Cape Bridgewater: Shirley Wind
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TOWN OF FOREST PAUL D. SCHOMER, Ph.D. ON IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHIRLEY STUDY
Q. Please state your name, employer, and business address.
A. Paul D. Schomer, Schomer and Associates Inc., 2117 Robert Drive, Champaign, Illinois, 61821.
Q. Have you previously filed testimony in this docket?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony today?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to report the findings of the Shirley Wind Farm study that I performed with four (4) other acousticians which was completed and signed by all the scientists on December 21, 2012.
Q. What was the purpose of that study?
A. The study was a collaborative effort funded by the PSC, Forest Voice and the Town of Forest to attempt to measure levels of infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm for the purpose of correlating health impacts experienced by the three (3) Shirley families that have abandoned their homes and to make recommendations to the PSC with respect to the implications of the Highland Project.
Q. Did you confirm the presence of low-frequency sound in the testing at the three residences?
A. Yes. The testing conclusively showed very low-frequency infrasound beginning at the blade passage frequency of about 0.5 to 0.7 Hz (more typically 0.7 Hz) and harmonic tones at multiples of 0.7 Hz (i.e., 1.4, 2.1, 2.8, 3.5, 4.2, 4.9, etc.). The energies generally die away above 8 Hz.
Q. The joint report indicates that more research at Shirley is needed. What do you recommend?
A. My first recommendation would be to seek the cooperation of Duke Energy which has the ability to turn the turbines on and off. This will help clearly identify the infrasound coming from the turbines and should be used to test the assertion by the affected residents that they can sense the turbines turning on and off.
Q. Is there any other research you feel is appropriate?
A. Yes. It would be relatively easy to conduct an experiment by first exposingresidents who are more sensitive to wind turbine noise to low-frequency noise in a laboratory setting. If this testing produces results that duplicate those found in Shirley, then field testing would be conducted using volunteers.
Q. Is it important that sound be heard for it to be hazardous to your health?
A. No. Similar to the experiences at Shirley, refereed research by Dr. Alec N. Salt has established that infrasound can be hazardous to your health whether it can be heard or not (Exhibit 15). Like at Shirley, the low-frequency infrasound is "sensed" but not heard.
Q. What are your final conclusions from your study at Shirley and your knowledge of the design of the Highland Wind Farm?
A. It is my opinion that the residents living near the Shirley project are experiencing the adverse health effects of very low-frequency infrasound generated by the 2.5 MW turbines in the project. The physical reactions to infrasound are well-known and have been occurring at other low-frequency infrasound sites since the 1980s or earlier, as I have testified previously. It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that if the Highland project is approved as designed, it is very likely that a significant number of nearby residents will suffer the same adverse health problems as those in Shirley.
Sections taken from Docket No. 2535-CE-100 Received 1.10.2013
Shirley wind turbine noise study shows need for EIS
Author: Schomer, Paul
Translate: to English | to other
The Town of Forest requested that we respond to the Supplemental Environmental Assessment’s conclusion of “no significant impact” to the environment based upon the recent Shirley Wind Farm study. It is my opinion that the Shirley Wind Study does show the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the reasons outlined below …
In summary, the Shirley study added considerably to the knowledge base of why some people leave their homes when mega wind turbines are built nearby and requires an Environmental Impact Study to assess the costs and benefits of such a project. I give this opinion for the following reasons:
First, the Wind Industry has continually denied that wind turbines produce any LFN. This study showed that it does. At R-2 it was measured as clearly as if the turbine had left a fingerprint on the inside of the house.
Second, the Shirley study fully and completely corroborates Falmouth and fills the knowledge gap suggested by the MA study which was a literature review, not a hands-on field study. There is no reason to corroborate it again.
Third, the measurement of ultra low frequencies produced by mega turbines such as those at Shirley and proposed for Highland are the key to avoiding significant impacts to human health from wind turbines. As the Minnesota study concludes, the low frequencies must be studied further as part of the project planning. In the case of Forest, this study of the low frequency isopleths must be a part of an in-depth EIS, or the project must be redesigned with smaller turbines that are not likely to precipitate such severe health problems that people have no choice but to abandon their homes. These are precisely the studies that we recommended in our Shirley report and the EIS is a perfect way to obtain the information before the project is built.
Fourth, the record as a whole in this case as well as the literature and case studies all over the world have suggested that people are leaving their homes because they are being exposed to significant levels of pulsating ultra low frequency sound produced by wind turbines. In addition there is no question that larger turbines produce more infrasound below 1 hertz which increases the likelihood that health problems will occur unless noise limits are dramatically reduced through the use of smaller turbines or lower noise limits are required at each house. To conclude that the Highland project will have no significant impact to the human environment and that no further study is needed in the face of people leaving their homes on an identical project is wishful thinking and in my opinion will be proven to be wrong if the project is built as designed.
Paul Schomer, PhD, PE
Member; Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control
February 8, 2013
Review of the Cape Bridgewater acoustic testing program and where it is leading
Author: Schomer, Paul; and Hessler, George
Translate: to English | to other
Recently [Steve Cooper, The Acoustic Group,] has completed a first of its kind test regarding the acoustical emissions of wind turbines. His is the first study of effects on people that includes a cooperating windfarm operator in conjunction with a researcher that does not work exclusively for windfarms. This study makes three very simple points:
There is at least one non-visual, non-audible pathway for wind turbine emissions to reach, enter, and affect some people
This is a longitudinal study wherein the subjects record in a diary regularly as a function of time the level of the effects they are experiencing at that time
This periodic recording allows for responses as the wind-turbine power changes up and down, changes not known by the subject
The results are presented in a 218 page report augmented by 22 appendices spread over 6 volumes so that every single detail in the study has been documented for all to see and examine. The methods and results are totally transparent. The 22 appendices and the main text exhaustively document everything involved with this study.
Six subjects, 3 couples from different homes are the participants in this study. They do not represent the average resident in the vicinity of a wind farm. Rather, they are self-selected as being particularly sensitive and susceptible to wind farm acoustic emissions, so much so that one couple has abandoned their house. Cooper finds that these six subjects are able to sense attributes of the wind turbine emissions without there being an audible or visual stimulus present. More specifically, he finds that the subject responses correlate with the wind turbine power being generated but not with either the sound or vibration.
Although the very nature of a longitudinal study provides for a finding of cause and effect, some will undoubtedly argue that a correlation does not show cause and effect. In this case they must postulate some other thing like an unknown “force” that simultaneously causes the wind turbine power being generated and symptoms such as nausea, vertigo, and headaches to change up and down together. But that is the kind of “creative” logic it takes to say that this correlation does not represent cause-and-effect. So, rather than making such groundless arguments, perhaps something like an “expert statistical analysis” can be expected “proving” this is not a “valid sample” of the public at large, or proving the study does not do something else it was never intended to do.
So it is important to sort out what, by design, this study was intended to do and does do, and what, by design, it was not intended to do and does not do. This study is not in any way a sample of the general population nor is it in any way a sample of the general population in the vicinity of windfarms. According to Cooper’s report, this study was intended to address the issue of complaints from residents in the vicinity of Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm. Pacific Hydro requested the conduct of an acoustic study at 3 residential properties to ascertain any identifiable noise impacts of the wind farm operations or certain wind conditions that could relate to the complaints that had been received. The study was to incorporate three houses that are located between 650 m and 1600 m from the nearest turbine. This research represents a case study at 3 houses, each with one couple, 6 people. This is one sample, and only one sample, of a small group of people who are all self-selected as being very or extremely sensitive to wind turbine acoustic emissions. A similar group could be assembled elsewhere such as in Shirley Wisconsin, USA or Ontario Canada.
This study finds that these 6 people sense the operation of the turbine(s) via other pathways than hearing or seeing, and that the adverse reactions to the operations of the wind turbine(s) correlates directly with the power output of the wind turbine(s) and fairly large changes in power output.
Attempts may be made to obfuscate these simple points with such arguments as it cannot be proved that infrasound is the cause of the discomfort. But that again is a specious argument. The important point here is that something is coming from the wind turbines to affect these people and that something increases or decreases as the power output of the turbine increases or decreases. Denying infra-sound as the agent accomplishes nothing. It really does not matter what the pathway is, whether it is infra-sound or some new form of rays or electromagnetic field coming off the turbine blades. If the turbines are the cause, then the windfarm is responsible and needs to fix it. Anyone who truly doubts the results should want to replicate this study using independent acoustical consultants[1] at some other wind farm, such as Shirley Wisconsin, USA, where there are residents who are self-selected as being very or extremely sensitive to wind turbine acoustic emissions.[2]
Some may ask, this is only 6 people, why is it so important? The answer is that up until now windfarm operators have said there are no known cause and effect relations between windfarm emissions and the response of people living in the vicinity of the windfarm other than those related to visual and/or audible stimuli, and these lead to some flicker which is treated, and “some annoyance with noise.” This study proves that there are other pathways that affect some people, at least 6. The windfarm operator simply cannot say there are no known effects and no known people affected. One person affected is a lot more than none; the existence of just one cause-and-effect pathway is a lot more than none. It only takes one example to prove that a broad assertion is not true, and that is the case here. Windfarms will be in the position where they must say: “We may affect some people.” And regulators charged with protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry will not be able to say they know of no adverse effects. Rather, if they choose to support the windfarm, they will do so knowing that they may not be protecting the health and welfare of all the citizenry.
http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/pacific-hydro-releases-cape-bridgewater-wind-farm-acoustic-study/
http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/english/our-communities/communities/cape-bridgewater-acoustic-study-report/?language=en
[1] Independent Consultants are those who have worked for both industry and communities, and or have espoused the need for research to sort out the issues of people reacting to non-audible non-visual stimuli.
[2] Cooper’s test shows cause and effect for at least one non-visual, no-audible pathway to affect people. If one only wanted to test for the ability to sense the turning on of wind turbines, and not replicate the cause and effect portion of Cooper’s study, this reduced test could be accomplished in one to two months with a cooperative windfarm where there are residents who are self-selected as being very or extremely sensitive to wind turbine acoustic emissions and who also assert that they have this sensing ability. This study, a subset of the full Cooper tests, would only prove, again, that non-visual, non-auditory pathways exist by which wind turbine emissions may affect the body and “signal” the brain.
Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
Standards Director, Acoustical Society of America
George Hessler
Hessler Associates, Inc.
10 February 2015
Download original document: “Review of the Cape Bridgewater acoustic testing program and where it is leading”
(sections from EXPERT STATEMENT OF RICHARD JAMES before the PSC submitted 04/15/16
Sent to Public Service Commission on March 17, 2015
I have conducted a review of the findings of the Cooper Cape Bridgewater study and have confirmed that it supports the findings of the studies conducted at Shirley Wind. As a reference point, the Cape Bridgewater study ranks the severity of the infrasound for each test home and test period by summing the energy of the wind turbine tones and harmonics in the infrasonic frequency range. This sum is called the Wind Turbine Signature (WTS). While the studies of the Shirley wind turbine infrasound did not use that term, the concept of summing the energy of the tones was similar in both. There were some differences in how the energy was analyzed. However, I have worked with Mr. Cooper to compare his study findings to mine.
In Shirley Wind sound pressure levels of the WTS of 51 and higher are associated with severe levels of sensation and adverse health effects leading to families leaving their homes. In the Australian study, Sensation Level 5 was associated with strong sensations that could lead to one abandoning a home. In fact, in Cooper’s study, three of the test homes have been vacated since the end of his field study last summer. The tones found in the homes close to the Shirley Wind towers are at or above the Sensation 5 threshold both by my measurements and the testimony of the home owners.
Based on the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the adverse health effects reported by members of the Shirley community are linked to the operation of the Shirley Wind project wind turbines. While there may still be debate about the precise mechanism that causes these sounds to induce the symptoms; it is clear from this study, the Cape Bridgewater Study in Australia, and others conducted in different parts of the world by other acousticians, that acoustic energy emitted by the operation of modern utility scale wind turbines is at the root of the adverse health effects.
Sincerely,
E-Coustic Solutions Richard R. James, INCE
Exhibit B-15-03-16 RJames Letter to PSC Commissioners re ILFN and AHE.pdf
