Buy

Books
Click images for more details

The extraordinary attempts to prevent sceptics being heard at the Institute of Physics
Displaying Slide 2 of 5

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Why am I the only one that have any interest in this: "CO2 is all ...
Much of the complete bollocks that Phil Clarke has posted twice is just a rehash of ...
Much of the nonsense here is a rehash of what he presented in an interview with ...
Much of the nonsense here is a rehash of what he presented in an interview with ...
The Bish should sic the secular arm on GC: lese majeste'!
Recent posts
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Entries from November 1, 2012 - November 30, 2012

Sunday
Nov042012

Ill wind

A peer reviewed paper has claimed for the first time that wind turbines can detrimentally affect the sleep patterns of people living nearby. According to Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph:

American and British researchers compared two groups of residents in the US state of Maine. One group lived within a mile of a wind farm and the second group did not.

The findings provide the clearest evidence yet to support long-standing complaints from people living near turbines that the sound from their rotating blades disrupts sleep patterns and causes stress-related conditions.

Both sets of people were demographically and socially similar, but the researchers found major differences in the quality of sleep the two groups enjoyed.

This presumably opens the way for damages claims against windfarm investors.

The study will be used by critics of wind power to argue against new turbines being built near homes and for existing ones to be switched off or have their speed reduced, when strong winds cause their noise to increase.

The researchers used two standard scientific scales, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, which measures the quality of night-time sleep, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, which measures how sleepy people feel when they are awake.

“Participants living near industrial wind turbines had worse sleep, as evidenced by significantly greater mean PSQI and ESS scores,” the researchers, Michael Nissenbaum, Jeffery Aramini and Chris Hanning, found.

“There were clear and significant dose-response relationships, with the effect diminishing with increasing log-distance from turbines.”

The researchers also tracked respondents’ “mental component scores” and found a “significant” link – probably caused by poor-quality sleep – between wind turbines and poorer mental health.

More than a quarter of participants in the group living near the turbines said they had been medically diagnosed with depression or anxiety since the wind farm started. None of the participants in the group further away reported such problems.

Each person was also asked if they had been prescribed sleeping pills. More than a quarter of those living near the wind farm said they had. Less than a tenth of those living further away had been prescribed sleeping pills.

According to the researchers, the study, in the journal Noise and Health, is the first to show clear relationships between wind farms and “important clinical indicators of health, including sleep quality, daytime sleepiness and mental health”.

Unlike some common forms of sleep-disturbing noise, such as roads, wind turbine noise varies dramatically, depending on the wind direction and speed. Unlike other forms of variable noise, however, such as railways and aircraft, it can continue for very long

periods at a time. The nature of the noise — a rhythmic beating or swooshing of the blades — is also disturbing. UK planning guidance allows a night-time noise level from wind farms of 42 decibels – equivalent to the hum made by a fridge.

This means that turbines cannot be built less than 380-550 yards from human habitation, with the exact distance depending on the terrain and the size of the turbines.

However, as local concern about wind farm noise grows, many councils are now drawing up far wider cordons. Wiltshire, for instance, has recently voted to adopt minimum distances of between 0.6 to 1.8 miles, depending on the size of the turbines.

Dr Lee Moroney, director of planning at the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “The UK noise limits were drawn up 16 years ago, when wind turbines were less than half the current size. Worse still, the guidelines permit turbines to be built so close to houses that wind turbine noise will not infrequently be clearly audible indoors at night time, so sleep impacts and associated health effects are almost inevitable.

“This situation is obviously unacceptable and creating a lot of angry neighbours, but the industry and government response is slow and very reluctant. Ministers need to light a fire under their civil servants.”

The research will add to the growing pressure on the wind farm industry, which was attacked last week by the junior energy minister, John Hayes, for the way in which turbines have been “peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the local community or their wishes”. Saying “enough is enough”, Mr Hayes appeared to support a moratorium on new developments beyond those already in the pipeline.

He was slapped down by his Lib Dem boss, Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, but is unlikely to have made his remarks without some kind of nod from the top of Government. George Osborne, the Chancellor, is known to be increasingly sceptical about the effectiveness of wind power, which is heavily subsidised but delivers relatively little reduction in carbon dioxide.

Wind farms generate about a quarter of their theoretical capacity because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds. Earlier this year, more than 100 Tory MPs urged David Cameron to block the further expansion of wind power.

Whatever the Government decides, however, may not matter.

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that the EU will shortly begin work on a new directive which may impose a binding target for further renewable energy, mostly wind, on the UK. There is already a target, which is also Government policy, that 20 per cent of energy should come from renewables by 2020.

But Brussels is considering imposing an even higher mandatory target to be met over the following decade, according to Gunther Oettinger, the EU energy commissioner. “I want an interesting discussion on binding targets for renewables by 2030,” he said earlier this year.

Two weeks ago, a senior member of his staff, Jasmin Battista, said that Mr Oettinger was “open to” forced targets, though no decision had been made.

The European Parliament has voted for mandatory increases in renewables by 2030 and Mr Davey has also said he favours them. The issue will be considered at a European Council of Ministers meeting next month.

29 comments

Showing 1-25 of 29 comments

Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)

5 new comments were just posted. Show
  • The remedy and answer is very simple....Just stop all subsides and therefore  make the windfarm owners make a living from their "business" like most other commercial enterprises have to.....The landscape of Europe would soon be dotted with rusting metal.

  • Amazing how an article that claims a study is peer reviewed, not necessarily peer accepted, comes with absolutely no references. Is this church? Do we get assertions on faith?

  • I hope these setbacks can also be applied to dogs, cattle, sheep and passing airplanes and cars, as it is possible to obsess over any unwanted sound. Cattle and dogs should be outlawed in the country because they are loud and annoying. 

  • This is a flawed study by long-time anti-wind lobbyists that mistakes correlation for causation published in a third-rate journal and 'peer-reviewed' by professional anti-wind testifiers. Hardly a smoking gun, more like a dribbling water pistol.

    http://www.quora.com/Wind-Powe...

  • It appears Mr Barnard that you are in the minority on this board.  Why would this study done by multinational experts in various fields, including epidemiology, not be as valid as the ones that are several years old and put out by the wind industry?

  • Even if this is true which is doubtful it can easily be remedied by putting a minimum distance between residebtial properties and wind turbines. As it's perfectly possible to build turbines offshore this is not a problem.

  • This problem is so simple to cure.  Windfarm companies must be contracted to provide a specified amount of power in a  specified period.  If the windfarm produces less than the amount then it is to be removed and the environment returned to its pre-windfarm state at the cost of the windfarm company.  This to include removal of any roads or power lines, removal of any bases (concrete, tarmac or other) and of course removal of the windmills.

    So as we are assured that windfarms will provide the power for (n) houses - this should not be an impost as all windfarms are completely efficient.

  • I like your idea nautonnier.  If wind turbines don't perform at the levels that the wind industry says they will, shut them down and get rid of them.
    And as we all know, they don't perform anywhere near what the wind companies tell us they will.   

  • Another good reason for leaving the EU. The sands are shifting under the foundations of this overhyped and over subsidised scam. Thank you Andrew Gilligan for once again speaking the truth.

  • Never mind the noise from wind turbines, it's the gormless wittering of the greenies that is damaging my mental health; subsidies do not create jobs you deluded cretins, subsidies destroy jobs.

  • Oh here we go; the trolls are creeping out from under bridges to decry the report; no interest in people suffering or having to move from their homes around the world; no research done on the subject; no sense - just an ability to write rubbish everyone's heard over and over and which is now extremely boring

  • But Mary, you do not understand!  We are expendable so that the greens may achieve their goal of becoming Ubermenschen who decide the inevitable triumph of manifest socialist destiny in accordance with their master plan crafted by master debaters.  

    For instance, if you have more than two children, those over that number must be donated for medical experiments and for erecting new wind towers at Camp Happy Happy Joy Joy.

    Do not worry, They will be so happy. They will be equipped with Happy Helmets.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  • jack scht.  You do need your medication now, dear chap.  You have obviously not been subject to the noise of a wind turdbine which, as has been proven by many victims in this country and around the world, can and does cause serious health problems. 

  • Sleep deprivation is a popular method of torture used by unscrupulous governments. Usually, this is carried out on terrorists or subversives in the guise of "national security".

    Unfortunately, it is also carried out on law abiding citizens who just happen to live in the wrong place...

  • Lets hope they don't live by the sea, the noise of that used to drive me up the wall.  And whatever you do never go to Africa or Australia, the non stop sound of crickets is suicidal. Never live in a city the sound of traffic and especially the sirens of cops is a murder waiting to happen.  Whenever I visit my mum in the country I just want to kill every owl that has ever lived. Ear plugs anybody.

  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    Yesterday 10:09 PM

    " the noise of that used to drive me up the wall. "

    I doubt it.

    I think you were probably up the wall to start with.

  • That is exactly the point, people obsess over something they don't like, and make themselves loose sleep over it. The sound of wind turbines are no worse than other common sounds. When people share in the profits from turbines, almost no one is bothered. Isn't that interesting? Ownership (and Money) a Cure for NIMBY

  • Take another sip of your anti psychotic medication!

  • Try therapy Jack (or earplugs)

    PS, this is cynical, to avoid confusion :(

    .

  • This is why there is rage in the countryside. A big public health scandal in the making. The industry and the Government have tried to keep a lid on this, now they will have to get their cheque books out!

    (Edited by author 9 hours ago)

  • Not to mention the most beautiful countryside in the world blighted by these things.

    And where does the Country landowners Association (CLA) stand on this?

    You know, the people that got us all out protesting against restrictions on fox hunting on the grounds that they were protecting the countryside and the rural way of life?

    Well, the CLA can help our countryside conscious landowners with their applications for windfarms and the grnts that go with them.

    Preservation of the country, or preservation of their bank balances?

    .

  • Packs of dogs barking all night are far worse than wind turbines.

  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    Yesterday 10:08 PM

    "And where does the Country landowners Association (CLA) stand on this?"

    Laughing all the way to the bank, if "Sir" Reg Sheffield is anything to go by.

  • Considering wind is almost ntirely tax payer subsidised, that's us again then.

    Why do we put up with this? Why do we allow them to get away with this utter crock?

  •  Renewables payed back 7 billion Euros last year; making money explains why people like wind power. No water use and no pollution of air or water are more reasons.  Getting poisoned by coal use and paying extra for it is really hard to find an advantage for.

blog comments powered by Disqus

FIND YOUR CHEAPEST GAS & ELECTRICITY DEALS

<SCRIPT language="JavaScript1.1" SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N5030.152130.7253069880621/B6820735.2;abr=!ie;sz=160x600;click=http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%253Fsa%253DL%2526ai%253DB-AbTnCGWUKKPF-Wqigba7YGYCK6pm9UCAAAAEAEgADgAWL7s-OM3YLv2x4PcCoIBF2NhLXB1Yi0xOTEzNjg5NTcwNzEyNjY2sgETd3d3LnRlbGVncmFwaC5jby51a7oBCWdmcF9pbWFnZcgBCdoBeGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGVsZWdyYXBoLmNvLnVrL2VhcnRoL2VuZXJneS93aW5kcG93ZXIvOTY1MzQyOS9XaW5kLWZhcm0tbm9pc2UtZG9lcy1oYXJtLXNsZWVwLWFuZC1oZWFsdGgtc2F5LXNjaWVudGlzdHMuaHRtbJgCsAmpAhMqMJT34Lo-wAIC4AIA6gIvNjU4Mi90bWcudGVsZWdyYXBoLmVhcnRoL2VhcnRoLmVuZXJneS53aW5kcG93ZXL4AoHSHpAD0AWYA9AFqAMB4AQBoAYg%2526num%253D0%2526sig%253DAOD64_2q0DD7-cccJONj45JCLVuKgoLqTw%2526client%253Dca-pub-1913689570712666%2526adurl%253D;ord=301140597?"></SCRIPT>

FEATURED ADVERTISING

  • FREE 2013 Photo Wall Calendar

    Choose from a variety of themed designs, upload your photos and customise the logos and text - it's as simple as that. Vistaprint will do the rest.

  • Create 10 FREE personalised Christmas Cards

    Pick from thousands of quality Christmas designs - add your special touch with photos, images and messages. Exclusively from Vistaprint.

Saturday
Nov032012

Northern hemisphere temperatures and a finite number of 'monkeys'

This is a guest post by Rob Wilson. Please note, this post forms part of a project for Rob's students and comments will be read and discussed by them. I will therefore be enforcing a fairly strict moderation policy.

As a dendroclimatologist, I am well used to noisy data. Addressing whether the mean “signal” in a sample is a robust reflection of the theoretical population is a key step in any dendrochronological (and statistical) analysis. With this in mind, I find it strange that there can be even any debate as to the “quality” of large scale temperature data-sets (HADLEY/CRU, NASA GISS and NOAA/NGDC) where, compared to trees, the issues related to “noise” (e.g. changes in instruments, movement of monitoring stations, non-ideal location of monitoring stations etc) seem much more trivial, in my mind, than the myriad of different tree and site specific factors that can influence tree-growth.

This is not a blog post about trees and climate however, but rather instrumental data and the robustness of large-scale trends.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Nov022012

UKIP debate report

Mike Haseler has written a report on the UKIP Glasgow debate the other night. It can be seen here.

At the Glasgow debate on Catastrophic Global warming, despite the presence of Jim Sillars, Lord Monckton and Andrew Montford, not one MSP had the guts to attend. Given the quality of the speakers we can understand why. But even so, for not one of dozens of politicians, NGOs & quangos who have profited from this nonsense in the past, to be willing to stand up for it now, speaks more volume than their silence at the debate. The sole representative of the doomsday cult was a one brave individual from the wind industry who did a valiant job making the case which all those others now aren't prepared to do.

 

Thursday
Nov012012

Operation Cabin files

Martin Rosenbaum is the BBC's FOI correspondent and was also responsible for the Climategate Revisited programme last night. He has just emailed to say that he has published some of his research material for the show, including material obtained from Norfolk Constabulary's case files for the Climategate investigation.

Read it here.

Thursday
Nov012012

Two questions

The BBC's Five Live Drive programme yesterday interviewed a chap called Dale Vince from a company called Ecotricity. The segment is embedded below. During the show, he made the claim that government support for onshore wind only costs the consumer £5 per year.

Here are two questions:

1. What is the basis of this figure?

2. What is the cost to the consumer of the renewables obligation (which doesn't count as "support")

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Mr Vince makes £6m per year in subsidies on his windfarm empire. I think the BBC should probably have mentioned this.

Drive excerpt

Thursday
Nov012012

Scottish Power on cost of green policies

I was pointed to this brochure at last night's [Tuesday's] UKIP meeting (click for full size). It does seem to show that Ed Davey is trying very hard to make those in fuel poverty even poorer and even colder.

 

Page 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6