Typical Falmouth Town Members taking care of only themselves. They don't care about the turbines hurting anyone as long as they are not impacted, likewise the water problems. They will know about it and make adjustments long before the rest of us are told so we too can protect our families. The last time we had a major water problem we were told after the fact that a member of the committee had been using bottle water for some time because they knew of the problem.

Money is more important than health! .... obviously.

You don't have to live in Falmouth to see what is happenning. The Town Meeting members are only too willing to throw people like Malcom and his neighbors under the bus, rather than face the fact that thet were hoodwinked into allowing the windturbines in and are now being extorted into running them to pay the crazy loans they signed for. Kepp up the good fight, Malcom, et al.

Why should a Town Meeting vote dismiss a public safety and health threat?

Massachusetts communities are conducting human experiments by installing industrial machinery near residents, schools, and where people congregate. Zoning usually prevents and protects citizens from exposure to excessive noise and adverse health impacts by designation of allowable uses, residential, business, or industry.

Governor Deval Patrick is again expected to attempt to silence citizens by the Wind Bill that dismantles local control, that would effectively increase the number of people being made sick, and or driven out of their homes, and burden citizens with court costs for remedy, or direct victims to appeal to those appointed by Gov. Deval Patrick, like the Energy Facilities Siting Board.

Democratic and Republican Senators backed by House leaders in VT are pushing for a three year moratorium on wind energy. Opposition to wind energy is growing in Vermont due to citizens actual exposure to this industry. A recent demonstration with an estimated 200 protesters opposed to industrial wind projects happened at the State House in Montpelier. http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/12/protestors-throng-to-statehouse-lawn-to-oppose-industrial-wind/

Keep up the good fight, Malcom et al. To the rest, Do unto others...

What is wrong here?

"Taking exception to comments that equated alleged negative health effects caused by the turbines to torture and human rights violations, planning board member Richard Latimer spoke out against the rhetoric."When you get to that level of hyperbole you get to questioning how much of this is hysteria and how much is really true?" Latimer said."

If this attributed to you is so, Mr. Latimer, perhaps it is time to step down.I find it impossible to believe that an opinion of people suffering the ill effects of carelessly placed industrial wind turbines would be spoken of as being hyperbole and hysteria. How disrespectful. Do you and those who voted against turning the turbines off not understand the degree of frustration that has been reached to make intelligent people appear to be hysterical. When you place a 62-ton machine, 50 stories tall, eminating noise and vibrations too close to homes because you and the town leaders did not do your homework and know BEFORE installation what "too close" meant, you/they essentially victimized residents of the community; it is your fault, not their's. And, as long as the MACHINES continue to run, these people are being treated inhumanely. Do what is right now. Stop the machines. Implement a moratorium. Perform the tests necessary to know beyond doubt what safe distances for industrial wind turbines (machines) from residential areas is.

Apart from hype & hysteria, the FACT is wind turbines simply don’t hurt people. But they provide local and global benefits by making money for the Town, and by reducing carbon emissions and pollution. A few individuals hysterically attack the turbines, but their shifty arguments have again failed to convince Falmouth’sTown Meeting. The real threat is climate change – just ask the folks who were mauled by Sandy or Katrina.
This article by a professor of public health is worth reading:
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/wind-turbine-syndrome-mass-hysteria-21st-century

This all comes down to a single question: Do you believe the neighbors who are objecting to the turbines?

Posters Doris and Marshall believe them so they can’t understand how Town Meeting members could vote to keep the turbines operational. Poster Blowin Smokes doesn’t believe the neighbors so he defends the turbines.

For a long time, I didn’t believe the neighbors. Coming off the Cape Wind experience, I’d seen an unending train of baseless attacks by opponents. I assumed that the same was happening regarding Falmouth’s land based turbines. But after listening to the neighbors in Falmouth and meeting a couple, I changed my mind. I can’t support this change of mind with the studies and data that I normally like to rely upon because most of that argues AGAINST the neighbors.

But I still believe the neighbors. And so I believe that we must move the turbines or turn them off and take the financial hit. I also believe that this has shown that turbines the size of Falmouth’s don’t belong in suburban areas.

Where is the disclosure by the Patrick Administration appointed green policy Advisor, First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor? The suffering of Mass residents could and should have been avoided.

PETER S. KELLEY, ESQ.ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Filed suit: "Mars Hill residents' suit against First Wind et al." (clip)
13. When all of the turbines became operational for the first time in late March 2007, it became immediately obvious to the Plaintiffs that the noise from the turbines was invasive and caused them loss of enjoyment of life, loss of peace and quiet, loss of their full use of their home and land. Some Plaintiffs required medical treatment and counseling. Many have, and continue to, lose sleep, suffer headaches, suffer considerable stress, and other physical and emotional ailments..."

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/mars-hill-residents-suit-against-first-wind-et-al/

The Union Leader
April 6, 2009

"...First Wind president and CEO Paul Gaynor said the company would do a better job in the future about letting local residents know what to expect from wind farms."

"I know there was an expectation (in Mars Hill) about what these were going to
sound like," Gaynor told the Daily News. "These are big structures and they do
make sound."

Shortly after Gaynor spoke to the Maine newspaper, the firm changed its name to
First Wind. It was formerly known as Global Winds Harvest/UPC."

http://www.the-leader.com/homepage/x1931060317

Told to "see" this problem without emotion, hyperbole or hysterics, by some at town meeting, I will comply. My thought about this debacle is best illustrated by the humorist S.L. Clemens ~ “Ours is a useful trade, a worthy calling. With all its lightness and frivolity; it has one serious purpose, one aim, one specialty: the deriding of shams—the exposure of pretentious falsities, the laughing of stupid superstitions out of existence. And that whoso is, by instinct, engaged in this sort of warfare is the natural enemy of royalties, nobilities, privileges and all kindred swindles and the natural friend of human rights and human liberties.”
I would only add... I think, after town meeting, the 'serious purpose' continues!

The following the stuff horror movies and nightmares are made from. BUT, in this case, people are living it. This is a long article,hopefully you will all take the time to read it regardless of which side of the Industrial Wind Turbine Agenda you are. A portion of the article appears below and the link to it. Take heed, city and town fathers, our caretakers.

February 09, 2012
Blown Away Big Wind’s Inconvenient Truth
by ALAN FARAGO
The installation of wind turbines too close to houses and personal property is a major headache for the wind power industry, but headache scarcely begins to describe their impact to nearby property owners and neighbors. My property and home are scarcely three quarters of a mile from a three 1.5 megawatt turbine wind farm that went online in November 2009 with blades stretching nearly 400 feet into the air.
Large scale wind turbines represent a tiny and lucrative—thanks to federal tax incentives—corner of the electric power industry. By siting large turbine facilities close to population centers, the industry hopes to minimize the cost of expensive new transmission lines, but it faces a whirlwind of resistance from citizens objecting to the destruction of mountains, seascapes, wilderness areas, and natural quiet.
Opponents argue that wind power is a bad deal for everyone but shareholders who use subsidies to prop up an industry that is otherwise not economically viable..

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/09/big-winds-inconvenient-truth/

Time to do away with the town meeting members in total.

Do you know where most of your electricity comes from? Brayton Point is, according to EPA, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases AND toxic chemicals, in MA. Concerns about wind are frivolous by comparison.
http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x58613903/EPA-Brayton-Point-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-any-power-plant-in-New-England?zc_p=1

No pretense. The issue is the Industrial Wind Turbine Agenda. Coal happened. We now know better. All the more reason to do the right thing when it comes to placement of the industrial wind turbine and that is the only issue. Safe distance from people (humans) on Any Road, U.S.A.

February 09, 2012
Blown Away Big Wind’s Inconvenient Truth
by ALAN FARAGO

In its brutal outline, regulating noise from wind turbines illustrates the struggle of our times: whether government regulation can protect public health, or, whether private industry should be left alone to do a better job, whether or not it can demonstrate the results. Industry responds by hiding in the deep weeds of “complexity” and “disagreement with interpreting facts”. They buy time for an industry desperate to keep federal subsidies flowing; subsidies set to expire at the end of 2012. The wind power industry hopes Congress and the White House will ignore the fact that people, property values, and natural quiet are collateral damage to popular enthusiasms whose economics have failed to pan out.

We used to say with pride, “this couldn’t happen in the United States”. But wherever the costs of pollution are unallocated, it happens every day the wind blows.

Alan Farago is a writer living in Coral Gables, Florida and president of Friends of the Everglades. His website is alanfarago.wordpress.com

By mentioning "massive climate change that has wrought widespread ecological disaster", Mr. Latimer implies that wind turbines help reduce CO2 and thus help alleviate global warming. If CO2 reduction is important to the Town, then why is there no required verification of CO2 from the wind projects? Did the Town simply assume that CO2 savings of consequence would be realized?

The approval of financing of Falmouth’s two turbines by Town Meeting starting in 2007 was, in large part, due to a complete manipulation of the facts—both by keeping some information under wraps, and by directly misinforming people. It was, in fact, Town Meeting members who were tricked into thinking that they had been told the whole truth when they voted to invest great capital on a boondoggle.

Mr. Latimer repeatedly cites, with near religious obsession, the ‘cost’ involved. He, innocently, is taking part in the misinformation. It’s worth noting that the compensation homeowners living near wind turbines are given, and which are being considered by the WTOP, to make up for lost property value, are based on falsified noise calculations—which means that people are, in fact, being cheated from quality of life and health, but also from the full amount they are actually owed.

Corruption is defined as moral decay, and that is precisely what we are witnessing here. The fear, shared by Mr. Latimer and others, has led them to take part in the fraud. The human impacts appear ancillary to jeopardizing the financial cost.

This, and the demonstration by Town Meeting, only adds to the embarrassment. There are a lot of people who have plenty to be ashamed of, but I shouldn’t expect that to change much. Moral scruples aren’t what they use to be.

I don't live near a turbine but think that the poor judgement of buying used equipment and paying big dollars for installation either with a faulty environmental impact study or some defect that has the noise and vibration issues I don't read as problems elsewhere has town officials in a bind.

I do drink the water though at home and eating out. I'd like to know why the town meeting opposed notification!? Do we need a high body count before Falmouth realizes that error on the side of caution is no error at all.
Patch, what were the arguments in favor of secrecy when water is contaminated ? Water should have been the lead here.

A house divided.And,the Industrial Wind Turbine Agenda is a divide and conquer issue.
David EKent,voice of reason,the Barbara's of the world,and the Marie-Jane's are compelled to venture beyond to get a whole picture perspective. The Falmouth issue is not just a Falmouth issue, it is consistent with what appears to be a world wide agenda.Familiar with Aruba,tiny Aruba,which has more sunny days than days in the year(I know,not possible)why are they fighting the same battle.No solar, just IWTs everywhere."Think global, act locally",I am a firm believer.Once you start connecting the dots, this image changes.So, it may help observe the Falmouth issue on a grander scale.Compare the similarities and ask why.
One of the only person not focused on Falmouth locally and globally is Mr.Latimer. He has yet to share any of his insight from pre to post Industrial Wind Turbine Agenda coming to Falmouth Town. What sort of remark is this: "You can also file a lawsuit for redress, which I believe you have done. That's called due process, which is all you are entitled to." If handled properly to begin with "lawsuit" and "redress" and "entitlement" to such would not be part of this. So, the vicitimized have been driven to their last resort option. Smacks of human rights to me. They have had home, hearth, quality of life taken from them. So, I like David, can’t support a town policy that,for whatever reason,including finances,continues to inflict that suffering." (Inhumane treatment.)

Did anyone here that's objecting to the town meeting vote watch the town meeting.There were 3 articles all dealing with the wind turbines.All 3 were directly related.One of the articles was an AGREEMENT between the neighbors and the selectmen on the hours the turbines were to run.The selectman need to fix and i mean immediately fix the start up time and shut down time of the turbines but you cannot have an agreement with the selectman and then throw in another article to shut them down.With that said i agree with the people being affected that the town needs to by spring town meeting have an ANSWER as to what we're going to do with the turbines. It's been too long.No tax payer or citizen of the town should have ill health affects because of a business decision made by the town leaders.Also anyone complaining about our town meeting form of government should attend a town meeting in another town of comparible size and see how you like emotions and a "stacked vote " works.

Rich,

After thinking about it for awhile, I don't think that buying the neighbors' homes is practical:

1st, many of the objecting neighbors won't want to move. I can see why: They love their homes and plan to live there indefinitely. Many for the reset of their lives.

2nd, taking homes via eminent domain is impractical politically. If we think that the neighbors are making a stink now, imagine what will happen if we force people out of their homes! I don't thing the town will support that.

I didn't know that moving the turbines was off the table due to practicality. When and how was that decision made?

I’m curious whether the level interest will match the level of open mindedness. The pitch made at town meetings -TM (pre-construction) dealt only with the potential business model (e.g., ownership structure) for development of the project. In other words, the proposed sales pitch addressed only the kind of $ return was to be expected from the investment. This all assumed and was understood by TM, that all other necessary examinations had been complete and satisfied.

Falmouth’s Vestas V-82 is reported, by the manufacturer, having a specified sound power level of 103 dB(A) at the hub. From which the estimated maximum noise impact reported by the HMMH Falmouth turbine specific model (implemented only after construction/operation due to residents complaints) theorized the V-82 producing a sound level of 40  dB(A) at 1,300 feet. The KEMA feasibility report (2005), using a GE 1.5 MW and a GE 2.5 MW, estimated maximum impact at 42 to 44 dB (A) at the property line of residences to the west or the south. The real data complied by Ma DEP this past Feb.-Mar, representing a more accurate impact potential, revealed Wind 1 produced a sound level of 50 dB(A) 1,320 feet.

What are the implications? Given that the night ambient dB(A) level is 29 in the area. (this level documented only after - no pre-construction tests exist - a normal protocol typically conducted). Making Wind 1 out of compliance (Ma DEP guidelines) anytime the same variables from the sampling exist.

Following the model, doubling the distance from Wind 1 would reduce the sound level by 6 dB(A). At 2,640 feet the sound level is projected to be 44 dB(A). At 5,280 feet that sound level drops to 38 dB(A). Remember.. the average documented night ambient level - 29 dB(A).

In other words, what was predicted and what actually exists aren’t remotely close. Had a full vetting of this information been conducted, do you think it conceivable TM would have voted to approve the financing of our Titanic-like business model? Do you?

“TRICKERY” ? “MANIPULATION OF FACTS”? “CONCEALING INFORMATION”?

I agree with David in that it is difficult to access peoples' motives back during the approval process. It is interesting, however, that the Green Communities Act (2008) and the Governor’s wind energy target (2000MW by 2020) had received considerable marketing force leading to ’07 & ’08 town meetings.

As for falsified noise calculations in the WTOP, I would suggest going to tonight's meeting - 6:30 Library. Watch for yourselves.

Next I'll address the on going fraud.

Well Rich Latimer, you certainly are consistent.You are a name caller.And, based on the following statement, you bring absolutely nothing to the table: "Also, moving the turbines is out because the only open space they could be moved to far enough away from Falmouth residences is too close to Base residences, plus there are real FAA issues concerning air traffic safety there -as opposed to the bogus issues being raised about Cape Wind." Perhaps, you will take the time to explain what "too close to Base residences" means. Numbers, Rich Latimer, what are the numbers? How close is "too close"? Latest information indicates that in some circumstances, a mile away, may not be far enough away. And, the government taking homes away from people who have paid, dearly, and protected, dearly, their property rights. You know, the stuff that wars are endured for; you will just "buy them out"? You spent millions on technology that has, in recent history, been questioned in proximity to residences (did you question "too close" then?); you spent millions on old warehoused wind turbines (did you question "money well spent then"?). You victimized and now those you have victimized are "hysterical", they have "bogus issues". "Value back" should have been questioned BEFORE you got it wrong.

On the subject of on going fraud, we were witness to the town manager addressing the Wind 1 - MA DEP night time noise report exceedance. Mr. Suso explained that the evidence indicated that the infraction happened only at one property, only between a 11:30 PM and 4 AM and the identified property with the exceedance was the only one of the 5 sampled to have been out of compliance.
The message conveyed by Mr. Suso was pleading a case to focus only on that particular property, for only that specified time. The echo of the message seemed familiar to a theme too often heard lately, “These Wind Turbine Public Works projects are simply too BIG to fail.”
Gleaning the actual truth from the study and subsequent report, the MA DEP examined 5 properties for 5 nights (over the course of 4 months during which strong meteorological data is indicative of the volume of complaints). The more confident conclusion (supported by DEP) that should have been presented is that a pronounce probability exists, given variables not unique to weather and wind character of that season, to deduce that exceedances would likely occur at properties not tested. It seems nearsightedly premature and unscientific to limit this sample response to only a single property and a set duration of time, given the randomness and volatility of weather and wind.

Fraud? Deceit?

Truly alarming is that this is just the latest example of one more town decision maker trying to mislead and misrepresent because “these Wind Turbine projects are too BIG to fail.”

David,
Mr. Suso is trying to do a good job. It is no easy task filling in as manager in a town with so much controversy. I would say my first hand experience, both as an effected resident and as a citizen of our local government, allows me a clearer understanding of the general situation. I respect your level-headedness yet the emotion my and my neighbors have displayed, is forged from parents, husbands and wives trying to defend a basic elementary necessities.

I don't know the man, nor did I mean to imply that he is a fraud. However, his actions (spinning things in his direction - as you say), given the known facts, are best characterized as a continuation of fraudulent behavior.

BLOWIN - "1.5 dB over allowed level".. enough said on that topic.

You seem to have your appliances confused. Not a refrig - more like a boot in the dryer. Outside or in, the constant bumping and banging is a huge problem. You miss the scientific deduction process with the "at ONE house"point. The logical assumption would be that that ONE house serves as ONE sample of what is likely happening at properties not tested by DEP.

All the memos and copies of correspondence (between principals of the issue), as well as the report that I've read, state the "testing" began after 1 AM (they did set up equipment before midnight).

It sounds like you'll only praise the testing protocol and test results if it suits you. Remind me - Who's the alleged hysteric?

I hear you Mary Jane. Especially when you say “How many ways can you say I hurt”. It’s easy for me to criticize the tone of the message from the neighbors since I’m NOT in pain. It’s obviously MUCH harder for those who are suffering.

Still, I think that my point about excessive language is worth considering. I have several friends with whom I regularly meet to discuss politics, current events, history, etc. Among that group there are 3 or 4 people that you’d call “agnostic” on the turbine issue. That is, they don’t live near the turbines, don’t know anyone who does, haven’t studied the issue carefully and thus are reacting to what they hear in the press. Each of these people shakes his head whenever he hears or reads heated language from the neighbors. Words like “torture” and “fraud” make them shake their heads and believe that the neighbors are hysterical. Every time I see this, I wonder if that kind of language is hurting the neighbors’ cause.

I’m sorry Mary Jane, but at the end of that last comment you’ve provided what may be the MOST over the top statement I’ve ever heard regarding the Falmouth turbines:

“And, don't you think those who made the mistake or have a motive or agenda as it relates to the industrial wind turbine are not enjoying every painful moment of those victimized and only too willing to name call.”

You actually believe that people in Town Hall are “enjoying” the suffering of the neighbors? I certainly hope not because that’s ridiculous. They don’t believe the neighbors? Perhaps. They are overly concerned about the hole that canning the turbines will put in the town budget? Almost certainly. But ENJOYING the suffering?

That’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Dave-

Marie Jane surely knows many ways to say "I hurt," and some of them are a valid cause for corrective action by TM. But being the victim of "human rights" abuse is clearly not among those valid reasons. Thos. B. Landers Road is not Soweto, not even close, and the attempt by her, Mr. Cool, Mr. Funfar and Dave Moriarty to make that kind of absurd connection only undermines their credibility with the majority of TM members.

That kind of hyperbolic excess is an indication of hysteria, i.e. the magnification of underlying symptoms. To say that is not "name calling," nor is it libelous as Mr. Cool's remarks about Town officials come close to being. That is a matter of fact.

To call the alleged "wind turbine syndrome" the equivalent of mass murder, concentration camps, midnight assassinations, etc., is like equating a nosebleed with a cerebral hemorrhage, which any M.D. would diagnose as hysteria while applying the medically appropriate remedy for nosebleed. That task, however, is much easier when dealing with a patient who knows she has a nosebleed, not a cerebral hemorrhage, and knows the difference. And that, in fact, was my main point, that an optimal solution to the wind turbine problem can only be achieved if we keep the issue in perspective, and not be led by agents provocateurs like Dave Moriarty into the wilderness of demagogic anti-wind excess.

Rich,

Even though I reacted almost violently to Mary Jane’s recent characterization of the attitudes of Town Hall to the plight of the turbine neighbors, I’m afraid that I’ve gotta side with her regarding your latest post. Your “nose bleed to cerebral hemorrhage” and “Soweto” analogies are badly flawed for 2 reasons:

1st they assume that the neighbors are experiencing no significant effects from the turbines and it ridicules them for saying that they are suffering. Of course, this is a matter of opinion. I believe that the neighbors are suffering and you don’t. But ridiculing an opponent is seldom helpful.

2nd – and much more importantly – they represent the SAME KIND of excessive language that you and I have been accusing the neighbors of using. I agree with you that the neighbors’ language is overheated and very likely self defeating. But, regarding your last comment, my father would have said to you: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. You’ve returned the excessive language favor and IN SPADES.

Frankly, if that comment is typical of the kind of verbal punishment that they’ve been taking from their opponents, I don’t wonder that Mary Jane’s and Mark’s language has gotten overheated.

I think, from reading, we can all agree, a problem exists. The level of which seems to have taken the conversation from the original message. That original message is that a problem exists.

Some might think the problem minor, while others think the problem is paramount in their lives. But no matter the position, there still remains the problem with the residents around the wind turbines. The problem won’t go away by extremism or believing or not believing. No. The solution can only come from some sort of “fix”.

The “fix”, respectful of all opinions, must be the focus. If this is the angle chosen, we then may regain a respect for, and a sense of community for all. People just want what is best for themselves and for their community. At this point, speaking personally, this situation is not best for me, my family and neighbors. And with the curtailments in place (trying to appease neighbors), it is questionable whether this current fix is best for the community - in a fiscal sense (a wind energy budget “in the red” liability).

As soon as we get over assessing the levels and the exaggeration of impact from both sides, we, as a community, will be better suited to take the appropriate and acceptable actions to make both community, as well as those victimized, whole. I believe this is the intent of the WTOP, from which better wind turbine bylaw structure might be derived.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.. we are a community.. let us not forget!

The idea that a minority of people are subjected to real and perceived harms, that they suffer disproportionately from rest of the community, has spawned address of human rights and justice. Although legal actions, based on tort and constitutional law, are tactics suggested by Mr. Latimer, many victimized residents are skeptical about the effectiveness of litigation. That course of action is costly and time consuming, as Mr. Latimer is well aware. And, more important, the legal system has yet to provide adequate relief in seeking redress from the continued harm imposed.

The mitigation steps introduced in by Selectmen and the resultant insufficiency of their response has led sufferers to seek immediate redress in the court of public opinion. The Selectmen, Health and Planning Board’s response has included studies, examination of research and data collection, but has yet to develop an approach to rectify the daily harm distribution upon a small segment of the community. This protocol offers affected residents no redress for the continued harm suffered, nor does it grant the individuals any legal cause of action under which to fight the continued turbine operations.

Furthermore, looking to the state/local government for a response leaves affected residents dependent upon who resides on Beacon Hill and who is elected to the various local boards. I applaud the continued efforts of the WTOP, as well as the planning and health boards, but a pronounced theme by Selectmen, has given too much value to financial cost. Citizens, therefore, must continue to beseech the public’s sense of ‘right and wrong’.

Proving harm to health, quality of life and property value has been a costly burden (which include litigation costs) to those residents seeking relief. Some just cannot afford the irreparable harm it has caused, and the family budget is only one dimension to the personal cost.

Rich Latimer Re: 11/22/2012, 9:09 p.m. With every post you dig a deeper hole, prove beyond doubt that you wear blinders and see no further than the tip of your nose, or the breadth of your opinion. In the Attorney Code of Ethics is it deemed necessary to remind one and all that they have the "right to file lawsuits".You seem consumed with creating an adversarial position rather than admitting a mistake.
Without having done the proper research regarding the installation of industrial wind turbines in residential neighborhoods, the error in good judgement originally and continuously by all complicit in the decision to move forward with the project and their inability, now, to admit to poor judgement fearing legal "reaction" from the developer and other stake holders puts you in defense mode. It was the original poor decision that put the taxpayers of Falmouth in jeopardy not the action of the victimized. So, don't blame them.
You rally against speaking of it as "human rights",yet your advice is to suggest that the victimized pay to defend their human rights because "you" did not defend their or the town of Falmouth's best interest when you made the original decision about placement of the industrial wind turbines.

Stop name calling, stop brow beating, stop taking your wrong decision out on the victimized. Just do the right thing. Shut them down. From where I sit and by your logic, you are very lucky to be living in the U.S. enjoying your human rights.

"Wind Turbine Syndrome: mass hysteria in the 21st Century?"
By a professor of public health..
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/wind-turbine-syndrome-mass-hysteria-21st-century

David Kent, you are 100% correct - Nina Pierpont is hopelessly biased and unqualified. But the link I sent is NOT to her work. It's an article written by the director of research at Syndey School of Public Health, Sydney University, Australia. He's written over 360 peer-reviewed articles. You should READ it... note he also sent a long letter to the Falmouth Board of Health in May 2012.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/wind-turbine-syndrome-mass-hysteria-21st-century

David - FYI - International Journal NOISE & HEALTH - peer reviewed support in the article titled 'Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health'. (Michael Nissenbaum, Chris Hanning and Jeffery J. Aramin) ~~The adverse events of sleep disturbance and ill health by those living close to IWTs ARE SUPPORTED.~~ see www, noiseandhealth.org (featured -http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121110/NEWS/211100329)

David - Some more reading / refs / info for the realities of living with industrial wind turbine noise can be found at the Acoustic Ecology Institute : http://www.acousticecology.org/srwind.html I hope you will see when you read this link that they are presenting a fair and balanced information source on the issues. Of all the sites I have seen on wind turbine noise issues, I would highly recommend it for giving an impartial view.

Every two years the wind industry, acousticians, MD’s, noise professionals, academics et al all get together for what’s called the International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise. If industrial wind turbine noise was not a problem, why do they have an international two yearly conference on it?

The ref. Blowin repeatedly cites begs the question - I wonder what Chapman's motivation is? it is bizarre that a tobacco lobbyist chooses to focus on this issue. Let alone a lobbyist that is also an academic, and it seems he hasn't properly analysed the papers he cites in his article. In fact, he distorts some of his references! Sloppy stuff.

Health Canada cites these peer-reviewed scientific articles indicating that wind turbines may have an adverse impact on human health:
-

Keith, S. E., D. S. Michaud, and S. H. P. Bly. 2008. A proposal for evaluating the 
potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian 
Environmental Assessment Act. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, 27 : 253-265.
-

Michaud, D., S. H. P. Bly, and S. E. Keith. 2008. Using a change in percentage 
highly annoyed with noise as a potential health effect measure for projects under the 
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Canadian Acoustics, 36(2): 13-28. 


-Pedersen, E., and Halmstad, H. I. 2003. Noise annoyance from wind turbines – a 
review. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5308.
-
Pedersen, E. and Persson Waye, K. 2008. Wind turbines – low level noise sources 
interfering with restoration? Environmental Research Letters, 3: 1-5.
-

Pedersen, E., and Persson Waye, K. 2007. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and 
selfreported health and wellbeing in different living environments. Occup. Environ. Med. 64: 480-486.
-

Pedersen E. and Persson Waye, K. 2004. Perception and annoyance due to wind 
turbine noise – a dose-response relationship. J. Accoust. Soc. Am. 116: 3460-3470. 

-World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Eds. B. 
Berglund, T. Lindvall, D. H. Schwela. WHO: Geneva.

David - I think it clear what those references show (not simply my opinion). This is part of the list being used to launch the Canadian health study of turbine. The implication, similar to that of the Mass DEP/DPH Expert Panel report, is that more research is necessary.
Specific to Falmouth, in my opinion, this position is compelling enough to recognize that our Wind Turbine noise problem quite likely causes community health issues, even if difficult to measure.
The Falmouth problem is an example of non-compliance of noise pollution by operating Wind 1. I use this example because the turbine was specifically accepted by the community (our neighborhood) before construction, and they (State Agencies/Industry Consultants/Town Administration) gave assurances it would not be noisy. That hasn’t been the case once it started operating. The DEP test of Wind 1’s exceedance is the proof. It far from the proof necessary to determine to what extent of non-compliance, rather, it's an indication that other exceedances/violations are very likely.
The implication of what is required (until further statistical proof is available) seems obvious. It’s a shame the issue has so many doubting Thomas’s, and/or those more willing to perpetrate continued harm because it’s too costly to protect neighbors from further risks of harm.

David,
Your assessment concerning whether TM voters believe the ill effected neighbors has me somewhat confounded. I understand your point, but would question your assertion that that very few TM members believe we’re suffering greatly. Obviously there is a portion of voters that think we’re liars. However, the past spring town meeting’s vote upheld a conditional shut-down of the turbines. I believe this is telling. TM members believed we we’re suffering at that time. This gives me hope that people remain sympathetic and that they want to provide the relief we seek. Theses two TMs behind us, I’m left to conclude that many spring TM voters, still having our best ‘wellness’ interests at heart, became inclined to focus on what you implied regarding the town budget. This time, being the fiduciary government body, those TM voters gave priority to the town’s fiscal health, rather than it’s community health. The community’s health, after all, is the responsibility of the health board.
Though disappointed with the outcome, and trying to be objective, I believe TM voters did what they had to do. Bringing me to my thought I’ve always felt. The solution to this health problem, not at all unlike an emergency boil water order, cannot be steered by politics. Rather, the designated government body having authority to decide courses of action during an immediate community health problem, should rest only with the board of health.

David -The question I would pose, given the May 24 testimonials, weight of similar world wide anecdotal stories, and the growing body of effect specific scientific evidence offering plausibility to the harm, would you shut them off? Removing all the politics involved, would you urge the board of health to err on the side of caution? Thoughts?

David,
Your assessment concerning whether TM voters believe the ill effected neighbors has me somewhat confounded. I understand your point, but would question your assertion that that very few TM members believe we’re suffering greatly. Obviously there is a portion of voters that think we’re liars. However, the past spring town meeting’s vote upheld a conditional shut-down of the turbines. I believe this is telling. TM members believed we we’re suffering at that time. This gives me hope that people remain sympathetic and that they want to provide the relief we seek. Theses two TMs behind us, I’m left to conclude that many spring TM voters, still having our best ‘wellness’ interests at heart, became inclined to focus on what you implied regarding the town budget. This time, being the fiduciary government body, those TM voters gave priority to the town’s fiscal health, rather than it’s community health. The community’s health, after all, is the responsibility of the health board.
Though disappointed with the outcome, and trying to be objective, I believe TM voters did what they had to do. Bringing me to my thought I’ve always felt. The solution to this health problem, not at all unlike an emergency boil water order, cannot be steered by politics. Rather, the designated government body having authority to decide courses of action during an immediate community health problem, should rest only with the board of health.

David - Your response to my comments may be something like - “it’s just not as simple as Mark’s tried to portray.” I respect that. However, the night-time curtailment has been introduced to allow for uninterrupted resident’s sleep periods. We can agree, sleep is essential to human health?
I'm going to mixing health and politics (only to raise a point). The WTOP consultants reporting on night curtailments and project fiscal stability, briefed that the town wind project will “bleed to death” if forced to shut down either wind turbine for any portion of the over night period beyond 5 hours. I'll go out on a limb here and hedge a bet that 8 hours is the customary sleep period understood to be healthy. If you were a TM voter, and had you been presented this information, would you have voted to “amputate”?

MA DEP/DPH Independant Expert Science Panel, press release 1/17/12:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/press/0112wind.htm
Excerpt:

There is no evidence for a set of health effects from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a "Wind Turbine Syndrome."

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.

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.

David - Not to say you need further convincing, this is the latest peer-reviewed study demonstrating that industrial wind turbines have a direct and serious adverse impact upon sleep and health, both physical and mental http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage=243;aulast=Nissenbaum.
The “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel,” cited five peer-reviewed studies, upon which it relied. The most recent - Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K. N., & Hill, E. M., “Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life”, Noise Health, 2011. It’s odd, given this study’s finding that industrial wind turbine (IWT) noise contributes to sleep disorders and diseases associated with the serious adverse responses to the low frequency impulses generated by the IWTs, that the study’s conclusions have been so mischaracterized, especially when the “Expert Panel’s” recommendation was suggesting further study was necessary.
It would seem ‘caution’ has been abandon by many, so that other pressed agendas (political or otherwise) do not suffer interruption.

The Air Force Civil Engineer Center at Otis Air Force Base is making the claim that the 1.5 MW Fuhrlaender (FL-1577) installed in 2009 does not have a failure ?

They have known since January that the bearings and gears of the three year old wind turbine have lots of metal in the gear box. Turbines of the same megawatt size have failed inn Portsmouth ,Rhode Island and Princeton, Massachusetts .

The wind industry is hiding a dirty little secret about gear box failures in three to five year old turbines !

Can we trust a federal government agency that tells the public it has a wind turbine that isn't breaking down ? While on the other hand they ordered a new gear box for the turbine just in case .

The government doesn't know the replacement cost ? It's 700 thousand for the gear box ,150 thousand for the crane and blade inspection close to a one million dollar repair !

They are telling the public it's not broken ? Can we trust our government ?

Portysmouth Rhode Island Wind Turbine Failure

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/gearbox-failure-investigation/print/

Gearbox Failure Investigation
Roberts, Don

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The town of Portsmouth, Rhode Island (Portsmouth) commissioned a new AAER 1500-77-65 1.5 Megawatt wind turbine on March 24, 2009. On May 18, 2012, significant amounts of metal were found in the gearbox oil filter housing and significant internal damage was observed with a borescope. The filter element was replaced on May 25, and the turbine was returned to service. The turbine was removed from service on June 18, 2012 after significant additional metal was discovered in the filter housing.

The Portsmouth wind turbine gearbox has suffered a significant, premature failure of the first and second planetary stages. The gearbox must be replaced in order to return the turbine to service.

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Portsmouth_RI_Turbine_Gearbox.pdf

See page 19 table two for repair costs

Subtotal, gearbox replacement cost (non-­‐recurring) $695,200

Also add special crane costs

Tuesday Nov 27
While I appreciate everyone's interest in the success of wind energy, I feel I must clear up the issues associated with the Otis Air National Guard Base wind turbine located at the MA Military Reservation. The owner/operator of the Otis ANG Base wind turbine is the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). Our name changed from Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) on 01 Oct 2012 after a reorganization. I am the project manager for the operation of our pump and treat systems, the plume cleanup, and the three 1.5 MW wind turbines installed by AFCEC/AFCEE at MMR. We have one 1.5 MW Fuhrlaender (FL-1577) wind turbine and two 1.5 MW GE wind turbines at MMR. We installed the wind turbines to offset the costs and environmental impact associated with our cleanup program.

The FL-1577 started operating on 02 Dec 2009. The GE turbines started opeating on 03 Nov 2011. Regarding the FL-1577 gearbox, it HAS NOT failed. We noticed some metal flakes in the gearbox oil this past January and had a borescope inspection done. The inspection showed pitting of the gear teeth caused by pressing the metal flakes between the teeth. The problem component in the gearbox appears to be a bearing. Based on Fuhrlaender's recommendation, we are continuing to run the wind turbine while we work on procuring a new gearbox that has a different/better bearing.

I don't know, Bill, that 2 failures point to the industry wide trend that you're claiming. And, of course, our turbines are from Vestas. Neither of the failed turbines are from that manufacturer.

"One of the biggest concerns remaining in the wind industry is the reliability of the gearbox. 'With our current wind turbine fleet currently going out of warranty period, we estimate that we are carrying a potential risk on gearboxes of about US$300 million. Failures are still relatively rare these days because our fleet is recent, but we expect this will change dramatically as our wind turbines approach their 5–7 years of operation. Our concern is such that we are even considering acquiring a company with gearbox servicing capabilities.'

This statement from a large US wind farm operator is far from being an isolated case in an industry that will see over 8000 MW of wind farm capacity go out of the warranty period every year in the US alone in the next few years."

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/06/wind-turbine-gearbox-reliability