opinion – 12/1/11 – Wind Storm makes for Electric Shock

The 2008 Green Communities Act gave the ’green-light’ for Falmouth’s ride on the wind. Recently, that ride has been halted while officials examine health and safety dangers.

But, is there another danger looming on the horizon?

Attorney General Martha Coakley explained to politicians at a recent hearing re-examining the noted legislation, that the cost of implementing this program over the next four years will cause delivery costs for electricity to rise 7% by 2015.

The burden of the extra expense will be borne by utility customers. Is there movement underway to totally eliminated this legislation? Politicians, finally hearing their constituency, are realizing that citizen income is low and business is struggling. People are wanting less focus on the environment and more on help that will allow immediate needs of food and shelter be met.

Only now, 3 years after the bill was enacted, is there cost analysis being done to assess its impact on customers (not to mention the ‘after-the-fact’ health and safety analysis on wind turbines).

I’m left to wonder, will electric shock cause bigger wind turbulence in Falmouth?

How will this dramatic change in enviro-legislation effect wind energy subsidizes already afforded Falmouth? Could the state call-in the capital loans and other moneys associated with the municipal project? Could the benefit of the ‘net metering’ method of selling power to N-Star, which made the Falmouth plan fiscally ‘do-able’, suddenly vanish?

The ‘Green Communities’ charade might come at a costly expense, at a most inopportune time, for all Massachusetts electric rate-payers. That cost, however, might pale in comparison to Electrostatic-Wind shock experienced by Falmouth taxpayers.

2/14/12 – Letters – Fal E – Addresses Article 27

Addresses Article 27

 

Falmouth Enterprise  Feb 14, 2012

I want to applaud the group submitting Article 27 to the Spring Town Meeting. The wind turbines in town were portrayed at previous Town Meetings and to selectmen alike as products descending from the old-world Cape Cod windmills. Close your eyes and you’ll surely imagine these magnificent machines gently turning in the breeze, each kilowatt arriving at your reading lamp or air conditioner courtesy of a rosy-cheeked Hummel child figurine.

Me? I only wanted my property taxes held in check.

Sadly, the hopes inspired by industrial wind energy for our community have been peeled back to expose a profound flaw.  Save the canned responses about loss of municipal energy savings and debt increase, Falmouth’s wind project has offered nothing but sacrifice, personally as well as communally.

Bringing this closer to my point, the Article 27 group, as well as wind turbine neighbors, know that we need to remove this needless sacrifice. The community wants town hall and selectmen to recognize this fact.

It’s agreed, the sad truth is that industrial wind does not replace fossil-fueled electricity generators. It does not reduce emissions. It does not provide affordable, on-demand electricity. Industrial wind is a profit center founded on favorable legislation, mandated renewable energy goals and funded by taxpayer subsidies. But all of this is inconsequential to what it does to your Falmouth neighbors.

I am not insulted at the NIMBY moniker the pro-wind advocates apply to me. I would take it one step further and suggest that we’re all in this together, as Article 27 implies.  I believe we are all responsible for our environment and must challenge every intrusion.

We cannot accept, without question, the possibility that what has been portrayed as a solution may, in fact, create additional ills, no matter how much we want to believe.  Moving away from fossil fuels is one thing; choosing an alternative that imposes serious immediate illnesses in accomplishing this effort is quite another.

The only viable alternative before the Town Meeting and selectmen—let the turbines spin (seemingly satisfying Ms. Rawley’s group) away from adversely affecting Falmouth, or any other residence (satisfying pro-neighborhood supporters).

Mark J. Cool

Falmouth

Opinion – 2/12/12 – Where have the Good Folks Gone?

Reflect on these words while you read. Mr. Charlie Murphy (FAIRHAVEN Massachusetts  SELECTMEN) stated in an e-mail before Christmas, “yes, we have a contract and yes we have signed it and yes the turbines are on their way..BUT nothing is impossible.”.

Mr. Murphy subsequently shared, after the Fairhaven Wind Forum, that he suddenly favors the State and consulting expert’s expertise over that of relayed “first-hand” true life reality of wind turbines too close to residents.

The root issue isn’t whether Mr. Murphy believes me or the wind industry’s puppets. Rather, it’s whether he listens to his constituency. Should a selectmen abandon the concerns of so many constituents if constituent doubt exists?

The reason Mr. Murphy was elected was on account that he was expected to represent all the citizens of Fairhaven. Which is especially vital more than ever, given the questionable implications from the State’s wind Science Expert Panel and their recommendation that more health impact research is necessary.

To quote Mr Murphy’s words, “nothing is impossible.” This distant citizen and friend, wonders why Mr. Murphy should suddenly “buy the snake oil”? If a selectmen will not provide those he represents the concern they are due, another citizen must pick up the colors and carry the charge.

The charge dear reader, is that a mandate guarantee, in writing, that no harm will befall those citizens Mr. Murphy and the board are supposed to represent is essential. The State Expert Panel says there is not enough scientific evidence to offer such guarantees.

It would be prudent and reasonable then, to owe ALL Fairhaven Citizens the benefit of doubt and stop further construction! After all, “nothing is impossible,” right Charlie?

A Request – For Your Consideration

Last year, Congress adjourned without renewing the Production Tax Credit or the 30% tax credit for wind energy (Section 1603). These huge subsidies are two of the main drivers – if not THE main drivers — behind the explosion of proposals to install industrial wind turbines in rural communities across the country.

The American Wind Energy Association is pulling out all of the stops to renew these subsidies, rather than to allow them to expire at the end of 2012. The reason is simple: wind energy is so horribly uneconomic that the industry cannot survive absent this form of life support from taxpayers and ratepayers.

To put it another way, the projects don’t pay for themselves. The developers want to renew the existing bargain that has served them so well:

–Taxpayers, ratepayers and local residents pay all the bills — and suffer all of the adverse consequences (including adverse impacts to health, severe degradation to the environment to quality of life and dramatic declines in property values).

–The developers keep all of the profits.

Some of us feel that citizens are getting the raw end of this deal — especially since it has been demonstrated that the addition of wind energy to the electrical grid does not have any appreciable impact on reducing the consumption of fossil fuels or the emission of green house gases.

AWEA — the powerful wind industry lobby — begs to differ otherwise. They would like you all to think that what is good for them is good for you. If it’s good for them, it must be good for you — right?

Please add your names to the list of people who oppose the extension of the Production Tax Credit and the huge tax credit (30%) known as Section 1603. Please provide your name and home town to Lisa Linowes (llinowes@windaction.org) of National Wind Watch, who is working so tirelessly on your behalf, to ensure that your voices are heard in Washington, D.C.

Many thanks.

Mark Cool

——————————————-

Hi Everyone — AWEA is at it again in an all out campaign to get the PTC (and possibly 1603) extended. And we need to fight back.

All of you participated in our multi-state letter sent in December opposing an extension of Section 1603 was impacting. We’d really like to do the same with a letter focused on the PTC (see below). As before, this new letter will be cc’ed to key people in the House who control the process and who need to see there is broad-based opposition to an extension of the PTC.

Could you help me collect names again for this new letter? I’ve attached the 1603 letter we sent from MA in December; We had a fantastic response! and now need permission to include everyone on this new letter.

The plan is to collect all the names we can by Sunday afternoon. If you can share this email with others that would be great!
Thanks so much!
–Lisa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Intended Letter

February xx, 2012

Representative Olver

Representative Keating

Representative Neal

Representative Capuano

Representative Frank

Representative Tierney

Representative Markey

Representative McGovern
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative(s),

As residents and property-owners of the State of Massachusetts we urge you to vote NO on any further extensions of the Production Tax Credit (‘PTC’) for wind energy for these reasons:
High Cost: Since adopted in 1992, the cost of the PTC for wind energy has ballooned from $5 million a year in 1998 to over $1 billion annually today. This open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh. In many regions of the country the PTC now equals, or is greater than, the wholesale price of power.

Even if the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers are still obligated to cover nearly $10 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. This is in addition to the nearly $20 billion debt for wind projects eligible under Section 1603.

Inefficient: Since the PTC is uniform across the country it is highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited wind development in some areas while in other areas supporting projects that would have been built regardless of the credit. This is true in Texas and the Pacific Northwest where wind generation exceeds transmission capacity. In New England the PTC overpays investors since utilities routinely sign long-term contracts for wind at prices significantly above market.

Wind sector slow-down not tied to the PTC: The wind industry insists it’s at risk of a slow-down without the PTC and jobs will be lost. But this view ignores crucial factors driving development in the U.S. Demand for wind has eroded, in part, due to states meeting their renewable mandates. Lower natural gas prices have further reduced wind’s attractiveness as a ‘fuel saver’. Faced with these market conditions, wind developers are tabling projects. The EIA now forecasts flat growth in the wind sector for this decade regardless of what happens with the PTC.

Job losses: Despite billions in public funding since 2008, the wind sector has reported a net loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs bringing the total to 75,000 jobs. It takes only 0.1 jobs per megawatt to operate a wind plant. Most of the sector’s jobs are temporary construction positions.

The PTC is nothing more than an earmark that lines the pockets of project owners and tax-advantaged investors while skewing the energy market and artificially masking the real cost of wind power. It’s time for the production tax credit to expire.

Respectfully,

cc: Speaker John Boehner
Representative Eric Cantor
Representative David Camp
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

 

2/7/12 CCC – (New Wind Generation – public Comment)

Re: New Wind Generation Project Decision

Dear Cape Cod Commission,

Town’s on Cape Cod, more often than not, ignorantly battle for the title of biggest municipally allowed debacle.  (The Falmouth High School remodel comes to mind)  The seduction of Falmouth by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the ensuing erection of three industrial scaled turbines in a few neighborhoods is, so far, the front-runner.  However, there is a challenger.    

If the Commission Members still haven’t made your minds up about the New Generation Wind (NGW) project, just consider this one inescapable truth the Mass Clean Energy Center (CEC), Mass Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) and the Mass Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) makes apparent to us all.  Some naive politicians and political appointees, not to mention NGW representatives, try to convince the Commission, as well as the Commonwealth, into believing that opposing this wind farm (or any wind farm) should be socially unacceptable.

After the threats and innuendo made to the Commission by the Mass EEA and DEP executives, what will be next?  Is the State considering making it illegal to “be against wind turbines?”

Egged on by Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the state environmentalist group; Conservation Law Foundation, the present State Administration brands this issue as being a morale crusade.  If this doctrine is not put in it’s place, I fear for Bourne and it’s Citizens being bullied into the erosion and ultimate forfeiture of their legal standing for a zealot’s missionary work.

Please, as the Commission, as Citizens, look outside your windows, see the direction the wind is blowing.

Respectfully,

Mark J. Cool

Falmouth, MA

2/7/12 A Sad Satire – What Have We Become?

Falmouth, MA – Last Wednesday eight Falmouth wind turbine neighbors traveled to Waltham to hear three Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] / Department of Public Health [DPH] expert health panel members present their Wind Turbine Health Impact Study report.  That document, released only two weeks ago, caused great controversy not only in Falmouth but also across the Commonwealth. … [panel member] Wendy Heiger-Bernays PhD of Boston University School of Public Health explained that “it is possible that living too close to wind turbines can cause annoyance and sleep disruption, but we don’t have measurements that can show levels that disrupt sleep.” She agreed that sleep disruption can bring on a whole host of adverse health impacts.”

Yet – an indication still exists, if local blogs give a hint and even after the Wind Science Report and the comment by one of it’s panelist, that DOUBT REMAINS.  

…… their convincing argument follows……

I’m sorry, Mr. or Ms. Wind Turbine Victim, that’s just not convincing — at least not by rigorous standards of proof set by our Board of Health.

We would have to insist that you live in the house for at least 18 months so that we could keep a log of your symptoms, take your blood pressure, your pulse, and so forth, to be sure that we had enough data to confirm these findings before we could have any confidence in them.

It just won’t do to say that you were sicker than a dog every time you came near the wind turbines but felt fine every time you removed yourself from them.

How do we know that it wasn’t all psychosomatic?  How do we know that you weren’t allergic to a cat, a dog, or even a pet gerbil in the house?  Perhaps you read Dr. Pierpont’s book and felt a powerful mind bend in her direction: you felt the symptoms of WTS because Dr. Pierpont told you that was how you were supposed to feel — and you didn’t want to disappoint anyone!

18 months, sick as a dog, with a 12 lead and an EKG machine strapped to your chest — that is the “industry standard” for “credible evidence of harm.”  Oh, and also, we can’t just take your word for the so-called “symptoms.”  We would need some physical evidence — like vomiting, hematoma, actual blood pressure readings, bleeding from the ears — that sort of thing — on a sustained basis.

So — with all due respect — I’m simply going to file this first person account under the heading of “not peer reviewed” and “mere anecdote — not evidence.”

Nothing personal, you understand.

Signed – A Concern Falmouth Resident

 

Public Comment to CCC (New Generation Wind – Bourne)

Public Comment  Re: CCC Decision on the New Generation Wind project

Dear Commission Members,

The State EEA and DEP are attempting to ‘bull-rush’ the Commission into believing their design of “determined need” is somehow more important. 

The State agencies do not object to the Commission’s authority to regulate the siting of a wind farm.  So change the debate from one of differing “green ideals” to that of core values of a community’s “determined need.”  It would certainly invite less controversy or intervention from the state.

The Commission’s charge is to regulate (this happening to be a wind farm project) with due regard to local zoning, environment, public health and safety concern.  The Commission’s effort, if confined to minimum performance standards of the Cape regional policy plan, would retain strong policy and legal standing.    

The subcommittee, as well as the Bourne town planner have indicated that the proposal is inconsistent with Bourne development bylaws. Speculated benefits won’t outweigh the probable detriments. “Probable” being the definitive word here.  The state Wind Science Panel’s Report cites the critical need for further health impact research, thus implying too many uncertainties are being left to probability.  

Bourne has presented their intention to ban large commercial-scale wind turbine farm from its town borders.  The Commission, with the knowledge and interests of the region, are able to render a decision based upon similarly “determined need” factors, despite EEA and DEP threats.

This isn’t precedence setting.  The coastal Maine town of Brooksville, effectively banned commercial-scale wind.  By passing a bylaw in November restricting wind-turbine height to 100 feet, the tall towers used in large industrial scale developments were prohibited.  That community determined it’s own need for what the community deemed more important.   In contrast, the State’s totalitarian urging that their “determined need” be prioritized, above that of the Subcommittee’s recommendation, dismisses locally autonomous comment and intention. 

To continue about dangers to public health, my experiences in Falmouth, and listing points in the Panel’s health Report would be inconsequential to the issue at hand.  The Commission’s central work is to promote our region’s determination of it’s own needs. The State innuendo of establishing an anti-industrial wind turbine precedent … blah blah blah … is of no consequence to the merits of the issue at hand.  

Plainly, an ancillary issue has been introduced to the conversation by the state.  Local Rule.  The Commission can determine and is authorized to do best for our community, when the context of the decision is kept primarily within the community.  As it should be.  

It’s clear, a potential division may ensue with the State.  It’s also clear, a community division would further fracture if a Machiavellian exercise of brute force and deceit were left unimpeded.

Finally, there is value in accurately scaled, sized and sited wind energy development on Cape Cod.  The state’s urging of their wind energy agenda does not appropriately take into account the Commission’s primary mission and goals. I urge the Commission to listen to, and represent the ‘Locals.’

A Thank You to the Presenter Yesterday

 

RE:

Massachusetts Wind Working Group Meeting, Waltham MA (yesterday)

Sheryl Grace

PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University

Wendy J Heiger-Bernays

PhD Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health

James F. Manwell

PhD Mechanical Engineering; MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics

Professor and Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Alicia McDevitt

MassDEP Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Planning

 

Dear Presenters,

I thank you for your participation yesterday.  I do not have her e-mail address so please extend both my appreciation and concern to Dr. Heiger-Bernays.

The most compelling message received yesterday, was the emphasis Dr. Heiger-Bernays used in stating that “more definitive research is necessary.”  The movie “Island in the Wind” illustrated to the audience this point perfectly.  The audience must have had to sense this “primary” theme of Dr. Heiger-Bernays discussion.   

I had anticipated, aware of news ‘head-lines,’ being confrontational and combative at this meeting.  I took exception to some points made by presenters, but if the delivered sentiments of Dr. Heiger-Bernays are those shared in consensus by the Panel, I have become more optimistic about our tribulations in Falmouth.    

The single most important recommendation from the Panel’s literature examination seems obscured by headlines, from press outlet like the Globe for example, “Report: Wind turbines don’t cause health problems.”  Ms. McDevitt, yesterday’s Panel presenters, as well as the audience, would certainly agree the more appropriate news-flash concerning the Report should have read, using the words of Dr. Heiger-Bernays, “more definitive research necessary.”  

As a matter of clarity to the public, and in deed, state and local policy makers who may not critical review the Report, I urge Ms. McDevitt and the Panel to collectively ask the press to temper their representations of the Report to the Panel’s intended, and more accurate conclusion presented yesterday.

Thank you for your consideration and action on my ‘press- coverage’ concern.  And thank you all again for sending the message to my community that Falmouth’s (so far unexamined) ill health won’t be left in the ‘waiting room.’ 

Here I am- the ‘evidence of harm’ that you’ve been looking for – empirical evidence of harm from wind turbine noise

Here I am. I and my neighbors are the ‘evidence of harm’ that you’ve been looking for — empirical evidence of harm from wind turbine noise.

It’s time the Falmouth Board of Health, among others, stop considering health reports related to wind turbine as just anecdotal because the information is self-reported.  The sheer volume of evidence (world-wide) for turbine related illness elevates case studies beyond the coincidental or merely anecdotal.

The Board of Health (FBoH) has the power, independent of Selectmen and town attorney, to act to protect the citizen.  Board Member Rafferty’s question about the board’s authority may be indicative of the board’s lack of understanding on this fundamental issue.  Actually, the FBoH is, in fact, required to act on it’s own by law.

Only health and safety can be used as factors in exercising FBoH powers. The FBoH have repeatedly stated they lacked the authority to act because the turbines either are governed by a special permit, are the Selectmen’s responsibility, have not been “proven” to adversely effect health, or have not been “proven” to be a nuisance.  The truth of the matter, Falmouth is in this mess because no proof exists to exonerate the turbines (all the turbines), and more important, the BoH has the authority to make them stop if the board, ‘themselves’ (without state, selectmen or town counsel say so) determine they are a public nuisance or public hazard.

No matter the state’s Wind Science Panel Report, (and it’s noteworthy to add that Falmouth was the reason for it’s convening) Falmouth has neighborhoods filled with sick people, stemming from poorly sited turbines (town owned, as well as the newly named Teledyne).  Neighbors have offered proof to the town, to the state!

Board Member Huefelder is rightly given to caution, for the impacted party (Falmouth itself, AND the owner of the newly named Teledyne Turbine – formally Notus Clean Energy/Webb) has the right to sue the board if they’re wrong. I’m certain town counsel would agree that the board does, both, have this power and that the board would bear a liability (at-least regarding the Teledyne turbine) if proven wrong.

This is a paragraph from the web site for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, http://www.mahb.org/violations.htm “Nuisances and Noisome Trades:“The local board of health is responsible for the assignment of sites for the operation of noisome trades within their community and to hold hearings prior to assignment as part of this process.”  This was not done for our municipal turbines.  Why?

Is the BoH inaction to protect citizens due to ignorance?  Is it’s failure to act due to a lack of will to execute its legal responsibility?  The question for the BoH becomes, ignoring political entanglements, simply one of deciding whether to protect sick citizens.

The Board of Health has the power.  The new “64 billion” dollar question.

Will they?

Letter – 1.24.12 – Fal E – Patrick Panel Turbine Ruling

 

 

Patrick Panel Turbine Ruling

A panel of eight PhDs and MDs (some with huge confl icts of interest) were carefully selected last spring by the Deval Patrick administration to study the “potential” health effects of Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs). They were chosen in secret and held all their meetings in secret without any form of consensus or input from the public. The term “study” is misleading as all they were charged with was to review existing publications. A study of studies. After many months they have come up with the status quo, e.g. nothing that would impact the energy plan of our governor. (We would all have been better served if they had used these resources to come up with actual noise regulations for IWTs and a standard for measuring it—but that’s a different letter.)

The panel failed to interview a single victim, to conduct any on-site primary research, interview any physicians who have interviewed Wind Turbine Syndrome victims and they ignored hundreds of testimonials and documents that were provided to them.

Their findings suggest that all the people who claim to be negatively affected, all over the world, are lying (or perhaps they all have brain tumors.) They discount any ill effects of low frequency noise, ignoring even the research of our own military.

They find that no existing studies “prove” a causal or direct link between turbines and health, yet they fail to acknowledge that the many indirect effects, which clearly exist, are worth looking into for the sake of protecting the public. They failed to recommend that a proper medical study be conducted. Apparently the indirect health effects such as stress or loss of sleep (which they admit may exist) are not worthy of concern.

Expert testimony provided during a 2011 Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) confirmed wind turbines can harm human health. The July 18, 2011 ERT decision states: “This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”

Erickson v. Director, Ministry of Environment, Environment Decision Case Nos. 10-121 and 10-122, www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/deci-sions/index.htm. The law of the state of Victoria, Australia, now requires a 2K (1.24 mile) setback from homes. The Australian Senate report states that there are adverse health impacts and the recommendations are that a proper medical study needs to be conducted.

The Danish statutory order on wind turbine noise has recently been revised in order to implement a 20-dB limit for low frequency noise. The new regulation went into force on 1/1/2012.  Denmark, the country with the most experience with IWTs is now the first country with compulsory limits on low frequency noise from IWTs. www.mst.dk/English/ About+the+Danish+EPA/News/ newregulationoflowfrequency- noisefromwindturbines.htm. most severely impacted areas discussed above.

Are we now, as a result of the Mass DEP/DPH review, to base our future view of possible health effects on the shortcomings of studies made to date? Shall we now ignore hundreds of expert testimonies and evidence from the many people who are, in fact, suffering the negative impacts due to proximity to IWTs? If Falmouth is merely a hysteria cluster, then there are hundreds of hysteria clusters around the world with an amazing coincidence that all these people suffer the exact same list of ailments.

Going green has become a ubiquitous moral standard in recent years. Beware the dangerous side effects of the green mentality that equate to moral licensing. Our health, well-being and property values are considered collateral damage for the perceived greater good that the turbines provide. It’s a psychology that actually threatens sustainability as well as the very fabric of our democracy. Health is a moral issue of the highest order—it is our most important form of security and thus our freedom.

Kathryn Elder

Blacksmith Shop Road

West Falmouth

 

NEWS – 1.24.12 – Fal E – Residents Ask Health Board For Study Of Wind Turbines

Residents Ask Health Board For Study Of Wind Turbines 

By BRENT RUNYON                             Falmouth Enterprise 1.24.2012 

 

Thirty neighbors of the wind turbines in Falmouth attended last night’s meeting of the Falmouth Board of Health to dispute a report by an independent state panel that concluded there is no evidence of direct health effects from wind turbines.

 

The overflow crowd packed every available seat in the Civil Defense Room and requested further action to address the health concerns from wind turbines.

Board members said they were still reading the 164-page report, which was released last Tuesday. Board member Jared V. Goldstone said the board should write a formal response to the state based on the experience of neighbors and the board’s findings.

 

The board asked for responses from the audience and received a range of suggestions of how to proceed including more studies, stricter noise regulations, and moving the turbines out of Falmouth. The wide-ranging discussion was still going on after an hour and a half, when Chairman Gail A. Harkness brought it to a close.

 

Neighbor Todd A. Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road said he was disappointed in the panel’s report, which he described as overly critical of other studies. “Of the studies directly related to wind turbine effects, all of the studies concluded that there are problems when turbines are placed too close to residences,” he said. The panel concluded that there is a connection between wind turbines, annoyance, and sleep

disturbance, although it did not connect any direct health effects to those problems.

 

Mr. Drummey quoted from the report that there is limited evidence suggesting an association between exposure to wind turbines and annoyance, and also an association between wind turbine noise and sleep disruption. “It’s very clear that the turbines in Falmouth are causing a problem for us,” Mr. Drummey said. The state panel does make

specific recommendations about nighttime sound levels for wind turbines. Using the Falmouth town reports, Mr. Drummey said the Falmouth turbines will exceed those noise levels at every wind speed.

 

Falmouth currently has a wind turbine bylaw that states that the wind turbines cannot exceed 40 decibels, but does not specify a time of day or a wind speed. The state study recommends that the sound levels be adjusted for the wind speed. The panel recommended that nighttime sound levels should not exceed 37 decibels when the wind is blowing at 6 meters per second, and should not exceed 39 decibels when the wind is blowing at 8 meters per second. “I believe this report confirms what the neighbors have known from the start,” Mr. Drummey said. “These turbines were built too close to residents, and it is time to discuss where they could be moved so that they can be operated without causing harm to neighbors.”

 

Board member Stephen D. Rafferty asked if the board could create a regulation based on the state-recommended sound levels.  Board member George Heufelder said yes, the board does have the power to create a regulation without the approval of the board of selectmen or Town Meeting. But Mr. Heufelder said he was not ready to create stricter regulations. “I’m tentative about making a decision without knowing something for sure,” he said.

 

He said he has visited the Notus turbine and stood underneath it for an hour, but said he did not feel living with the turbine would affect his quality of life in a significant way. Colin P. Murphy of Blacksmith Shop Road said Mr. Heufelder was able to leave and go home,

but the residents must stay and be near the turbines. Brian Elder of Blacksmith Shop Road pointed out that being underneath the turbines is not the same as living a distance

away from it, where sound waves have a more signifi cant effect.

 

Mark J. Cool of Fire Tower Road said the panel recognized that wind turbines do have an effect on residents’ sleep, and further study is necessary to study what levels of noise create sleep disturbances. “So the million dollar question tonight is where do we stand on the epidemiological study,” he asked the board.

 

Last year the Falmouth Board of Health requested that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health conduct an epidemiological study of wind turbines. The cost for such a study may be more than $1 million, said Dr. Goldstone later in the meeting.

 

Board member John B. Waterbury said it is difficult to objectively study the effect of wind turbines on sleep. “The other way to deal with these things is to turn them off at night when you go to sleep,” Dr. Waterbury said. “Asking the state to do health studies doesn’t get you there, but turning them off at night does.”

 

Kathryn L. Elder of Blacksmith Shop Road said some people work at night and sleep during the day. “The only mitigation is distance,” she said. Only by moving the turbines to another location, like the Massachusetts Military Reservation, will the problems go away.

 

John J. Ford of Blacksmith Shop Road said turning off the turbines at night would not address his problem that he cannot enjoy his back yard or spend time in his garden during the day. Dr. Goldstone said the least expensive way to deal with the

wind turbine problems is to slow down the turbines when they reach certain noise levels and wind speeds.

 

Neil P. Andersen of Blacksmith Shop Road asked, “How would you respond that there are three people who can’t be here because of illnesses directly related to wind turbines?” Dr. Harkness said she was sorry the people could not attend. Dr. Goldstone clarified that currently only the Notus Clean Energy wind turbine in FalmouthTechnology Park is operating. Neither of the two town-owned wind turbines at the Wastewater Treatment Facility on Blacksmith Shop Road are currently operating.

 

Annie Hart Cool of Fire Tower Road said the board has an opportunity to be at the forefront of regulating wind turbines, which cause unknown health effects

similar to lead paint and medicine given to prevent miscarriages.  “You guys are right on the cusp of this. You could stop it right now,” she said. “There are a lot of unhealthy things going on with these wind turbines.”

 

Kathie C. Mount of Blacksmith Shop Road said it has been a relief to have Wind 1 turned off since November.  “It changes our whole quality of life. It’s been a wonderful relief to have it off,” she said.

 

Loretta Obrien of Blacksmith Shop Road asked if the board of health could create regulations that would limit the Notus Clean Energy turbine. Board members said they were not sure about how new regulations would affect the operation of that turbine, since it has already been granted a special permit. Mr. Heufelder compared the

situation with wind turbines to residents’ concerns about high cancer levels on the Upper Cape. There were numerous epidemiological studies, but none that described a clear cause of the high cancer levels.