In the past three years we've seen brand new wind turbines have catastrophic failures. The Princeton,Massachusetts wind turbine ,gear box cost $600,000.00 for repairs.The Portsmouth High School ,Rhode Island gear box and blades cost near one million not repaired up for sale. The Otis ANG base turbine gear box in process of going bad government won't release repair estimate.The Charlestown,Massachusetts turbine tipped on foundation out of service months after start up.One Kingston wind turbine with a crack in the blade during installation.

Thousands of citizens and groups demanding shut downs because on noise issues, infra sound ,shadow flicker in Falmouth,Fairhaven,Kingston,Scituate and Plymouth. Noise is wind turbine torture !

http://firstrunfeatures.com/trailers_windfall.html

The absurdity of believing that all renewables are inherently good... simply because they are deemed renewable, is doing a disservice to the future of our state and the sustainable future possible for our children. The concept of Wind energy installations being ~shoe-horned~ into residential areas is asinine.

Valuable insight via a comment in the Kingston Journal:

I remember attending a conference in Plymouth in 2009 on wind siting and listening to Mr Beaton speak rapturously about the visionary thing he was accomplishing for Kingston by bringing a turbine to town.
Knowing how close it would be to houses, I knew that once erected the reality would be quite different for nearby residents.
I had a powerful image of Beaton that day as a sort of modern day Babbitt*, a guy full of posturing and self-importance, but little substance underneath.
He obviously failed to understand turbine noise properly in the permitting phase, and now, when predictable problems surface, he is invested in denying their importance, or clinging to the idea of an illusory fix, because he has a psychological need to believe he has done a great thing for Kingston.
Who would be so blinded as to promote industrial turbines by right near a residential area? Only clueless or uncaring types.
I’m sorry to those of you in Kingston who are suffering. Your town officials, but especially your green energy committee, failed you miserably. Zip, zowie Mr. Beaton!

*Babbitt, first published in 1922, a novel by Sinclair Lewis. Largely a satire of American culture, behavior... in part, it critiques the pressures on individuals toward conformity (conformity here in Kingston would be Mr. Beaton's insistance we must embrace, the religion of allegedly "clean energy"!!!! Were we duped into drinking Mr Beaton's Koolaid?

The State of Massachusetts has a "play book" to deal with thousands of residents complaining about wind noise. The state through local town governments has brought in a Cambridge company to resolve residential issues. In Kingston the other night a wind turbine meeting turned into a circus.The role of the mediator went just like the 22 meetings in Falmouth. Obfuscation is the best word to describe the mediation.

The Kingston mediator wrote phrases on the board, and gave sympathetic looks to people, think, "Ohhhh, I'm sooo sorry your life stinks because of the turbine noise... let's give someone else a chance to talk."

They're trying to wear people down just as they did in Falmouth . It's impossible to to conceal unpleasant facts about infra sound. The mediation is a "highly skilled, calculated attempt to confuse the residents and the local news media.

Mr Carson, you are spot on with the "confusion" by design observation.
The Kingston Board of Health themselves admitted confusion in that they thought the Mass CEC was to perform an acoustical study on all 4 industrial wind turbines sited within 1/2 mile of each other. It was also made public via an audience question that it was the Mass CEC and Consensus Building Institute that "put the agenda" together for that BOard of Health meeting, this raised eyebrows as the BOH is to set and approve all agenda items, is this not an interference with a BOH? in that the CBI tightly scripted the agenda and would not allow discussion on any issue they determined not part of their plan.
This was a dog and pony show pure and simple, and the audience was duped into believing this is about them getting a response to their public health emergency, when in reality it is the Mass CEC puppeteering the scope of an acoustical study that likely will not investigate the noise issues in a way that will prove anything at all. Obfuscation is the operational mission...really quite sickening...even the BOH members do not realize that they are being played, that is with the likely exception of the chairman of the Board of Health who is also the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen (he signed the wind contract for the Independence) AND he shook hands and promised that a vote on shut down would take place at this meeting...he knew the agenda needed to specifically have this written onto the posting, hmmmmm

I am somewhat embarrassed to agree now that the Concensus Building Institute is indeed part of the "play book. "
A year ago Ms Smith actually came out to my home and listened as we poured our hearts out and somehow we believed she might be able to make some progress in the process. I even complimented her in an early meeting.
Unfortunately now I suspect everyone they speak to gets the same level of hope for whichever angle they are coming from.
All in all it's just spending more time and money to keep the things running longer.

Also, as long as we keep talking about "noise " we are seriously underestimating the source of the health problems...The root is low frequency vibrations that penetrate and wack out the vestibular system. We neighbors need to keep that out there because that is what will eventually bring these things down... that is the deadly consequence of this " shoe horning" behavior... What a great term Mark!

Fact #1.The state has a goal of 2000 megawatts of power by 2020

Fact #2.The state sold the wind turbines to Falmouth that they were stuck with since 2005.

Fact # 3 The same engineering and sound study companies get positive results to install wind turbines and then move on to the next job and do the same thing and get paid again.

Fact# 4 The mediation is amazingly ineffective, I've never seen anything like it. (23 meetings?)

Fact # 5 The sound study engineers,CEC,mediator ,town officials,state officials and wind contractors have an agenda to make money, job promotions, future jobs in the wind industry and now a new secondary industry rebuilding turbines only a few years old.

Final Fact # The Falmouth and Kingston wind situation has turned into forums for allowing the people to complain,huff and puff with the hopes they go away. The government has ruined the health of residential home owners to make a few dollars and they won't admit they made a mistake!

On top of all this town boards are led to these unproven very bleeding edge complex machines, by state "advisers" many times who are just waiting to jump to wind energy companies as they know where the gravy train is. Then the town is left to themselves to fight their own citizens and to deal the financial and engineering realities massive industrial machines. Lets not forget that people and animals get harm during and various lawsuits are always waiting in the wings.

The public first needs to understand families health and life is being ruined in Falmouth .Infra-sound is a fact of life. For years people made fun of NIMBY's ,Not In My Back Yard .Today NIMBY means Next It May Be You. This problem with wind turbine siting became clear in Falmouth. It's time to vote against any politicians that refuse to accept the mistakes made siting the Falmouth wind turbines.

Second the wind industry had a dirty little secret about gear box failures for years and knew the turbines break down prematurely. The wind industry now has a secondary industry repairing 5 million dollar turbines only a few years old. When confronted about the gear box issues the response is they have switched to a direct drive transmission and refuse to comment.

Massachusetts residents are paying with their health and then paying again to repair the turbines after they were purchased with taxpayer funds.

David KEnt, I have read you letters about Cape Wind .I know you are looking for documentation about the wind turbine noise. There is plenty of documentation out there. The residents of Falmouth that live around the wind turbines and their medical conditions speak for themselves. You have also stated that you think the Falmouth turbines should come down. Why don't you use your wisdom and help the Falmouth residents ?

As each new turbine gets installed another group of citizens get hurt !

I was at a public meeting at Barnstable High School last year in which we were told "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" The reference to the eggs was the residents around the turbines - If you heard this you would help the residents of Falmouth - Look at the Falmouth turbine issue as if you lived under the blades

David Kent = mixed messages, he thanks Mr Carson, then immediately puts his energies into refuting the valuable McPherson report issued by board certified acousticians Robert Rand and Stephen Ambrose as not credible. According to Mr Kent, the Mc Pherson report "was a great little study", then Mr Kent points to reasons to marginalize the report by saying it was "a single home for just 2.5 days or so".

Why does a single home not qualify as acceptable evidence for Mr Kent?

A quick critical analysis of Mr Kent's comeback.

Let's say I have a pain in my side, board certified doctors perform a weekend series of tests and observations, the results lead them to believe I have appendicitis, BUT I can not be treated accordingly because in Mr Kent's world the tests performed qualify only as "a great little study", not a basis for solid science and treatment. The tests my board certified physicians ran clearly indicate appendicitis (infrasound) BUT the physicians are criticized as "their study time was too short". There is not enough solid science to act to treat me... the naysayers claim there needs to be more studies, more studies more studies, when is enough enough?

As for me providing proof to you as to the agenda of mis leading...I advise you to read each and every feasibility report and acoustical study for each and every project now causing disruption, suffering and division in communities...ie Fairhaven, Falmouth, Scituate and Kingston...

Dave, The Town of Falmouth got one of the turbines Vestas V 82 at very low cost. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative had been stuck with two politically embarrassing turbines since 2005. They couldn't even sell them at an auction.The MTC was payng $3300.00 a month storage fees in Texas for years.

The General Electric Company refused to site turbines in the same location because of the setbacks to the residents .These are all facts. The MTC paid for the wind studies and the financing . These turbine studies to place the turbines in Falmouth were paid for by the owners of the turbine the semi-quasi state agency Massachusetts Technology Collaborative which soom after changed its name to the MCEC Massachusetts Clean Energy Center .

The Town of Falmouth actually thought they were getting a good deal . These 1.65 MW turbines should never have been sited at this location- Follow the money
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2008/08/mtc-puts-mothballed-wind-turbines-on-auction.html

6.1 Visual and Noise Impact
The potential visual and noise impacts of the proposed wind turbine are best considered in the context of where existing dwellings are located in relation to the turbine site. A total of 99 residential properties are located within a half-mile radius of the turbine site. All of these properties lie to the west and south of the site. (See Attachment A for a map of the site).
There are 68 properties located to the west of the turbine site. All 68 properties are located on the west side of Route 28 (Rte. 28). Rte. 28 therefore serves as a barrier between these 68 dwellings and the turbine site. Approximately one third of the 68 dwellings are within 500 feet of Rte. 28, and all are within a quarter mile of Rte. 28. The closest dwellings are approximately 1700 feet due west of the proposed turbine site. Sixty-one of the 68 properties are located on one of the following residential streets: Ridgeview Drive; Ambleside Drive; Westmoreland Drive; and Brantwood Road. Seven properties are located to the east of West Falmouth Highway.

http://www.falmouthmass.us/energy/falmouth%20feasibility%20study_111505.pdf

Above is the 2005 Feasibility Study done for the Town of Falmouth .On page 38 of the report it states all the affected residential homes prior to the installation of the wind turbine .
It's beyond me why no one has ever brought up the original study which actually names the property locations .The report even says " potential for visual and noise"

Guess what it did have the potential and involves 99 residential homes -that need compensation !

Mr Carson,
I extend compassion to you in feeling the need to provide the evidence folks like Mr Kent keep insisting on...it must be exhausting.

It is interesting that the feasibility reports paid for by us, Mass electric rate payers, since 2005 have (by design? by agenda perhaps?) have not gone into the detail as your 2005 example...why did the specifics and details get edited out of future feasibility reports?

As for Mr Kent and his response to my medical analogy he says:
Now hold your horses LL. A doctor diagnosing appendicitis is based on centuries of medical study not a single examination.

Question: Diagnosing my appendicitis should include centuries old medical study? Yikes, and no thanks!

the notion that current tests and education should be tempered by "centuries" of thought is counter-intuitive. Should we give leeching a serious seat at the table prior to treating my appendicitis? As my grandfather says, the good old days (medically speaking), they weren't so good.

Sorry, Mr Kent you lose me on this, and you, in doing so extend the pain and frustration of those suffering in real time.

Mr Carson, thank you for your article...Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas? Commercial Wind II turbine on December 24,2012 was operating out of control when the abutters had been promised a holiday ! It appears that nothing has changed since the first day Wind I was put into operation.

Falmouth Wind ll has had an operational problem again. The town had to manually shut down the Wind II turbine after complaints from nearby residents. What is the town's commitment not to subject nearby residents to the debilitating effects of the noise from Falmouth's wind turbines during night time hours ?

There have been 22 mediation meetings and more planned starting January 8 and 9 of 2013 this is not the first time wind turbine operational errors have occurred. This does not improve relationships and effective communication among the Town officials, affected families.

There are multiple emails between the Town of Falmouth and the residents. The emails refer to the town working with the wind turbine company and having to do a manual shut down in order to comply with the shut down.

You know as well as me that the town has Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition terminals to control the wind turbines.

Those opposed to the Falmouth wind turbines have at least one reason to be grateful this week: The selectmen voted to shut off the two town-owned turbines on Thanksgiving.
The 1.65-megawatt turbines at the wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road — known as Wind 1 and Wind 2 — also will shut down on Christmas.

"I applaud the selectmen for doing that," said Malcolm Donald, a turbine abutter and outspoken opponent. "We're going to be thankful for it."

November 21, 2012 12:00 AM

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121121/NEWS/211210348

I have a general question about the CBI process which has confused me from the beginning:

How can you eliminate suffering via consensus?

I mean, either you’re suffering from the effects of the turbines or you’re not. I suppose that you could reduce suffering by turning the turbines off part of the time. But that just results in suffering for fewer hours each day or week, right? And it would seem to me to be very odd outcome to agree to something like this:

“OK, today I’m suffering 60 hours per week. Per the changes produced by the CBI process, I agree to suffer only 20 hours per week”.

What am I missing?

There is plenty of documentation on the use of infrasound by the military to control crowds. The infrasound experiments have been ongoing by the military for years.

The residents who live around the wind turbines describe the noise as the sound of a pair of sneakers in a dryer 24/7 or when you open the back window of a car a little when all the others are shut and some others get sick at home then get better when they stay away from their homes. Many can tell when the wind turbine operates at night when the turbine goes on accidently.Many of these people lose sleep all the time.

Now your stuck in your house and nobody will buy it because of the turbine noise.Your whole life investment is your home. If you were being tortured 24/7 wouldn't you be glad for a few hours of relief ?

A Christmas epiphany for Mr Kent!

What you have been missing, in my view is compassion toward the "situation".

Compassion is always shown by a willingness to "listen"; listening to hear, that is, rather than listening to speak.

Listening to speak is exemplified, here in this thread, in the form of insults and marginalization ...via comments such as "ignorant foot stomping".

Negotiating the parameters of adverse impacts happening in real time to the citizens of our state, residents who have been forced to endure the assault on their properties and their health should not be part of the equation (agenda).

A Christmas gift idea, please start listening to hear, and perhaps consider to
stop questioning and/or denying the most important and relevant FACT or clouding it with peripheral questions that take us all down "conversational alleyways", alleyways that sidetrack the focus away from the most important truth!

A TRUTH that is indisputable: families are suffering as a result of industrial wind turbines that have been sited too close to where they live.

Merry Christmas and PEACE ON EARTH...

LL,

I can’t expect you to know my overall opinion of the Falmouth turbine situation so let me state it: I believe the neighbors. I believe the turbines have to go.

That does not mean, however, that I accept anything said by turbine opponents. For instance, I will not accept that a 1 house 1 weekend study can be interpreted to mean that infrasound affects turbine neighbors. I know that the “ignorant foot stomping” thing was a bit rough. I considered removing it. But I kept it because, frankly, that’s what you were doing. IMO, you deserved it.

As to my “listening to hear”: I have spent 7 years defending Cape Wind in letters to the editor and in a blog on CapeCodToday.com. Mainly, I’ve devoted my energies to debunking the unending list of manufactured criticisms from the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. So, when I came to the Falmouth turbine debate a couple of years ago I came with bias against the turbine neighbors: I presumed that they were just as untrustworthy as the Alliance. But then I had the opportunity to speak personally with 3 of the neighbors and I changed my mind. I listened, heard and changed my mind.

But that does not mean that I will accept everything the neighbors and their supporters say regardless of its truth.

Yes, I suspect that numerous Town Meeting members put the town’s budget over the suffering of some of its town’s citizens. What I suspect is more important, however, is that many Town Members just don’t believe the neighbors. They think that they’re making mountains out of mole hills and/or that some of them are just plain crazy.

Actually, I bet that many Town Meeting Members combine those sentiments: They may want to believe the neighbors but they’re loathe to put a huge hole in the town budget. That is, if the budget hole went away they’d accept the words of the neighbors.

Hey do you know: Are town officials working to get rid of or to lessen the financial impact on the town? I have no idea if that’s possible (grant forgiveness, state help given that it greased the wheels of this debacle, etc.). But I think if that happened, we’d see a sudden attitude change in Town Meeting.

But yes, if that’s right than you’re right too: The Town is placing money before health.

Hi & Merry Christmas to All. A few comments after reading the discussion.
1. Cape Wind: The dominant anti theme isn’t strongly tied to it being an eye sore. I believe those most opposed are contentious due to the impractical cost per kilowatt. The vast majority or rate payers effected can’t afford the financial cost. This point isn’t concerning to those raising the stink about viewshed. These folks have the $ to pay the extra price point, but that demographic is the tiny minority. It may be perceived as being dominate, after all, money can buy any accurate or inaccurate argument. Then, there is a portion opposed that believe CW places the flying public at risk. Dave mentioned that he just doesn’t like people speaking beyond their knowledge or contriving stuff. I won’t expound on my personal experience (as an air traffic controller) other than to share a similar case struck down by the court because of aviation safety - Clark County Nevada v. Federal Aviation Administration. ( http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20121205%2FOPINION%2F212050332 )
2. Dave Kent’s question about the CBI process: This question underpins the essence of the fundamental problem. Dave .. you’re not missing anything. Any consensus to be achieved will involve an acceptable level of tolerance (stakeholder compromise).

2. (cont) The concerning ‘basic’ issue I have is whether it should be permissible for our government to require a minority of neighbors to involuntarily tolerate a lower base-line standard of health and well being. The CBI process may have been effective if the process had been convened with the understanding that this premise of placing residents health at risk is NOT acceptable. The CBI group wouldn’t have wasted each meeting as adversaries. They may have been provided the opportunity for many more moments of partnership, working toward goal solutions having the primary directive of preventing harm/discomfort/nuisance upon neighbors.

3. Compliance or not: Starting with the 2005 Feasibility Study before the erection of the turbine(s), then the 2010 town sponsored HMMH sound analysis and most recently the 2012 DEP noise testing (night and day)... all offered instances of none-compliance using model predictions and attended testing with present DEP noise guidelines. Couple this trend of risk with the June 30 2011 letter from the Mass DEP to the Falmouth Selectmen & Health Agent, in which the agency admits their suspicion that current noise guidelines and evaluation protocol does not adequately mitigate or investigate noise emitted from industrial wind turbines. Further, the letter states that the agency was, at that time, in the process of modifying regulatory guidance as well as protocol involving IWT’s. Laurel Carson (DEP) stated at a Nov. CBI meeting that this modification process was still being conducted, but with no ‘release’ date available (at that time). Dave is correct in that the McPherson study doesn’t allow firm conclusions to be drawn from such a small sampling. Similarly, the attended tests performed by DEP night/day noise evaluation, can be regarded in that same dim light of quantifiability. However, the difference is that DEP results demonstrated instances of none-compliance.

3. (cont) The McPherson study results don’t have the same advantage since infrasound is not a regulatory criteria. Yet, infrasound dose is alleged as being the culprit in many of the anecdotal testimonials world wide. It’s odd, if infrasound should be the true culprit and, if further unimpeded WT development is to be realized, that a more prudent and pointed health focus wouldn’t be sought?? The CBI group will suggest to selectmen that more DEP noise testing be conducted to define more accurately those properties likely effected and requiring some means of compensation. Effected properties meaning effected in terms of admittedly antiquated noise guidance. I will again (for the millionth time), since the dynamic of WT effect concerns human health, suggest that the problem must be examined in terms of health effect, rather than the ineffective examination in terms of acoustics and noise modeling. It WILL be costly. $$ is the great obstacle in Falmouth. Yet, a plethora of unanswered health questions remain unresolved. As a result, the fundamental tenant of COMMUNITY should be firstly.. in compliance to doing no harm.

Dave - In the case I cited, the FAA said that the Wind Farm, 10 miles from Las Vegas overflow airport, was safe. It was found that the expert advise from the FAA was terribly flawed. The agency, mandated by their prime directive, to maintain aviation safety, was found to have compromised aviation safety. (air surveillance radar degradation due to Wind Farm proximity) If the majority of variables surrounding both siting projects are examined, the CW and FAA vs Clark Co NV cases share 85% parity. Yet, the FAA has determined (twice) that the CW project will not be a hazard to aviation. Logic would lend a great deal of suspicion toward this FAA decision. I won't argue for or against the conspiracy theorist, but I will note that the Federal Administration's position has placed vast effort and expense toward implementation of renewable energy sources (wind is just one of those sources). Why should the CW project be differnet that Clark Co NV? Dick Cheney allowed the ~Haliburtan Loop-Hole~ in gas fraking development as a sitting Vice President, so I can't in good conscience, as an air traffic controller, not vigorously oppose the FAA determination. As for my suggest for the public, it wouldn't be prudent to atleast question the alleged experts.

Mark and Dave , I went to the Consensus Building Institute web site : http://cbuilding.org/

The first thing on the lower right is a story about climate change and on the left a note about Energy, Environment and Land Use Commercial Agreements. No references to residential anything on the front page.

At the top of the page there is a search engine for their web site. When doing a search about wind turbines, environment or mediation as keywords lots of information comes up to review.

When you put in "residential home owner" as a key word it comes back as : Your search yielded no results.

I though it odd that the key words "residential home owner" doesn't work in their keyword search after all the years they have been in business. This leads me to wonder where the weight on a scale balances the ability for mediation between residential home owners and commercial environmental contractors.

Carson's letter, like many of the comments, is brimming with fiction and distortions. For infrasound, the science is clear, it's a non-issue. For example, see this peer reviewed paper: http://www.acoustics.asn.au/journal/2012/2012_40_1_Turnbull.pdf
And why are we talking about FAA and air safety? Noise & health stuff has been debunked, so anti-wind fanatics resort to increasingly weird and obscure accusations (such as Carson's odd obsession with gearboxes) - that's why.
Meanwhile carbon emissions keep growing, and the impacts of climate change are all too clear. This article in New Scientist, by a professor of public health, cuts thru the BS - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628850.200-the-sickening-truth-about-wind-farm-syndrome.html

1.Infrasound is a powerful, ultra-low frequency acoustic wave.Many recent studies say it can induce a range of symptoms, from nausea, headaches and vomiting, to the rupturing of internal organs and even death.

2. The FAA because commercial wind turbines and their blades create a clutter on Doppler Radar where air traffic controllers have trouble seeing airplanes as they approach nearby airports.http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/?n=windfarm

3. The wind industry is hiding a dirty little secret about gear box failures .In fact starting this year most reputable companies use direct drive transmissions The news media has failed to report the alarming rate of failures in wind turbines. One right here at Otis ANG base in a 2009 turbine.

4.It would take 1000 commercial wind turbines to replace the Brayton Point power plant at 5 million dollars each. Note# if the wind is not blowing where do you get the power ?

Bringing simon chapman into this requires a does of disinfectant.
In a letter written by Dr Sarah Laurie, she asks mr chapman this question:
"Professor Leventhall, your co -­reviewer, has publicly stated in expert testimony
given in court in Ontario and also in the NHMRC workshop which you and I
both attended in June 2011, that he has known about the symptoms of low frequency noise exposure or “wind turbine syndrome” for some time, and it
is clear from his literature review from 2003 that this statement is correct.
On what grounds, as a sociologist, rather than an acoustician or a medical practitioner, do you disagree with Leventhall’s expert testimony in the Suncor case in Ontario, confirming the existence of this pattern of symptoms, which he clearly attributes to being caused by exposure to low frequency noise?"
Does blowin smoke not know the reputation this man has in Australia?
Let me share comments from an article critiquing mr chapman and his theories and his hateful approach with victims who are suffering...read comments here: Professor Carl V Phillips savaged simon chapman in a piece entitled “How can you tell Simon Chapman is mucking about over his head?” Master Chapman’s end of term report does not look good. Epidemiology- fail, maths – fail, science – fail, economics – fail, and now history- fail. Must try harder, even in the remedial class. &
He’s a tyrant, using health care issues as a guise to destroy everything he does not like.

Dave your ~wondering why~ observation has to be confined to radar impact analysis. Air traffic radar effectiveness is impacted, to varying degrees, by variables of implementation over water or land (roughness), elevation, weather and topography (to name a few). The source making the 85% observation in the case similarities was a FAA site testing employee in the summer 2010. He was part of a radar analysis team sent by the FAA Eastern Service Area Office to conduct radar signal strength return testing in the Cape Approach airspace. While not the official FAA response, he (the site lead) was of the opinion that the testing results (so far during our conversation) borne out the fact that wind turbines do impact RADAR. The case in Clark Co. NV was mentioned by this gentleman for comparison, and the percentage he cited was in terms of similarities he himself had drawn. The results from the playback tests indicated that the radar reflections of the simulated wind turbines did not meet acceptable level of coverage. Mind you, this view was stated by FAA Technical Operations personnel.

In spite of seemingly reaffirming, from this CW/radar strength test, that radar interference to Air Traffic Control exists, the FAA still issued a No Hazard Determination. And shortly after the Department of Interior issued its approval for Cape Wind.

Waubra Disease,Vibro- Acoustic Disease in Falmouth ? Yes ,these are the names given to wind turbine syndrome disease in other countries long before the installation of the Falmouth megawatt turbine. Today the state through whatever means possible is trying to "educate" the residents in several Massachusetts towns that after years of serious sleep deprivation, balance disorders and a whole host of maladies it's not real.

Falmouth is being turned into an industrial commercial wind turbine zone in which the town has voted to sacrifice the health of a few for the greater good of the whole. The turbine has become the plague.

The Falmouth wind turbine has become the ‘forbidden fruit’ of renewable energy. The town voted to destroy the quiet and peaceful life of a few residents for the greater good. Falmouth has become a boutique hosting company for industrial wind ...

Falmouth Select Board owes apology to wind turbine victims ? When the Select Board appoints an official to a town position any statements made by the appointee are the statements of the local government. Falmouth government is made up of dozens of officials who are either elected or appointed.

Recently a local official was quoted in a local newspaper.The reference was about residents living around the commercial wind turbines does the Select Board echo the same remarks ? Apology Yes or No ?

The remarks:
“If it’s so annoying, why does it take five hours for people to notice it’s on,”and “I think it was hysteria by power of suggestion,”

The new story :
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/12/29/time-controller-malfunctions-on-wind-2/

Bill,
Unfortunately, as part of the "agenda" or "playbook" that has been scripted over the course of the last 2 years (In Falmouth) and the last year (In Scituate, Fairhaven and Kingston) the talking point is in large part "NOCEBO"...these residents in all these communities are not really suffering they are simply falling victim to "hysteria by suggestion". This disgraceful explanation has been presented as the most likely scenario and/or defense at both the Kingston and Scituate Board of Health meetings by the wind developers when asked to explain why the abutters are filing "complaints" due to excessive noise and flicker.
Blame the "victims"...Marginalize the "victims"...deny, obfuscate, belittle...Do anything but facing facts and reality...this Falmouth employee has been given the "playbook" and is all in...
His dismissiveness of Falmouth resident's concerns and experiences is shameful.
He should be reprimanded for violating the code of conduct most towns do have on their books...that is the welfare of residents in the town they are employed by is the ultimate priority. Welfare is not attained by allowing any amount of suffering to continue...clearly this guy is "bothered" that residents are "bothered"...

Given the wastewater superintendent's comments, it would be a logical guess that he is dismissive of the residents who are impacted...it appears he sees them as "the problem" as opposed to the reality that they are merely a "reflection of the problems" that have surfaced due to the siting of industrial wind turbines too close to residents' homes.
Here is an excerpt from the Professional Code of Conduct for the town of Kingston...as a reference:
The “Professional Conduct Policy” details the demeanor town officials should exhibit : “Town employees are expected to act honestly, conscientiously, reasonably and in good faith at all times having regard to their responsibilities; the interests of the Town of Kingston and the welfare of its residents.”

Have there been other comments to the press about the wind turbine victums in the past ? Do you think the officials are following a Well-Worn Media Script ?

In the past these officials when called on the carpet always blame the newspaper and say it was a mistake by the news reporting agency .

Do you think the Select Board should apologize or do you think they'll hunker down ?

It is Mr. Potamis’ right to believe that in turbine hysteria. But it’s outrageous that, as a public official, he said that out loud. He should be taken to the woodshed over this. This guy is, however, not a policy maker so let’s not get our panties too much in a knot.

I was dismayed to find this language from Mark Cool in the article provided by Bill:

“Mr. Suso, I believe the neighbors don’t want any further apologies! Your time would be better spent fixing the immediate problem. Use your managerial skills, and in the event of similar future circumstance, USE the “OFF” switch,”

Question: Has the automatic switch ever failed before? Presuming that it hasn’t:

Who among us wouldn’t rely upon an automatic switch that has functioned without failure in the past? If Mr. Cool had been in charge on the night in question, would he have manually shut the turbine down if the automatic mechanism had worked repeatedly in the past?

I know that the neighbors are frustrated, but they MUST do their best to reign in intemperate words like Mr. Cool’s. 1st, they make the neighbors look petty and childish to Town Meeting members who will decide their fate. This is terrible public relations. 2nd, they insult reasonable members of Town Hall. Town Manager Susa seems an eminently reasonable person. But he’s human, and insulting him will not help the neighbors’ cause: It will hurt it!

"It is Mr Potamis' right to believe in turbine hysteria" (Mr. Kent)

Question: It is his right to be ignorant of the real experiences of others, when the welfare of the residents he his employed by is part of his job via any code of ethics?

All the evidence in Falmouth does NOT point to "hysteria", though it does involve a great deal of emotion. When bad things happen to good people it is not the people's actions you should be judging Mr Kent, out of compassion I would cut Mr Cool a great deal of slack for his "comments". One can only be put through so much bureaucratic nonsense, in the face of suffering, until the words of others (Mr. Potamis) who are not forced to deal with the same set of impacts, begin to have a little bite of sarcasm to them. So on that note, it would be compassionate not to lecture ie "I know the neighbors are frustrated, but they MUST do their best to reign in intemperate words" OR "let's not get our panties too much in a knot"

Sorry Mr Kent, as is your insistence you, though not a resident under stress from these turbines, feel insistent upon being dismissive, disingenuous and lecturing of those who, in my opinion, need total support for their situation.

Mr. Kent, Mr Cool is not only human he is a person who has passionately described the life altering experiences of he and his neighbors... so honestly, Mr. Kent I take your lecturing of and insults toward Mr. Cool as not cool at all! Have a little compassion for a change of pace!?!

Psych 101: When people tell others "to calm down" It is meant to be offensive because what they are really saying is "This issue, that you choose to speak on, isn't really all that important and you're being silly in your analysis."

For the record, this approach is totally disregarding of one's feelings and is meant only to disqualify the thoughts and observations of those being told to "calm down"

Pardon me, but I thought my "discussion" eminently rational...

Personally, I don't see any currency in a blatant ans persistent passive-aggressive approach to discussing this topic...perfect example "I support the neighbors, BUT..."
OR, "I understand that frustration and suffering drives that BUT" seems I am rational after all if you do understand my meaning...mixed messages continue...not productive at all.

I am sorry for the folks in Falmouth that have to deal with this psychological technique...very frustrating, and most intemperate!

Happy New Year. Let's not forget what this is about. First ~ exchanging ideas and opinion. Second, I don't think I've been insulted by Mr. Kent (or anyone having a difference of opinion) in the least. I listen to arguments, throw them up against my convictions, and hopefully (because of the exchange) I'm better off for it.

I would note Dave, speaking intemperately is sometimes necessary when essential change is necessary. It's been the foundation of history you and I share as US citizens. The person that conceptualized Cape Wind (becoming many voices) spoke intemperately. And now it's taken root, though having flaws but this isn't my point. Frustration and suffering do indeed drive change. In our system of government, policy change is dictated by vast amounts of time and tends to placate to $$$. Most average Joes out there, with a cause, has at his/her disposal only the impassioned value placed on the matter. I'm a man of moderate means. Beyond the dollar cost, the moral decency of this particular matter needs to be repeatedly revisited. Ethics, all to often, is lost to our good politicians trying to make our American dream in the decisions they make. Some of us (you & I for instance) take up the banner to herald the need for change. As I began this comment, the lesson is not to judge the way in which an opinion is presented or the way in which a point is made. Rather, it's the message, not the messenger ~ his/her tact, that deserves consideration.

Dave ,My understanding is the Town Manager will not respond to the neighbors around the wind turbines about how the turbine was operated the night before Christmas. That's an insult to the residential property owners ! This has happened before!

The Wastewater Treatment Superintendent made statements about hysteria !

The Superintendent was appointed by the Select Board and he took an oath ! The Select Board knows the record here and shares the blame in the name calling in the newspaper article.

Now I understand the Wastewater Treatment Superintendent has gone another step further and has been emailing many of the residents around the wind turbine !

Who has designated the Wastewater Treatment Superintendent as the town spokes person ? The Select Board is responsible for what is going on they appointed the person and they share the blame ....

Mr. Potamis is correct and admirably frank... Consider the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) press release from 1/17/12.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/press/0112wind.htm
Verbatim 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."
It's time to set the baloney aside. Wind turbines are harmless.

The Wind I turbine will be operating three years in January of 2013. The Vestas V 82 turbine was built around 2004 for a wind project in Orleans,Cape Cod. It was held in storage in a Texas warehouse since 2005. Wind I began operating in Jan 2010.

The Vestas V 82 is a take off of the NEG Micon company NM 82 commercial wind turbine . The two companies merged in 2004. Catastrophic gear box and rotor disasters brought NEG Micon to its knees.

At some point in time in 2013 the entire Town of Falmouth will understand the health issues siting commercial wind turbines in residential neighborhoods, noise issues, shadow flicker and real estate property devaluations.

Financially many towns in New England today face catastrophic gear box failures in three year old turbines. The Town of Falmouth may have failed to do its "Due Diligence. " The taxpayers may soon pay the operation and maintenance costs in addition to buying the homes around the current turbines or shutting them off at night.

Dave - only one study.. the most recent... just updated Dec 24, 2012. I encourage you to read the report itself. The trend of this necessary research (albeit late and without professional health practitioner oversight ) is starting to catch up to regulatory policy. I've already sent this to the Falmouth Board of Health. It'll be interesting how the board reacts.

“A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin” http://www.vce.org/Report%20Number%20122412-1%2021-18-12%20FINAL%20(3).pdf
 
Prepared Cooperatively By:
Channel Islands Acoustics, Camarillo, CA
Principal: Dr. Bruce Walker
Hessler Associates, Inc., Haymarket, VA
Principals: George F. and David M. Hessler
Rand Acoustics, Brunswick, ME
Principal: Robert Rand
Schomer and Associates, Inc., Champaign, IL
Principal: Dr. Paul Schomer
 
The importance of this new report on a study of ILFN can be summed up in these two quotes.
 
~The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a SERIOUS ISSUE, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.~
 

AND ~Currently the wind turbine industry presents only A‐weighted octave band data down to 31 Hz. They have stated that the wind turbines do not produce low frequency sound energies. The measurements at Shirley have clearly shown that low frequency infrasound is clearly present and relevant. A‐weighting is totally inadequate and inappropriate for description of this infrasound. In point of fact, the A‐weighting, and also the C and Z‐weightings for a Type 1 sound level meter have a lower tolerance limit of ‐4.5 dB in the 16 Hz one‐third‐octave band, a tolerance of minus infinity in the 12.5 Hz and 10 Hz one‐third‐ octave bands, and are totally undefined below the 10 Hz one‐third‐octave band. Thus, the International Electro‐technical Commission (IEC) standard needs to include both infrasonic measurements and a standard for the instrument by which they are measured.~

The Chief Executive Officer, Ditlev Engel of Vestas wind turbine company acknowledges low frequency noise . What more proof do you need ?
Falmouth Wind I is a Vestas V 82 wind turbine!
Here is the quote from the letter :
"At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all.:

Letter from Vestas worried about regulation of low-frequency noise Author: Engel, Ditlev

Dear Karen Ellemann,*

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-from-vestas-worried-about-regulation-of-low-frequency-noise/

OK, I'm convinced: Turbines generate infrasound. You know what I still find most interesting in all of this? In the McPherson study they detected no infrasound outside but they DID detect it inside, which suggests that the vibration of structures cause the sound.

Dave ! Reducing the financial impact on the town is a huge obstacle. The WTOP Facilitator stood before this last town meeting and in her update stated that ALL option being considered require $$$. That being said, I say again (millionth time), this issue is primarily a problem of public health. Stay with me here... A community's Public health problem is suppose to be mitigated/solved by enforcement actions instituted by the local health board. All political policy decision making is trumped by the protections owed to it's citizens, and enforced by it's board of health. It's part of the powers granted by the Mass Home Rule Charter. Yet, everyone thinks the "end-game" should somehow be directly correlated to TM policy and priority setting. In this particular instance, that couldn't be further from the truth. And the truth is being hung out to dry because the state dept. Public Health has said a health study in Falmouth is too costly. A valid reason, just like the fiscal obstacle here in Falmouth. Yet, what of the principal that political policy decision making (no matter the $) being trumped by the protections owed to citizens, and enforced by agencies mandated to protect the public's health?

So now the problem, according to Mr. Cool, is: "SOMETHING". Something invisible and mysterious to even the most dedicated complainant. This shows the elusive nature of the problem. What exactly IS the problem? We used to read that the turbines created a roar like jet engines, and made walls pulsate. Those complaints melted away, since the loudest sound measured by DEP (51 dBa) turns out to be comparable to a refrigerator. Then it was ALL about sleep disturbance, so the Town turns turbines off every night. Somehow that's not enough, the symptoms are morphing again, into... "something". How to make sense of all this? We're told there's mysterious invisible effects at work, unexplainable by current science. I favor another theory, put forward by a distinguished professor of public health (Simon Chapman). He says the symptoms are "psychogenic", in other words are caused and spread by anxiety alone. Chapman points out that turbine neighbors who receive some income from turbines are immune from all symptoms..

President & CEO Ditlev Engel of Vestas Wind Systems acknowledges low frequency sound waves.The url is at the bottom of the page.

General Electric would not site any commercial wind turbines in the Falmouth area because of the problems with setbacks to residential homes.GE has to approve the siting requirements before they sell a town a turbine.

The Vestas Wind Company has the same requirements as GE. The problem is the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative got approval from Vestas to site the two V 82 turbines at a site in Orleans ,Massachusetts . Vestas would never have approved the Falmouth locations if the turbines were new. The MTC owned the turbines since 2005 and got around the Vestas requirements .The town should demand a representative from Vestas should be at the WTOP meetings Jan 8 & 9 to provde info on how Vestas approved or did not approve the Falmouth sites !
https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-from-vestas-worried-about-regulation-of-low-frequency-noise/

Carson - the Vestas letter you mention refers primarily to 3 MW turbines (twice the size of Falmouth's). How is that relevant?