same flawed logic. 'We want clean energy, but we refuse to have anything to do with it!'

This all reminds me of the inane furore over mobile phone masts, not so long ago. Everybody wanted to use mobile phones but nobody wanted a mast near them, and oodles of unscientific nonsense was spouted by those who hadn't figured out that you can't have it both ways.

So - either the Lenches declare UDI, absent themselves from the United Kingdom and try to muddle along all on their own, or they accept that farmers and landowners have a right to make use of their land, that renewable energy resources are vital, and that we all have a part to play in a sustainable future.

[ekky]

Will, on 15 July 2009 - 01:24 PM, said:

Ekky -

I take it, then, that when protesters say that windfarms are noisy, they don't actually mean that they're noisy - because they're demonstrably not - but that they might turn out to be noisy, depending on something or other.

It would surely help the debate if protesters were a little clearer about the claims they're actually making.

The same goes for the claim that windfarms are 'inefficient'. Scientifically, this is meaningless. I suspect that when protesters use the word 'efficiency', what they really mean is 'capacity', which is a different thing altogether.

Bilbo -

Two videos from Wisconsin??? Given that American turbines are of a different, less robust design than the Scandinavian ones commonly used in Europe, you're hardly comparing like with like.

There are two aspects to the ethical issue. The first concerns the ethical production of goods and services. The second requires a recognition of shared responsibility.

The windfarm debate has proven that there are a great many fair-weather, part-time 'greens' out there. They profess to be all in favour of renewable energy, just as long as it doesn't come anywhere near them!

All over the country, anti-windfarm groups are flaunting the same flawed logic. 'We want clean energy, but we refuse to have anything to do with it!'

This all reminds me of the inane furore over mobile phone masts, not so long ago. Everybody wanted to use mobile phones but nobody wanted a mast near them, and oodles of unscientific nonsense was spouted by those who hadn't figured out that you can't have it both ways.

So - either the Lenches declare UDI, absent themselves from the United Kingdom and try to muddle along all on their own, or they accept that farmers and landowners have a right to make use of their land, that renewable energy resources are vital, and that we all have a part to play in a sustainable future.

[ekky]

Wind farms in close proximity to peoples houses are noisy, stop turning my words around, it is not clever.

You choose to say they are not noisy, that is your choice and I respect that. But stop trying to be sarcastic and playing on my words, lets just stick to facts and stop trying to catch people out with word play.

The fact is that this does not need to happen in close proximity to people if they were put offshore or remote. The powers that be are starting to listen, this has become quite clear the last couple of days. Why should SPR come into our area and reap the benefits along with one or two landowners off local communities, obligatory miniscule amounts of money offered and distributed between several different councils is not compensation.

This is not about green energy on this scale in a marginal wind area, it is about subsidies and making money, they would not do it if the subsidies were not available.

[Bilbo]

Will,

Turbines should be sensitely sited - & by sensitively, I mean at least 2Km from people's homes as per France and Scotland - We just need to be fair about this & not go hell for leather (& profit)on renewables at any cost.

Bilbo.

[Will]

In France, the distance between windfarms and dwellings is decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no 2km exclusion zone.

Neither is there in Scotland. Or, for that matter, anywhere in Europe.

The European Platform Against Windfarms makes this clear.

[NLys]

Will, on 16 July 2009 - 01:19 PM, said:

In France, the distance between windfarms and dwellings is decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no 2km exclusion zone.

Neither is there in Scotland. Or, for that matter, anywhere in Europe.

The European Platform Against Windfarms makes this clear.

In Planning Policy 6, Renewables, the Scottish Executive recommends a separation distance of 2km for large wind farms, which they define as having a headline capacity of 20MW:

"PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis."

The Scottish Minister has recently confirmed that this policy also applies to small hamlets and even individual dwellings:

"... SPP6 confirms that, in all instances, proposals should not be permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. This principle applies to houses within and outwith 2km of the proposed development and regardless of whether they are single dwellings or part of a settlement."
(letter from Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, to Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign (SHWC).

[NLys]

Will, on 13 July 2009 - 01:21 AM, said:

This is how noisy they are:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TI06Cvf8D-8

Videos of turbines at various wind speeds and distances do not contribute much to the discussion of turbine noise.

You can argue until the cows come home about your various subjective experiences of turbine noise. More interesting are the actual figures from applications and how noise is measured using ETSU-R-97.

Noise guidance for developers of wind turbine arrays is provided by ETSU-R-97. This was drawn up in 1996 under the aegis of the DTI, which convened a Noise Working Group (NWG) to investigate a group of small wind turbine arrays that were creating noise problems to those living nearby.

The NWG produced ETSU-R-97 — The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, Sept. 1996 — a document providing information and advice to developers and planners on the environmental assessment of noise from wind turbines. The NWG membership was weighted in favour of the wind industry, being composed largely acousticians and engineers employed by the industry.

There is no record of qualified medical or epidemiological experts being consulted to offer guidance on how turbine noise levels might impact on human health.

They had to invent a new method of measuring noise for turbine arrays because most would fail the standard method of measuring acceptable industrial noise thresholds. Wind power stations are the only 'special case'.

In 1996 existing wind arrays in Cornwall and Wales were between 30-60 metres high. Today's turbines are 100-150 metres high. The NWG stated in its recommendations that ETSU-R-97 might need revisiting and recommended revision within two years, with reviews at regular intervals to accord with changes in wind turbine technology. There is no evidence to show that the DTI, or its successors, has revisited ETSU-R-97 despite both turbines and arrays being dramatically larger than those on which ETSU had been based. Nor has ETSU-R-97 been revised to recognise that World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) have been materially updated.

ETSU-R-97 states:

This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administration burdens on wind farm developers and local authorities. (Summary S1). [My emphasis].

"In January 2004, an article, in the national press, alleged that Low Frequency Noise (LFN) emissions from wind turbines had given rise to health effects to neighbours of three wind farms in Cumbria, North Wales & Cornwall. As a result the then DTI commissioned an independent study to investigate the levels and effects of infrasound and Low Frequency Noise in dwellings neighbouring these three wind farms from which complaints had been received. Of the 126 wind farms operating in the UK, five have been reported low frequency noise problems." (BIS Website).

Hayes McKenzie, a leading consultancy that frequently acts for the wind industry and which had a major part in the formulation of the ETSU-R-97 standard for the assessment of noise from wind turbine arrays, was commissioned to carry out the study.

The Hayes McKenzie report, 'The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms' (URN No: 06/1412 - see BIS website) describes an investigation into low frequency noise at neighbouring properties to three different UK wind farms where noise complaints had been made. The authors discount low frequency noise as a significant problem. However, they do state that amplitude modulation, commonly know as 'blade swish' noise, can be a problem. Their report concludes that, on occasion, blade swish is disturbing enough to prevent occupants of nearby dwellings from going to sleep although not sufficiently disturbing to wake them if already asleep.

The report authors found that even when the overall noise level inside a bedroom was less than the sleep disturbance threshold proposed in the WHO guidelines, the distinctive noise signature of the wind turbine blade swish attracted the attention of the listener and caused difficulty in returning to sleep.

The report states that the blade swish noise is more extreme for some wind farms and at some properties and particularly at night time. Significantly, the report acknowledges that the magnitude of the 'swish' noise is greater than was anticipated in the ETSU-R-97 guidelines and recommends that the issue should be re-visited possibly with a view to including a penalty in any noise condition to take into account blade swish noise. This would effectively lower the permitted noise at neighbouring dwellings.

The Hayes McKenzieReport concluded on page 66 that: "... infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which will result in noise levels which may be injurious to health of a wind farm neighbour". There is nothing in the report to indicate that the authors of this report have the medical qualifications to make this statement, nor is there any evidence that medical experts were consulted. There is no substantive epidemiological or physiological evidence in the Report to support this conclusion.

The DTI subsequently convened a Noise Working Group (NWG) whose objective was, "to provide clear expert advice and guidance on the issue surrounding Amplitude Modulation of Aerodynamic Noise (AM) raised in the Hayes McKenzie report on Low Frequency Noise (The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms, W/45/00656/00/00, URN No. 06/1412)."

On 1 August 2007, the Energy Minister announced that the Government was parking the AM issue after initial research by Salford University found that, "although the occurrence of AM cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of it from operational turbines is low." The statement continued, "Government does not consider there to be a compelling case for more work into AM and will not carry out any further research at this time; however it will continue to keep the issue under review." (GNN release).

On 2 August 2007, Dick Bowdler, an acoustician and member of the NWG, resigned from the Noise Working Group. This highly unusual step was taken because, as his letter states:

"I have read the Salford Report and the Government Statement. As a result I feel obliged to resign from the Noise Working Group. The Salford Report says that the aims of this study are to ascertain the prevalence of AM from UK wind farm sites, to try to gain a better understanding of the likely cause, and to establish whether further research into AM is required. This bears little relation to what we asked for which clearly set out in the minutes of the meeting in August 2006. We all knew then (as was recorded in the original notes of the meeting) that complaints concerning wind farm noise are currently the exception rather than the rule. The whole reason for needing the research was that `The trend for larger more sophisticated turbines could lead to an increase in noise from AM'. It was not the intended purpose of the study to establish whether more research was required. We all agreed at the August 2006 meeting that such research was needed. That was precisely the outcome of the meeting. The prime purpose of what eventually became the Salford Report was to identify up to 10 potential sites which could be used to carry out objective noise measurements. The brief for the Salford report, which was never circulated to the NWG, completely ignored the NWG views. Additionally, I find it entirely unacceptable that we are not to be told the names of the wind farms listed in the Salford report. So the only part of the report of any value to assist future research is inaccessible to those of us who would like to progress matters further. Looking at the Government Statement it is clear that the views of the NWG (that research is needed into AM to assist the sustainable design of wind farms in the future) have never been transmitted to government and so the Statement is based on misleading information."

The Editor of the professional journal 'Noise Bulletin', where Mr Bowdler's letter appeared, commented:

"'New report eases concerns over wind turbine' noise trumpets the Government press release, then saying aerodynamic modulation is 'not an issue for the UK's wind farm fleet'. This conclusion is not justified based on the report, and by halting further research work without transparently monitoring the wind farms subject to complaints will inflame, not ease concern of objectors ... Only when the public can trust the Government and wind farm developers on noise issues will there be a chance that the public will accept them without a fight ..." (Noise Bulletin, Issue 15, Aug/Sept. 2007 page 5).

Until very recently, very few turbine arrays had been built near housing, so there is no great surprise that there are, so far, relatively few sites with reported noise problems. Anyway, government has now washed its hands of the issue, which will no doubt re-surface when noise, and AM in particular, becomes a common issue with increasing numbers of lowland wind turbine installations being built close to housing.

It is worth noting that many wind power stations near housing would fall foul of the Noise Act, the legislation under which ASBO's are sought for noisy neighbours, by breaking the 35dB(A) threshold.

Many wind farm proposals state that nearby housing will experience 40dB(A) plus, sufficient to keep people awake at night and cause medical problems, according to the WHO.

For more information, see 'WIND TURBINES, Noise, Health and Human Rights Issues' and recent research by Nina Pierpoint M.D., recently reported in The Independent - 'Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies "wind turbine syndrome"'.

[Jane Davis]

Quote

Of all the windfarms currently operational in the UK, only has allegedly driven one couple out of their home. The farm on which that windfarm stands has been highly commended by Farm Life magazine as one of the most beautiful farms in England, and members of a local co-operative have bought two of the wind turbines at Deeping St Nicholas for the benefit of the community.

Perhaps it would be more sensible to question the anomaly of the Davis's experience than to damn all windfarms on the testimony of just one couple. Jane Davis has undoubtedly become the poster-girl of the anti-windfarm movement. She is also the only person who has apparently discovered a meaning for her existence by talking to any anti-windfarm group who'll listen to her. The consequence of this is that the overwhelming testimony of those who live in the vicinity of windfarms is ignored in favour of just one non-representative witness.

As the said poster girl(compliment or insult?) I think I have a right to reply here! 38 windfarms currently operating wind farms are currently causing enough noise complaints to have been reported to their local Environmental Health Officers... fact. Currently 8 families in the UK have had to abandon their homes. fact. The farm on which 3 of the 8 turbines stands has indeed been highly commended by Farm Life, the Farmer is Nicholas Watts.. True. And its owner has an MBE in conservation (mainly for birds. ) Fact. His turbines also kill birds - he says so on film. Here is our very own Nicholas Watts MBE telling us so... fact.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-fyeUILsUI8
It is widely accepted within the industry that there are significant noise issues at our home. fact. Only last week experts giving evidence on behalf of developers at another site acknowledged this. fact.
It is increasingly acknowledged that noise planning conditions for windfarms are almost impossible to monitor, and thus enforce without a compliant Wind Farm developer.
The recent International Windturbinenoise Conference held in Copenhagen (the THIRD such Conference) bought together 25 countries and 150 delegates over 3 days to discuss - guess what - wind turbine noise and the problems it is causing.....
The main conclusions this year were that the bigger the turbines get, the less is understood about the way they react with the environment around them. The effects on human beings - sleep deprivation and health deficits are now becoming increasingly of concern. Low frequency in particular, and the intrusive characteristics of the noise are increasingly problematic.
If I only heard, at home, the noise that one hears when standing underneath a turbine, then you would never have heard of me, and I have, I can assure you many many other things I want to do with my life, and the main one is to go home!