WWLP TV
Updated: Feb 14, 2012 8:03 PM
BOSTON, Mass. (WWLP) — Officials from the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health received some lively public comment on a state commissioned study investigating the health impacts of wind turbines Tuesday at the State House. The Wind Turbine Impact Study has people across the state divided.
“The report that was issued by DEP is junk science,” said Green Berkshires president Eleanor Tillinghast. “It ignored all the anecdotal testimony of people who live just not here in Massachusetts but all around the world.”
By contrast, Emily Rochon, a member of the Wind Action Committee, received the report favorably. “We're very proud of the DEP and the DPH, taking this proactive step to actually add some science into this very emotional debate.”
The study was conducted by an independent panel of experts. After combing through scientific literature, the panel found no scientific evidence linking wind turbines to negative health impacts.
Green energy advocates seized the opportunity to cheer on the benefits of wind power. “Harnessing wind energy resources will allow us to actually shut down coal plants, like Holyoke, and help alleviate some of the public health pressures that the energy generation in that part of the state is having on local residents,” said Rochon.
But folks who live by wind farms, like Neil Andersen of Falmouth, say the study cherry picks through the scientific literature and ignores the headaches and high blood pressure they experience daily. Andersen accepts, however, that wind energy is good energy, so long as it's not in his backyard or in the backyard of someone who doesn’t want it.
“Wind energy has its place,” said Andersen. “Not a quarter a mile from people's houses.”
Michael Green, another Wind Action Committee member, agreed that finding an accepting community is important to the citing of wind turbines. “There's plenty of communities …throughout the state of Massachusetts that have opened to wind energy with open arms, specifically here in Boston, the community of Hull,” said
Two more public meetings are scheduled to take place this month on the Cape and the Berkshires, after which the state will decide whether to accept the findings of the study or not.
Copyright 2012 WWLP TV. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
wind4sale | February 15 2012 1:04pm
Hull MA was indeed welcoming and underwent a risky experiment in siting an industrial turbine much closer to people than had been done previously, and placing it on a capped landfill/public land. They considered siting alternatives and put it where most Hull residents are more distant, and it was Hingham residents who weren't welcoming and also Hingham residents who have no recourse for complaint. Putting industrial turbines on jurisdictional borders seems to be a favored trick. Dr. Manwell said in his presentation that noise wasn't an issue in Hull, and they got one of the quietest turbines available in the Vestas (or any other)line They also seem to have prompt Vestas service, unlike the V82s in Falmouth which only seem to have whatever the construction firm arranged. Hull seems not to have evaded environmental assessment - RECs were donated to Weir River & MA Audubon did some avian studies, although how good surveillance could be is unclear. Hull 2 capacity isn't as good as Hull 1, but both are relatively near open water/flat open terrain, and wind shear is within the parameters for which large wind turbines are designed. I hear conflicting things about noise - one testifies that her daughter has never heard it and others say Hull 1 can be very loud. The football players like it because their opponents are distracted. Hull developed their wind energy program slowly, from grassroots, building from a small turbine like we see on Cape at regional technical schools, and then Hull 1 on Windmill point where maybe crashing surf or howling wind does help mask the noise of the few nearby homes (which don't seem to be downwind). It and Mass Military Academy are "old technology" - fixed speed (eliminating one source of noise variation). Hull 2's tower is shorter than Falmouth's. - You see Cape Cod really doesn't have a "good" wind resource and Hull would be expected to generate at least 75% more electricity based on the wind speed at 50 m (how it was defined in US)so a "workhorse" turbine for marginal wind resource was purchased by MTC. However, the Cape & Islands & Fairhaven all have something Hull doesn't - we have that extreme wind shear, so by changing from a 60 m tower to 80, 90, or 100 m, Falmouth has them beat. And let's increase rotor size for good measure. Only trouble is, all that makes more noise & malignant amplitude modulation of aerodynamic noise as first examined by NASA scientists - not pre-labelled, stigmatized, misinformed, fossil fuel funded "foes". The other thing about Hull is that it is "suburban"/urban industrial back-drop and close to Logan runways, so sound mitigation measures pre-exist and noise-sensitive, acoustic privacy/natural soundscape-loving people might not live there, especially in apartment buildings - we don't have them yet. If communities are well informed that industrial turbines are not silent or still, they might be "looming", if sound studies are not inadequately done to suggest that no one will hear it, if the alarming lack of science about noise prediction under real life atmospheric & meteorological conditions is overcome & communities still want them, great!! Those are huge ifs. Just be sure that the turbines are neighbors of the "decision-makers", not of others - that will assure that they do inform themselves adequately and that siting is equitable (it wasn't in Vinalhaven or any interior spots on Cape Cod so far. Make sure that environmental assessment is thorough, real risk assessment and mitigation plans are clear, funded & vetted by peer-reviewed studies. The Hull Municipal Light Board has at least some independence from the Town, the production is at least close to "distributed/on-site use", and the benefits/risks are shared by all Hull ratepayers. The ratepayers who funded Mass Renewable Energy Trust's contribution haven't been repaid in any way, but... UMass engineers developed Hull MA turbines, not MassCEC approved "consultants" and credit should be given for that In other words, Hull was an experiment with multiple variabes that really can't be replicated & that is critical in science. After seeing the new turbines near Route 3 and MMR's welcoming turbines on the way home from Beacon Hill, I am ready to declare that yes I am against industrialization of Cape Cod/Massachusetts' remaining wild places, I am not willing to "sacrifice" myself or others for the "greater good" or put avian species under any more stress than they are already under. I will continue my unfunded efforts against noise pollution and greenhouse gas/other pollutants from transport, the real local contribution we make to degradation of our air and waters, and I'll continue to advocate for our unattractive, but sheltering, CO2-sucking forests. I will continue to battle efforts to brain wash others with misinformation by bringing attention to what is known & also what is not known. I guess that's what I always thought science was about. Re the politicization of science, climate "science" in particular, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's State of Fear, 2004.
Add a Comment
Sign in or join now to post a comment. All comments will display your username and avatar.
