French couple wins legal fight over wind ‘turbine syndrome’
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Like, I've gotten somewhat used to it now, but I'd lie if I said it doesn't bother me. And again, I don't want to come across as someone against green technologies, we should be building lots and lots of these everywhere.....just maybe not this close to housing.
Genuinely, should I not be hearing these things? Are the turbines dramatically different?
The problem is making changes that will significantly affect nearby property values without the permission of the owners of those properties nor any compensation.
I live by an airport. I knew it when I moved. No complaints from me.
But, my house backs a golf course. It's zoned permanent green space. A developer bought the land at a discount (because it shouldn't be possible to redevelop it) and it sinking millions into buying local politicians to open the zoning up to condos and commercial use. Damn straight I write my local representatives about that. This isn't just putting a bigger building where one already existed - this is taking a giant green space and bulldozing it all for profit. I'm all for redeveloping underused plots and increasing density where buildings already exist. But removing all the parkland is a no-no to me.
I live under the approach to IAD (DC suburbs) and have jumbos passing overhead much of the morning. They're loud when I'm in my yard, but I barely hear them when inside. Same with the evening outbound jumbos - they don't pass overhead, but we can hear their engines run up for take-off if we're on the deck, but not in the bedroom.
Same for the Dulles Toll Road. I can hear it outside, but inside it just blends with general suburban ambient noise.
And both were here well before I bought the house, so I'd be a right dickhead to complain now (not that that stops many locals from doing so).
however - and i get all the behavioral econ that could back up why this is - but however, it really feels like we're going to NIMBY our way into total failure to address climate because of the 1,000 and 1 small inconveniences the changes will cause.
There are trains a few miles away that are fairly loud when the weather turns cold. Also wakes me up at night.
Noise pollution sucks, and if windmills are put up 500m from your house I think part of that process should involve the local homes is if all is that is true.
OTOH we live in a noisy world, are windmills any different?
I'm definitely not saying "stop building them", though.
On a side note, that's very similar to what tinnitus sounds like. Sometimes drives me mad.
Compared to city noise, wind turbines are extremely quiet.
Though I can imagine that if the sound of the wind turbine is the dominating sound (and probably people sleep with their windows open). That it could be extremely annoying.
If wind turbines does have an impact, it should be studied and understood so that, whatever the reason is behind the impact, it can be taken into account.
If not, there will always be the risk of backlash that would help nobody.
If the causes are understood, then there can be ways to control the impact, solve those issues or, at least, have a better idea where those should and should not be implanted.
'Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analysing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, and USA. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.'
However there wasn't such rules when the first wind turbine were built circa ~2005, and you have to keep in mind that wind turbines are usually located in places less desirable for housing and farming due to excessive wind.
Moreover, it's usually the mayor's office or the county's office which approve the construction. There was instances where the turbines were located at the edge of one county and they didn't check if it were bothering the neighbooring county before signing the deal.
Transmission isn’t that expensive in the scheme of things. Else offshore wind, of which I am a fan, would not be viable.
"The results showed that the experience of symptoms and mood during exposure to audible windfarm sound and infrasound was influenced by the type of expectations provided before exposure periods."
https://theconversation.com/wind-turbines-dont-make-you-feel...
>Despite at least 19 reviews of the scientific evidence universally concluding that exposure to wind farm sound doesn’t trigger adverse health effects, people continue to report feeling unwell because they live near wind turbines.
So I did a DDG search and the first thing that comes up is:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/#b14-05...
Which supports the conclusion that wind turbines lead to bad health affects, and inside it has at least 10 references to other studies that showed the same health affects.
Great, of course they don't mention that their are studies that do support the bad health affect. This is deliberately trying to trick the reader into thinking that this is all there is. Of course notice their clever wording. They know that would be a lie so they don't say it, they just imply it.
>In our new study, we took 60 participants and divided them into two groups – positive and negative. We then exposed them to audible wind farm sound, overlaid with infrasound, during two seven-minute listening sessions.
This is the kind of nonsense pseudo science that is prevalent everywhere in academia these days. The people claiming to get sick do so after months of tolerating the non stop sound. Seven minutes listening obviously isn't going to determine anything. And of course if you trick people into thinking that what they are about to listen to in the next 7 minutes will hurt them, then some will claim they were hurt. It is amazing people get paid for this.
>A study released this week by South Australia’s Environment Protection Authority (EPA) once again concluded there was no evidence linking noise from wind farms to sickness among residents living near the Waterloo Wind Farm.
This is like a tobacco company doing research that shows that smoking is harmless. Also, what does it even mean. People are getting sick, people are complaining, but don't worry, a study says it isn't actually happening. What does that even mean?
>A recent analysis of noise and health complaints in Australia found that adverse health reports have coincided with negative publicity about the health effects of wind farms
This is the only good study of the bunch. But a coincidence of negative publicity and people feeling empowered to come out and complain is not the same as saying that sickness was non existent before that. Certainly it seems most people stuck next to these things are very unhappy about it. Perhaps simply being miserable all the time is enough to make one sick. If that were the case then negative publicity would empower them to complain when before they felt powerless.
I am frustrated by people who are quick to NIMBY climate change and energy security solutions over the type of problems caused by every other type of industrial activities, including highways.
Being miserable by noise, and not just adapting to it as nearly all people adapt to other kinds of constant noise, seems like an attitude issue. Feeling powerless comes from making unreasonable demands and trying to put personal preference over the greater needs of the community and society.
Some quick searching turns out a few proverbs and wikipedia articles, but nothing conclusive: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn#Effets_sur_les_personnes https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vent_d%27autan
If you buy a house and then they start to build an airport, yes you should get compensation