The Rangitikei Guardians Inc.

New Zealand wind farms � a public policy failure.

Source: Paul Stichbury, Wordpress.Com. April 13, 2012

The Turitea and Puketoi Wind Farms. A Case Study.

New Zealand prides itself on its clean green image and it truly is a beautiful country with friendly people, but there is a dark side. Global warming hysterics have successfully infiltrated government and their presence is leading to dramatic effects on unsuspecting citizens. Rent seekers and carpet baggers have been quick to spot the opportunities on offer. A recent NZ Wind Energy conference predicts approximately .4% of the country will be covered in wind farms. The bulk of these wind farms will be located in the lower third of the North Island. No public discussion about this has ever taken place. Our city, Palmerston North, was the first victim. Mighty River Power, a state owned electricity generator, which in a few months time will be offered for sale to the public to shore up government finances, has taken a key role in this, but there are serious problems.

The 60 (125metre high) turbine Turitea wind farm, after an exhausting process, has been approved in an urban area right on two major fault lines, this despite the series of devastating earthquakes in Christchurch, NZ�s second city, which have resulted in huge damage and an exodus to Australia. The now retired judge, Shonagh Kenderdine, who chaired and authored the Final Decision approving the wind farm, ignored evidence of the danger posed by these fault lines, the Wellington and Northern Ohariu faults, Link ,refused to examine the once secret contract between Palmerston North city and Mighty River Power, which imposes a $3 million penalty on the city if any help is given to affected residents, Link , refused to reveal the contents of a Memorandum of Understanding with a local Maori group, which is rumoured to include a multimillion dollar pay off, gave a geographical location for the wind farm in the Final Decision which places it inside the neighbouring town of Pahiatua, reinstated turbines right over property which had previously been deleted, ignored evidence that the noise standard applied was fraudulently developed, Link, refused to deal with perjury and internet espionage by the applicant, Link and ignored the legal requirement to protect the endangered NZ native falcon. One local family in particular has very serious complaints about Kenderdine�s conduct. Link

Now that is a damning list of failures from an Environment Court judge, but there�s more from this woman who in her bio listed her interest in global warming. Kenderdine has landed the cushy, if not snobby, job of chairing the NZ Historic Places Trust. Link Under her tutelage the Trust has recently successfully demanded that 200 buildings just downwind from the Turitea Wind Farm be strengthened because of the severe earthquake risk. Movement on the Wellington fault is in the region of 4 to 5 metres horizontally and 1 metre vertically. Shutter ridges under the Tararua Ranges are said to be more pronounced than those on the San Andreas Fault.

Is there more? Well yes there is, Kenderdine has discarded all pretence that she was not in the pocket of the wind industry and on the 3rd of April addressed the NZ Wind Energy Conference as a key note speaker on how to put wind turbines as close as possible to human habitation. Link She also chaired a panel discussion on this issue. NZ law prohibits going after a retired judge for a faulty or corrupt decision. So that lets her off the hook, doesn�t it?

The stupidity doesn�t stop there, though. Mighty River Power has at this very moment a neighbouring wind farm, Puketoi, with 53 turbines 160 metres high, before a three man commission. This wind farm is also in an earthquake zone and like Turitea the severe earthquake risk has been deliberately downplayed. a href="http://turiteadocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/oral-presentation-in-support-of-written-submissions-to-the-puketoi-wind-farm-hearing-3-march-2012.pdf" target="_new">Link The Company has also removed all details of the Puketoi application from its website. Link to screencap

So won�t the uninsurable wind farms, proposed and consented in the Wairarapa and which are planned to feed their power through the Turitea wind farm into the grid in Manawatu, be a boon to the country�s electricity supply? Well, not quite. The grid in the Manawatu can only cope with 450MW from the currently operating Te Apiti and Tararua wind farms. The line through Turitea will bring a further 1300MW. This means much of this intermittent electricity cannot be dispatched and if it were it would cause substation failures and blackouts. The green euphoria by the oligarchy running NZ will blow up in our faces. Transpower, which manages the grid, has no credible answer to this problem. Link

Failure to bring these matters to the investing public�s notice with the selloff of this state owned asset is, in our opinion, fraudulent.

Finally, you may ask why none of this has been reported in the media. The answer is simple. NZ has huge liabilities under Kyoto, if it ever revives. Link The local paper, the Manawatu Standard, is like most papers in NZ, owned by Fairfax, which has a vested interest in climate alarmism and a one third ownership of Earth Hour. Link The Standard knows about the earthquake risk, the corrupt contract disenfranchising their own readers and devaluing hundreds of properties and the problems relating to dispatching wind generated electricity, but has chosen to remain silent. On the earthquake risk to Palmerston North, however, it has had plenty to say. Link

All this is happening at the same time as electricity use in NZ is static and even dropping due to more efficient appliances and prevailing economic conditions. Link

Let�s hope commonsense prevails.

Link to a range of documents

VESTAS attempt to avoid recommended Low Frequency Noise measurement

Source: EPAW, NAPAW 29 March 2012

Acronyms EPAW: European Platform Against Windfarms NA-PAW: North American Platform Against Windpower NSW: New South Wales LFN: low frequency noise ILFN: infrasound and low frequency noise

In a submission to the government of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, world-leading wind turbine manufacturer Vestas asked to drop the requirement for measuring emissions of low frequency noise (LFN), despite scientific studies indicating that they have adverse effects on the health of neighbours. This flies in the face of a new Danish policy, announced March 26th, aiming at improving the ethics of exporting companies, e.g. on human rights. Denmark''''''''s Wind Turbine regulations recognise that LFN can be a health problem.

The draft windfarm guidelines proposed by concerned officials in NSW require that LFN emitted by wind turbines be measured. But in a letter to them dated March 14th, Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Danish multinational Vestas, "suggests the removal of the requirement to measure low frequency noise from the Draft Guidelines". Actually, they go as far as proposing the removal of the whole section on health: "Ideally, the entirety of Section 1.3 (e) should be deleted" (1).

Furthermore, the letter''''''''s author Mr McAlpine admits that "the existing and well validated industry standard models for acoustic propagation are NOT designed to deal with frequencies at the low end of the audible spectrum". For the Waubra Foundation, this is a smoking gun: "to date, infrasound and LFN (ILFN) have been ignored altogether, and Vestas obviously wants to keep the issue buried".

Dr Sarah Laurie, the Foundation''''''''s CEO, explains: "Why are Vestas suggesting to remove the requirement to measure low frequency noise, when there is evidence that wind turbines emit ILFN which correlate with people''''''''s serious health problems (2,3), and that larger turbines emit even more at these frequencies (4)? Why is this technology being imposed upon the global community while ignoring the health effects of long term exposure to ILFN emitted by these machines?" She adds: "Vestas claim their turbines are safe, but where is the data that proves it? - There is none. Yet, all the actual clinical data collected by physicians and reported by windfarm neighbours shows that there are some very serious impacts on health, which worsen over time (5)."

Dr Laurie further points out that, at a windfarm in Waterloo, South Australia, consisting of 37 x 3MW Vestas wind turbines, a study revealed that 70% of the population living within 5km reported being "negatively affected" by the noise (6). The Waubra Foundation knows residents living up to 5km away from wind farms who have had to leave their homes because of growing health problems. "Residents at Waterloo living out to 10km report awakening in the middle of the night ''''''''in a panicked state'''''''', a symptom experienced by many windfarm neighbours worldwide, apparently linked to inaudible noise, ear pressure, and body vibrations related to wind turbine exposure."

Vestas are trying to hide other impacts as well, notes Mark Duchamp of EPAW. "Their letter proposes to eliminate the NSW 2 km setback, as well as compensation for losses in property values, and the whole section on blade throw".

People�s health and well-being is in serious danger when industrial lobbies are imposing their conditions to elected officials, opines Sherri Lange, of NA-PAW. �Much the same is happening in North America, where the health issue has been pushed under the carpet. This will cost taxpayers dearly, for ultimately they will have to pay for all the damage done. Criminal charges may even be laid against decision-makers, for knowingly doing harm to health and life."

Contact:

Dr Sarah Laurie + 61 439 865 914 (Australia) CEO, Waubra Foundation sarah@waubrafoundation.com.au

Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736 (Spain) Skype: mark.duchamp Executive Director, EPAW www.epaw.org save.the.eagles@gmail.com

Sherri Lange +1 416 567 5115 (Canada) CEO, NA-PAW www.na-paw.org kodaisl@rogers.com

References:

1) - Vestas submission to NSW Dept of Planning: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pl0fPPM1-18%3D&tabid=205&mid=1081&language=en-US

2) - Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand �The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study� Falmouth, December, 2011 http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/bruce-mcpherson-infrasound-and-low-frequency-noise-study/

3) - Steven Cooper, "Review of Draft NSW guidelines" http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/review-of-nsw-draft-wind-farm-guidelines/

4) - Moller & Pedersen, renowned acousticians from the University of Aarlborg �Low Frequency Noise from Large Turbines� J Acoustical Society America 2011 129: 3727 - 3744: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/low-frequency-noise-from-large-wind-turbines-2/

5) - Physicians include Dr Amanda Harry (UK 2003), Dr David Iser (Australia, 2004) , Dr Nina Pierpont (USA, 2009), Professor Robert McMurtry (Canada, 2010), Dr Michael Nissenbaum (USA 2010), Dr Sarah Laurie (Australia, 2011), material is available from the following websites: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/article-archive/, www.windvigilance.com, www.waubrafoundation.com.au, and www.wind-watch.org

(6) - Zhenhua Wang, survey conducted on wind farm noise at the Waterloo wind farm http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/evaluation-of-wind-farm-noise-policies-in-south-australia/

Wind Turbine Syndrome affects more people than previously thought

A survey was conducted on wind farm noise as part of a Master�s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang, a graduate student in Geography, Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide, Australia. The results show that 70% of respondents living up to 5km away report being negatively affected by wind turbine noise, with more than 50% of them "very or moderately negatively affected". This is considerably higher than what was found in previous studies conducted in Europe.

The survey was made in the vicinity of the Waterloo wind farm, South Australia, which is composed of 37 Vestas V90 3 MW turbines stretching over 18 km (1). These mega turbines are reported to be emitting more low frequency noise (LFN) than smaller models, and this causes more people to be affected, and over greater distances, by the usual symptoms of the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS): insomnia, headaches, nausea, stress, poor ability to concentrate, irritability, etc, leading to poorer health and a reduced immunity to illness.

The Danish government recognised recently that LFN is an aggravating component in the noise that affects wind farm neighbours. This prompted their issuing regulations that limit low-frequency noise levels inside homes to 20 dB(A). Unfortunately, as denounced by Professor Henrik Moller, they manipulated the calculation parameters so as to allow LFN inside homes to actually reach 30 dB(A) in 30% of cases. �Hardly anyone would accept 30 dB(A) in their homes at night�, wrote the Professor last month (2).

A summary of the Australian survey has been published (3), but the full Masters dissertation has not been made available to the public. In the interest of public health, the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North-American Platform against Windpower (NA-PAW), have asked the University of Adelaide to release this important document.

A neighbour of the Waterloo wind farm, Mr Andreas Marciniak, wrote to a local newspaper last week: "Do you think it''''s funny that at my age I had to move to Adelaide into my Mother�s shed and my brother had to move to Hamilton into a caravan with no water or electricity?" (4) Both Mr Marciniak and his brother have been advised by their treating doctors, including a cardiologist, to leave their homes and not return when the wind turbines are turning.

How many people will be forced to abandon their homes before governments pay attention, wonder the thousands of windfarm victims represented by EPAW and NAPAW. "It''ll take time to gather enough money for a big lawsuit", says Sherri Lange, of NAPAW, "but time is on our side: victim numbers are increasing steadily."

Source: EPAW, NAPAW - 7 March 2012

References:

(1) - http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/waterloo_wind_farm_officially_opened/054715/

(2) - http://www.epaw.org/press/EPAW_NA-PAW_media_release_10Feb2012.pdf

(3) - http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/evaluation-of-wind-farm-noise-policies-in-south-australia/

(4) - Letter sent to the Editor of the Burra Broadcaster by Mr. Andreas Marciniak, windfarm victim.

Smart Meter Removal has begun in California!

Source: Canada Free Press

California�s Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) has quietly begun replacing Smart Meters with analog meters for citizens reporting adverse health effects. Consumer rights and other groups demanded immediately that their wireless devices be removed from their homes.

Joshua Hart of stopsmartmeters.org reported the good news just as PG&E deploys the last phase of its smart meters in California. The Department of Energy�s promise that the smart grid and smart meters will lower electricity costs has proven incorrect; on the contrary, the utility costs have skyrocketed.

Millions of customers were unhappy with their Smart Meters. They are surveillance devices in homes, without a search warrant, which is a violation of privacy. Fires, explosions, and health issues ranging from nausea, dizziness, heart palpitations, headaches, tinnitus, insomnia, and radiation exposure associated with powerful wireless devices that transmit information 6-8 per minute constantly, have plagued the stealthy and deceptive installation.

California�s counties and cities have demanded a stop to smart meter installation and some local governments passed laws prohibiting wireless meters. Nevada�s Pacific Utilities Company (PUC) called for investigation into the adverse health effects and other smart meter issues.

Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey assured customers that the utility �will provide for you to go back to the analog meter if that�s your choice.� The problem is that most Americans have no idea how damaging these smart meters are and an even larger group of Americans have never heard of it or see it as a contribution to �save� the planet because that is how these meters were sold to the public.

The tired rhetoric said that the smart grid and smart meters save the planet from doom and gloom, reduce waste by cutting your electricity at peak usage, eliminates the reader who must go to each home to calculate their monthly consumption, reduces your carbon footprint, and it will make the planet �green.� The reality is very far from the disingenuous promises.

Californians� electric bills have almost tripled and lawsuits ensued. Marylanders swelter without electricity six hours at the peak of summer and almost freeze six hours in the dead of winter. An analog meter user who insisted on keeping it has to pay $35 each month to have his meter read by the power company. Thousands of customers across the country are having severe health issues from radiation that are not being addressed.

Millions are having issues with the power company selling wireless data collected from their homes via smart meters to third parties. Anybody with a handheld device can capture information from your home and sell it to a third party. The utility company knows if you are home, if you are away, if you are on vacation, which lights are turned on, which appliances, which computers, TVs, and other devices in your home.

Caitlin Phillips of Santa Cruz, Ca, who had suffered severe headaches and other symptoms from her smart meter, became the first person for whom PG&E re-installed on October 28, 2011 the classic analog meter. Caitlin Phillips had told the Wellington Energy installer, a subcontractor of PG&E, that she did not want a smart meter. �When I returned home later, I discovered a smart meter on my house. That night I awoke to severe anxiety, headache, and buzzing in my teeth, and realized the new smart meter was on the other side of the wall from my bed.�

Caitlin received help from �Stop Smart Meters� group who referred her to sources to obtain an analog meter and a person to install it. Her symptoms disappeared immediately after the analog meter was installed.

Caitlin spoke to a commission meeting in San Francisco about her ordeal and, a week later PG&E crews replaced her temporary analog meter with an official PG&E analog meter. Her frustration, pain, and suffering were finally over.

An �opt-out� proceeding is currently overseen by an Administrative Law Judge at the California Public Utilities Commission. �There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people suffering in their homes from forced �smart� meter radiation,� said Joshua Hart, Director of the grassroots organization Stop Smart Meters!

PG&E and other utilities have responded to health complaints by replacing wireless �smart� meters with digital meters that are �wireless-ready.� These digital meters have been associated with health problems from �dirty electricity� frequencies that pass into a home via the electrical wiring. Digital meters have been rejected by customers who still report health issues after installation. (Joshua Hart)

Susan Brinchman, Director of the San Diego based Center for Electrosmog Prevention, said, �At this point, the burden of responsibility is on the utilities to demonstrate that any new meter they want to install on our homes is safe. Communities have the right to retain analog meters at no extra charge.�

While California is pushing back the not so smart wireless technology, places like northern Virginia are going full steam ahead with the installation. Dominion Power has completed placing 100,000 smart meters in a pilot phase in three counties.

�There are hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of people suffering in their homes from forced �smart� meter radiation,� said Joshua Hart, Director of the grassroots organization Stop Smart Meters! �The utilities must respond promptly to all requests that analogs be returned. The alternative is that people will increasingly turn to independent professionals to remove unwanted �smart� meters from their homes, a reasonable action we assert is within our legal rights. Protecting your family�s health is not tampering.�

Energy strategy ignores modern science, wastes money

Tuesday, 30 August 2011, 5:08 pm Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

The New Zealand Energy Strategy 2011-2021 announced by the government today ignores recent climate evidence and portends a huge waste of money at a time when the country can least afford it. This comment today from energy analyst, Bryan Leyland, spokesman for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

�The target of 90% renewable energy is both unrealistic and unnecessary,� says Mr Leyland. �The huge amounts of money on expensive and largely ineffective new renewable energy technologies cannot succeed in controlling the climate.

�First, all the major temperature records tell us the world has not warmed for between 10 and 15 years. The climate models that predicted rapid warming over this period, have proved to be wrong.

�Second, more and more independent climate scientists around the world are in agreement that emissions of carbon dioxide have little or no influence on whether the Earth warms, so the burning of fossil fuels will have no measurable effect on our climate. New Zealand has enough coal and lignite to provide low cost electricity for more than 1000 years, so there is absolutely no need to waste time and money on costly generation methods such as wind turbines and solar panels. Plus, we still have low cost renewable resources such as hydro and geothermal which have not yet been fully exploited.

�It is now well accepted that sunspots are declining and that we may be heading for a period when there will be no sunspots. Past history tells us that, when this happens, the world cools quite severely. So the sunspots tell us that the world is likely to cool while the climate modelers ignore the evidence and still predict warming, �Mr Leyland continued.

�Recent evidence from an experiment carried out at CERN in Geneva, tends to confirm previous research that cosmic rays trigger the formation of clouds. A 1% change in cloud cover can account for all the temperature variations we have experienced over the last century. Climate models still cannot model cloud formation accurately.

�Given all these uncertainties and the continued failure of the world to warm, the only rational strategy is to put our Emissions Trading Scheme on hold, by zero rating it to remove the costs being imposed on all New Zealanders, but leaving the legislation in place until the rest of the world decides whether such impositions are either effective or justified.

�Meantime, our government should continue to encourage research into all available forms of energy, with special emphasis on those that have a good chance of being economically viable in the near future,� Mr Leyland concluded.

WIND FARM SWINDLE

By: Tony Elliott writing for The Cypress Times
Published 26/06/2011

The duping of Americans by the environmentalist movement continues, as wind farms use as much electricity from the fossil fuel grid as they produce. This article comes from reliable research derived for what I call the Wind Farm Swindle. The proof that it is a swindle, has been gathered from the very annals of the wind farm movement and from the companies involved in Turbine produced electricity itself.

If you''ve ever driven close to the huge wind turbine, I''m sure some of you have wondered how long it must take for the wind to start turning such large blades on some of these windmills and how they are stopped, when the wind gets too high for them to operate.

You won''t hear anybody in the environmental movement or the renewable energy business tell you this, but as it turns out, all wind turbines use about the same amount of grid electricity as they produce. Large wind turbines require huge amounts of fossil fuel grid electricity to operate. Wind farms have to use electricity from the grid and of course, this large amount of grid electricity is never accounted for in relation to output figures.

Wind turbine functions that use fueled derived electricity are as follows:

yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together, weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine

blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)

lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.

heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine''s nominal (rated) power

heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle, must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"

oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox

hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)

thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost

magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft. At the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine''s rated capacity in slower winds, possibly much more.

Using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during important site tours.) It surely seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning. Along with the gears which increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind. (1)

What all this amounts to is, each wind turbine actually uses more than 60% of its rated capacity in its own operation. Thus, each wind farm as a whole, produces only less than 25% of its annual rated capacity. This means that wind farms use twice the amount of grid electricity for every amount of wind-generated electricity produced.

I''m sure this is news to most Americans, who thought and naturally assumed that wind turbines only produced electricity and it never occurred to a normal person that these devices would actually require Fossil Fueled electricity to operate. Since no records of electricity usage is ever kept at these wind farms, this alarming fact has never become public knowledge.

Since it is admitted by everyone that wind generated electricity only amounts to around 1% of our total produced electricity, these hidden facts bring that figure down to a negative percentage at best. Using more electricity than it produces, green electricity is the reason for Cap and Trade, since green credits can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

Killing perhaps millions of endangered bird species per year, degrading human health in the same manner as is experienced with people living near high voltage power lines. Ruining many of the earth''s most scenic spots, with these huge steel monstrosities and above all, doing nothing in alleviating any fossil fuel electricity usage is the reason these expensive and dangerous eyesores must go.

In today''s economy, we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a Nigerian like fraud, such as the wind farm swindle.

(1) In large rotating power trains such as this, if allowed to stand motionless for any period of time, the unit will experience "bowing" of shafts and rotors under the tremendous weight. Therefore, frequent rotating of the unit is necessary to prevent this. As an example, even in port Navy ships keep their propeller shafts and turbine power trains slowly rotating. It is referred to as "jacking the shaft" to prevent any tendency to bow. Any bowing would throw the whole train out of balance with potentially very serious damage when bringing the power train back on line. ''In addition to just protecting the gear box and generator shafts and bearings, the blades on a large wind turbine would offer a special challenge with respect to preventing warping and bowing when not in use. For example, on a sunny, windless day, idle wind turbine blades would experience uneven heating from the sun, something that would certainly cause bowing and warping. The only way to prevent this would be to keep the blades moving to even out the sun exposure to all parts of the blade. ''So, the point that major amounts of incoming electrical power is used to turn the power train and blades when the wind is not blowing is very accurate, and it is not something the operators of large wind turbines can avoid.

The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms

The report from the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into the impacts of wind farms has been released. While falling short of calling for a moratorium on wind farm development, the committee has furnished a number of recommendations.

The committee acknowledged that there is a significant ultra-low frequency (infrasound) component in the noise and vibration generated by a wind turbine and that current sound measuring methods are failing to identify this emanation.

The results of an Italian study were presented which showed that infrasound in the region of 1.7Hz can be detected as far as 11kms from a windfarm.

Regarding the NZ Standard 6808 - Wind Farm Noise, the report says "It is concluded that wind farm noise prediction, as implemented under NZS6808 (the New Zealand wind farm standard) is not adequate in assessing potential adverse effect and implementation of the standard does not and will not provide an acceptable level of amenity. Application of the standard does not provide a conservative assessment of sound levels that may be experienced under different meteorological conditions."

To read the full report, please click here.

The Green Thing

In the line at the supermarket, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren''t good for the environment. The woman apologized to her and explained, "We didn''t have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That''s our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

She was right, that generation didn''t have the green thing in its day.

Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soft drink bottles and beer bottles to the shop.. The shop sent them back to the factory to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. They were recycled.

But they didn''t have the green thing back in that customer''s day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn''t have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn''t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn''t have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby''s nappies because they didn''t have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in a 220 volt energy gobbling machine - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right; they didn''t have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of a cricket pitch. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn''t have electric machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. They didn''t have air conditioning or electric stoves with self cleaning ovens. They didn''t have battery operated toys, computers, or telephones.

Back then, they didn''t fire up an engine and burn fuel just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They used hand operated clippers to trim the shrubs. They exercised by working so they didn''t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she''s right; they didn''t have the green thing back then.

They drank from a glass filled from the tap when they were thirsty instead of using a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn''t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people walked or took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn''t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn''t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn''t have the green thing back then?

(Forwarded to us by Climate Realists - www.climaterealists.org.nz)

Doctor�s call: stop wind farm construction

By ALAN DICK 06 May, 2011 (farmonline.com.au)
A doctor campaigning on the claimed health impacts of wind farms has called for a halt to construction of wind turbines within 10 kilometres of housing until independent research is conducted.

She said research was needed, particularly on the impact of infrasound � sound below the level of normal human hearing.

Dr Sarah Laurie, medical director at the Waubra Foundation, made the call in her submission to the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Committee into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms.

(The Waubra Foundation was formed to generate independent research on the health effects of wind farms, in response to reported problems associated with the Waubra wind farm near Ballarat, Victoria.)

The inquiry has received almost 900 submissions and become a battleground of competing views on the value of and need for wind farms and on health impacts.

Many submissions from landholders speak of negative health effects.

But other landholders, wind farm developers and �green� organisations have talked up the need for wind farms as alternatives to burning of fossil fuels in electricity generation, and some landholders hosting wind turbines have emphasised their benign nature and the importance of the guaranteed income they provide.

Dr Laurie told the committee numerous doctors around the world who had conducted studies on their patient populations had reported health problems since wind farms started operating near their homes.

�There is absolutely no doubt these turbines, particularly at some developments, are making nearby residents very sick, and that their symptoms worsen over time.�

�This is resulting in people abandoning their homes and farms, if they can afford to.�

Dr Laurie said the �strong hypothesis� among concerned doctors, acousticians, physiologists, physicists, psychologists and others around the world was that one of the mechanisms causing ill health was low frequency sound and infrasound.

She said episodes of sleep disturbance and waking in a panicked state were being experienced by people living up to 10 kilometres from existing wind developments in South Australia and NSW.

She said research was needed to measure infrasound concurrent with indices such as sleep and blood pressure in affected residents when turbines were operating, and to compare results when the turbines were not operating.

However, wind farm companies and others, including the Australian Psychological Society, have dismissed suggestions of negative health effects from wind farms.

The latter in its submission said the Senate committee should take into consideration the �robust evidence base� which suggested wind farms did not present any major health risk,

The APS said local opposition to wind farms could be understood in terms of �place protective action�, and recommended use of �psychological principles� to explain and promote the benefits of wind farms.

The NSW Government in its submission said the World Health organisation had concluded there was no reliable evidence that sounds beneath the hearing threshold produced physiological or psychological effects.

Turbines back on agenda

By Janine Rankin writing for the Manawatu Standard.

Mighty River Power has reignited the battle over the Turitea Wind Farm with a push to add 12 extra turbines to make the project viable � despite a draft decision already being issued capping the number at 60.

The power company has asked the board of inquiry that heard its application for resource consent last year to reconvene to hear its revised plans.

Opponents who have made what they thought were final submissions on the board''s draft decision are aghast at the prospect.

Submitter Detlef Klein said Mighty River Power''s last-minute plea was "unbelievable". Another, Helen Harker, called it a travesty.

The board heard 10 weeks of evidence over nine months on the original proposal, ending in March last year.

It released a draft decision almost a year later, in February, that cut the number of turbines it would allow from 104 to 60.

Concerns about the wind farm''s impact on the view of the skyline from Palmerston North led to the board''s imposition of a clear path through the middle of it, with turbines allowed to the north and south.

Mighty River Power said the board had effectively cut its wind farm in two, and had made "unsupported and uninformed assumptions" that the changes it had imposed would allow an economically sustainable development.

It is asking the board to rectify that "serious deficiency".

It said the board gave no warning about the scale of changes the draft decision would demand, and said it was only fair that Mighty River Power and the other parties to the process should have a chance to meet again.

None of the 36 other submitters have had a chance to comment on Mighty River Power''s counter-proposal.

The board never formally closed its hearing in March last year, but only adjourned, which left the option open to reconvene, the energy company said.

But some of the other submitters are dazed at the prospect of the process dragging on for longer.

Mighty River Power has already significantly revised its proposal once, in 2009.

Mr Klein said the expense and the energy required to participate in the drawn-out process made it difficult, if not impossible, for "Joe Bloggs" to keep up.

"This is clearly designed to see if they can wear us down.

"Everybody is tired, and I understand some people don''t want to hear about it any more. But in the end this will affect everyone in New Zealand. It''s about how the Resource Management Act is being used, and how taxpayers are able to take part in the process."

Palmerston North City Council chief executive Paddy Clifford said he was not surprised that Mighty River Power wanted to include extra turbines and had asked for another hearing.

The process had already been a lengthy one, despite the "call-in" process in which the Government deemed a board of inquiry should hear the application, rather than the council. Part of the rationale was to speed up the process.

Mr Clifford had no indication how much extra time the request for another hearing extension would take to consider. An Environment Ministry spokesperson would not say when the board would release a final decision or resume the hearing.