<![CDATA[
]]>
It was not surprising to see recently that an independent panel of experts studying the potential health impacts from wind turbines found no conclusive evidence that wind turbines are responsible for such ailments as high blood pressure, tinnitus, or migraines, as has been alleged by many of wind energy’s opponents.
The results of the findings were not surprising; not because, as wind’s critics would say, the experts were commissioned by the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Public Health (MDPH), but because they confirm similar results found in a Oregon Public Health Authority study released last month, as well as much anecdotal evidence from around New England and the world.
In reaching their conclusions, the experts, a panel composed of physicians and scientists with backgrounds in such areas as acoustic noise/infrasound, public health, sleep disturbance, mechanical engineering, epidemiology, and neuroscience, reviewed all the latest science and available data to identify any documented or potential human health impacts resulting to neighbors from proximity to wind turbines. While the panel’s charge did not include doing any new research or investigating a particular turbine installation, the panel did take substantial public comment from a number of residents who live near wind turbines.
The findings are also not surprising because they are confirmed out in the field where a huge majority of the thousands of commercial-sized turbines that dot the American and European countryside don’t result in health complaints from abutting residential property owners. In southern New England alone, there are 15 “industrial-sized” turbines, and none of them has created the number of complaints that Falmouth’s Wind I has.
Even locally, in such places as Hyannis, Hull, the Mass. Maritime Academy, the Mass Military Reservation and Portsmouth, RI, where residents live between 500 and 1,100 feet from wind turbines (several higher than 300 feet) there have been limited complaints from neighbors that couldn’t be mitigated. Based on this evidence, the Falmouth I turbine is either an aberration, or the complaining abutters are hyper-sensitive to wind turbines.
As MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell said about the panel’s report, “It is extremely important that we have the best science available to us as we make decisions on wind energy.”
Who could disagree? The need to develop more renewable energy generation is too important an issue to be decided by the hysteria and misinformation promoted by so many who oppose the locating of wind turbines in their communities.
State says Cape Cod Commission erred in New Generation wind decision
In an unusual and strongly-worded letter dated Dec. 19, and signed by Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary, Richard Sullivan, Mass. Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Commissioner, Mark Sylvia, and Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell, the state has called into question the Cape Cod Commission’s draft decision that the New Generation Wind Project planned for Bourne should be denied.
It is certainly unusual for the state to interject itself into a regulatory matter before the Commission. But in this case, the state is concerned that if the language of the draft decision is approved, “it would establish a precedent that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for any (emphasis in original) renewable energy project to obtain approval from the Commission.”
Essentially, the state has two major problems with the Commission sub-committee’s draft decision. First, the draft decision erred by including consideration of the issue of “whether there is need for additional renewable energy.”
The state’s position is that while the Commission certainly has jurisdiction to reasonably regulate the siting of wind turbines based on zoning and environmental concerns, as a result of the Electric Utility Restructuring Act of 1997, the Commission is not permitted to extend its authority to the consideration of the need for electrical generation in approving the siting of energy generation facilities, “which is beyond the list of properly reviewable criteria enumerated by the Legislature.”
The second defect in the draft decision alleged by the state is that the Commission incorrectly determined that the food-grade vegetable oil-based transformer fluid used in both wind and solar projects was hazardous to groundwater and drinking water supplies. In fact, as the letter stated, “MassDEP does not believe that vegetable oil-based fluids pose any threat to water supply protection as a general matter.”
Interestingly, that same transformer fluid that was found to be “hazardous” for the New Generation Wind Project was not found similarly hazardous for a large solar project recently before the Commission.
However one may feel about the siting of a particular wind turbine, all should be able to agree that it is imperative that the regulatory agency doing the permitting for the wind turbines do so consistently, within the law, and without caprice.
It would appear that the Cape Cod Commission sub-committee’s draft decision denying the New Generation Wind Project does not meet that crucial standard.
Patriot columnist Richard Elrick is former president of Clean Power Now and serves as the part-time energy coordinator in the towns of Barnstable and Bourne.
Article source: http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27689&Itemid=112
Tinnitus is a disabling condition that causes an individual to perceive sounds that are not present. Over 10% of the population suffers with this condition, with nearly 2% of the entire population struggling with tinnitus in the extremely distressing ranges. People in this category have symptoms similar to those who struggle with 
