Learning from Evidence of Sound Experienced from Wind Turbines

William K.G. (Bill) Palmer

trileaem@bmts.com TRI-LEA-EM RR 5 Paisley, ON N0G 2N0

Presented to Canadian Acoustical Association Acoustics Week in Canada - Oct. 2011

Good Afternoon, Convention

Oct 13,2011 to CAA

Its a privilege to speak to you this afternoon regarding lessons learned from evidence-based science about wind turbines. My name is William Palmer.

Introduction - Outline
A problem exists for Acoustical Professionals Many are bound by P. Eng. or similar obligations, to report a situation that an engineer believes may endanger the safety or welfare of the public. You hear a lot that there is no data to show wind turbines cause health problems This presentation will review data from 2-2011 acoustical conferences and ongoing research that suggests a different conclusion

Acoustical Professionals face a challenge. Many are bound by the obligations such as that of the Professional Engineers, to report a situation that an engineer believes may endanger the safety or welfare of the public. We must act within the bounds of our professional training and experience, and not stray into areas in which we have neither qualification nor competence. At the same time, we must have our blinders off, to recognize research being done by other professionals, and ensure that our work takes into account the lessons others have learned, and would have us know. We are witnessing a full-court press to tell us that wind turbines do not cause health problems, from many sides. One learns that when assertions of there is no problem are shouted louder, it usually means just the opposite. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and there certainly is a haze over the truth here. This presentation will review relevant material from the Wind Turbine Noise Conference held this April in Rome, Italy, and from the 161st Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America held in May of this year, in Seattle, and will link findings from those two conferences to work that I have been involved with, to hopefully clear the haze.

The Problem
In tabling the Ontario Green Energy Act, the Minister of Energy stated that a European epidemiological study showed there was no health hazard from wind turbines and there was no need to do more study. This study is quoted in the industry review used by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health to say, There is no evidence of harm. The principal author of the study was asked about this. The reply of Dr. Eja Pedersen was, You tell them in Ontario they are wrong. We only did a small part of the study and want more research done. A mismatch?

This is the problem we face. When the former Minister of Energy of Ontario tabled the Ontario Green Energy Act, he stated that a European epidemiological study showed there was no health hazard from wind turbines, and that there was no need to do further study. The Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health quotes items from the same European study, to show there is no evidence of wind turbines producing harm. Yet, when the principal author of the quoted European study was asked publicly at the 2009 International Wind Turbine Noise Conference if she had any comment that the Minister of Energy of Ontario said her study showed there was no further need to do research on wind turbines and health effects, the reply Dr. Eja Pedersen gave the delegates of the Conference was clear. You can tell them in Ontario they were wrong. We only did a small piece of the study, and we want to see a larger study conducted. This is the mismatch we face.

What is known?
Dr. Michael Nissenbaum studied health effects of 39 living within 1400 m of wind turbines, and compared the results with 41 living 3300 to 7000 m from wind turbines. He found the majority of those near turbines suffered headaches, sleep disturbance, and were prescribed new medications. Ontario ERT said, further research needed before reliable quantification of future harm can be made - evidence shows there are risks and uncertainties hopes future debate focuses on appropriate standards But no research into standards is ongoing.

It is true that no smoking gun has been shown to link the sound produced by wind turbines and direct health effects. That is because NO ONE has done the rigorous epidemiological research needed to study people living near wind turbines, to compare their mortality with others living away from wind turbines. But, what do we know? Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has studied the differences in health effects between a group of 39 people living with wind turbines within 1400 metres of their home, and a group of 41 people living from 3300 to 7000 metres from wind turbines to their homes. The results of this study showing adverse effects on those near turbines were presented to the Kent-Breeze Environmental Review Tribunal. The Tribunal considered that further research would be necessary before reliable quantification of future harm at a given site can be made. However, the Tribunal concluded, Evidence shows that there are some risks and uncertainties associated with wind turbines that merit further research. Meantime, still no one is doing the detailed epidemiological research to determine appropriate standards, as more wind turbines are built, and citizens become unwitting test cases. The Enbridge Wind Power Environmental Noise Assessment identified 158 homes having a sound level of 37 dBA or higher with wind speeds of 6 metres per second. In the last 12 months there have been 3 deaths due to sudden cardiac events of residents of those homes, male and female ranging in age from their 30s 50s and 60s, at a frequency twice the Canadian national average. 4

Findings from WTN 2011 and ASA 161 Conferences

Greg Tocci - need direct clinical evidence to move from annoyance to health effect, noted ongoing work in Europe on burden of disease from environmental noise. Wind turbines produce distinctive sound D. Bowdler (UK), M. Hunt (NZ) Sound levels in hospital at level same as from wind turbines elevates blood pressure, respiration rate, heart rate (Hsu, Ryherd, Ackerman, Persson-Waye)

Tocci at the May 2011 Acoustical Society of America Conference noted the requirement of direct clinical evidence to move sound from a category of annoyance to that of a health effect. He commented this had resulted in a 30-year period of benign neglect of sound in the US, even though work is in progress in Europe sponsored by the World Heath Organization with regard to the burden of disease from environmental noise. Evidence presented at the 2011 Wind Turbine Noise Conference by Bowdler from the UK, and Hunt from New Zealand showed that wind turbines produce a distinctive sound, not matched by other sounds in the environment. Evidence from medical researchers in the USA (Hsu and Ryherd) and Sweden (Persson-Waye) showed that sound levels at the intensity experienced by people at approved setbacks from wind turbines produces direct and adverse impacts on blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration rate.

Findings (continued +1)

Sleep researchers, Chris Hanning (UK) and Jo Solet (USA) independently showed annoyance from sleep disruption can result in delayed sleep onset, recalled awakening, and repetitive non-recalled arousals for < 30 sec. leading to fatigue, decreased performance, increased accident rates, cardio vascular impacts, and diabetes Ear physiology researcher Alec Salt (USA) showed physiological link between response of the ear to low frequency sound unrelated to audibility impacting fluid in inner ear. Threshold of hearing curves are not adequate to determine impact on health.
The link between wind turbine sound and sleep disruption was noted by Hanning from the UK, van den Berg from the Netherlands, and Shepherd from New Zealand at the Wind Turbine Noise Conference, as well as by Solet from the USA at the ASA Conference. Qualified sleep researchers from the United Kingdom (Hanning) and the United States (Solet) independently presented evidence that the annoyance of sleep disruption can result in delayed sleep onset, recalled awakening, and perhaps most importantly, in repetitive nonrecalled arousals. They stated these could have adverse impacts of fatigue, decreased performance, increased accident rates, cardiovascular impacts, and diabetes. Research by Salt of the USA showed a clear physiological link between the response of the ear and low frequency sound that has nothing to do with audibility. Threshold of hearing curves are not adequate to determine impact on health.

Findings (continued +2)

Psychoacoustical linkage between soundscape and annoyance established George Luz showed 1 in 5 persons have heightened noise sensitivity, which does not decrease over time, but may increase Need to identify special characteristics of sound, not just level as quality impacts annoyance. Like measuring soup by temperature but not flavour - do we savour, or spit it out? Persson-Waye (2009) noted that cyclical quality of sound makes it far more annoying - Yet some regulations do not address cyclical sound quality

A number of presenters discussed the psychoacoustic linkage between the Soundscape and annoyance. Luz of the USA presented a tutorial showing that noise sensitivity (about 1 in 5 people) does not decrease over time, while it may increase. Solet of the USA quoted Brigitte Shulte-FortKamp, Vice President of the Acoustical Society of America, that assessing sound by decibels alone is like assessing soup by temperature alone! It fails to describe the sensory experience - do you savor or want to spit it out? The quality of sound is particularly important, in particular the cyclical quality as noted by Persson-Waye of Sweden making it far more annoying and yet some wind turbine regulations, as in Ontario fail to address cyclical sound quality, and deal only with tonal quality.

Findings (continued +3)

Richarz showed auto-correlation of measured wind turbine sounds exhibits distinct, periodic low-frequency pulses McCabe identified levels of amplitude modulation (cyclical pattern) with a particular day-night pattern, more noticeable at night Di Napoli showed strong amplitude modulation (cyclical pattern), and that it did not decrease as fast with distance as thought Lundmark showed why (disruptive) wind turbine sound could not be compared with (calming) beach noise or waterfalls

The two conferences identified a number of ways in which the sound from wind turbines are unique, and how the particular characteristics of the sound make wind turbines more annoying (which might increase the noise sensitivity and adverse health effects.) ! Ricarz. our moderator, showed that auto-correlation of measured wind turbine sounds exhibit distinct, periodic low frequency pulses. ! McCabe, who just spoke here, identified elevated levels of amplitude modulation at WTN 2011 with a particular day-night pattern, being more noticeable at night, noting it might explain why wind turbines are more annoying than other sources. ! Finnish researcher di Napoli showed strong amplitude modulation from turbines and that it is not possible to conclude that amplitude modulation decreases as fast as thought with distance by propagation models. ! Swedish researcher Lundmark showed it was not possible to compare wind turbine sound to beach noise or waterfalls, and outlined why turbines were disruptive, not calming.

Personal Research Relates

Performed digitized sound recordings at Ontario wind power development, sites all in similar environment, similar wind conditions, at approved distances, twice approved distance, and at ~ 10 times approved distance, over 250 data sets, all seasons of year Each set of recordings performed within 2 hour interval so environmental conditions of wind, and turbine output conditions are very similar Performed FFT analysis to determine sound levels by frequency - to accurately compare readings Analysed findings from proponent provided data

From this grounding, I will proceed to present some highlights of work that I have been carrying out. The results I will present have been gathered by collecting digital sound recordings of sound in the Enbridge Ontario Wind Power Development in Bruce County. Details of the manner of collecting the data are provided in the references given in the text of my paper.

Location of Measurements

This slide shows the locations of the sample points relative to the wind turbines on a section of the Atlas of Canada national Topographic map. You can see: ! all sample points are in a very similar environment, with no relevant contour elevation differences, similar proximity to forested areas and roadways. The differences between the same points are the proximity of turbines. 2 sample points are within about 450 m of the nearest turbine, 2 more within about 620 m, 1 at just over 1 km, and 1 at about 5 km from the nearest turbine. ! some 250 sets of data were recorded, with each set of samples at points within about 2 hours from first to last, to avoid changes in turbine output and wind speed.

10

No Turbines Operating

This slide shows the case when no turbines were operating taken during a maintenance outage of the turbines. You can see that all locations are within +/- 3dB of the mean, shown in blue.

11

Turbines Operating - 0% Power

This slide, turbines operating at 0% - just synchronized, shows that the sound level at the remote site is unchanged, or possibly even a bit lower than the no turbine mean, still shown on this chart in blue. Meantime, the sound levels at the sites within 450 and 620 m from the nearest turbine had increased by 20 dB over the remote site for all frequencies below 1000 Hz.

12

Turbines Operating - 25% Power

This slide, turbines operating at 25% power shows little increase in the sound level from the 0 power case, which shows that the people living near wind turbines suffer the same at any time the turbines are operating, even though at very low power.

13

Turbines Operating - 88% Power

This slide at 88% full output was taken on a windy wintry day, with wind speeds at ground level measured at about 8 m/sec. Yes, the background noise level increases even at the remote site by about 10 dB above the no turbine curve. However, the noise level at the sites near turbines rises by about 30 dB above the no turbine curve, and stays some 20 dB above the remote site for all frequencies below 1000 Hz.

14

Conclusions from Data Recording

Without turbines, all sites showed the same sound levels, within + / - 3 dB of mean Confirms similar environmental conditions When turbines operating, even at very low power, sound level stays same as no turbine mean at site 5000 m from turbines, increases by 20 dB at sites near turbines for frequencies below 1000 Hz. As ground level wind speed increases, see 10 dB increase in noise at remote site, but sites near turbines stay 20 dB higher than remote site at frequencies below 1000 Hz, and rise 10 dB higher than the remote site at frequencies above 1000 Hz

In conclusion from the data recording: ! without turbines, all sites showed the same sound levels within +/- 3 dB of their mean ! this confirms that the similar environmental conditions apply at all the sites ! When turbines are operating, even at very low power, sound levels stay the same at the no turbine mean at the site 5000 m from the nearest turbine, but increase by 20 dB for all frequencies below 1000 Hz at approved sites near the turbines. ! As ground level wind speed increases to 8 m/sec, there is a 10 dB increase in noise at the remote site, but sites near the turbines increase by 30 dB, and stay 20 dB higher than the remote site at frequencies below 1000 Hz.

15

Frequency Modulation
Observed 3 to 5 dB modulation of amplitude and cyclic frequency variability, increases noticeability

This chart shows that evidence also identified frequency and amplitude modulation changes in the sound from wind turbines, which make them even more noticeable. Taking FFT plots from for 5-second intervals for one of the higher power examples, a 3 to 5 dB modulation in amplitude and cyclic frequency variation could be seen. The 16 Hz frequency starts low in amplitude, then increases, and falls again over the 30 second interval, while the 125 Hz signal starts high in amplitude, falls, and then rises again. The sound level at low frequencies is exhibiting the same pattern as a European police siren designed to make them more noticeable.

16

Examining Proponent Data

Homeowner complaining of sleep disruption Consultant monitored sound for ~ 150 days, made recording when sound level crossed threshold, reviewed about a dozen recordings
Heard traffic, birds, wind, lawnmower Did not hear wind turbines

BUT - complaint was not sleeping at night, when traffic is low, birds infrequent, and not mowing lawn! - Suspect peak recordings not at night! Selected data for midnight, plotted sound levels, discarded (few) cases with Leq > L90 +6 dBA (traffic),10 metre wind speed, and turbine output Examined for correlations

To keep from the criticism that all my data was fudged by using my instrumentation, I elected to also investigate using the sound measurements provided by the acoustical consultant of the proponent to a homeowner who had filed complaints about the noise at his home since the Enbridge wind power project had come into operation. ! he was complaining of sleep disruption, had been prescribed sleeping pills by his doctor, had seen his blood pressure increase to need medication, and was experiencing dizzy spells. ! the consultant monitored the sound for about 150 days, and produced a recording whenever the noise level crossed a threshold. ! the report of the consultant said they had reviewed about a dozen of the recordings, and had heard traffic noise, birds, the wind, and a lawnmower, but not wind turbines. ! this put me to wondering, the complainant was not sleeping at night, when traffic is low, when birds are infrequent, and certainly not when he was mowing his lawn. It made me suspect that the peak recordings studied were not at night.

17

Resorting Proponent Monitoring

From the proponent data I extracted the sound level Leq and L90 at midnight, and examined them. A few of the readings showed Leq > L90 + 6 dB, suggesting that something transient had occurred in the hour like a car pass. However, the vast majority of the cases had Leq within 6 dB of L90. I eliminated the higher sound level cases that look like they were exhibiting transient cases and just plotted the 115 or so cases showing no obvious transient. These were plotted with the 10-metre monitoring wind speed provided by the proponent and the IESO provided array power output for the midnight hour. Here is the resulting plot.

18

Correlations from Proponent Data

Poor correlation of sound levels to 10 metre wind speeds - the annoyance is NOT the wind Strong correlation from sound level to turbine output at midnight - annoyance IS the turbines Predicted value of 36.7 dBA for 6 m/sec 10 metre wind, was exceeded ~ 50% of time Sound level noticeably higher than predicted (3 dBA) about 25% of time Concluded that for sites with predicted sound levels near 40 dBA, can reasonably expect to be 3 dBA above regulatory limit 25% of the time. Still awaiting response from Ministry - formally submitted 40 weeks ago.
! there is poor correlation of sound levels to the 10 metre wind speeds the annoyance is NOT just from the wind ! there is a strong correlation from sound levels to turbine output at midnight the annoyance is strongly linked to the turbine output ! sound level was above the predicted level of 36.7 dBA for wind speeds of 6 m/sec over 50% of the time ! Sound levels were noticeably higher 3 dBA or more, about 25% of the time at midnight. ! Since this site was not one of the higher predicted value sites, it was a reasonable conclusion that at the sites with a predicted sound level near 40 dBA, it can be expected to be 3 dBA or more above the regulatory limit about 25% of the time at midnight.

19

Overall Conclusions
No detailed health assessment has been done Initial assessments show:
Sound level above predicted values Sound level observed results in increase in BP, respiration rate, heart rate Sound level observed results in sleep disruption Sleep disruption results in annoyance, leadings to cardiovascular impacts, diabetes, accidents Response of ear to sound has nothing to do with audibility 1 in 5 annoyed, does not decrease over time, may increase Sound level at approved sites 20 dB higher at all frequencies below 1000 Hz, any times turbines operating, cyclical in amplitude and frequency

Overall Conclusions of this Study: ! no detailed health assessment has been done by any jurisdiction to show evidence of or lack of a health effect from wind turbines, yet initial assessments show O adverse health effects are seen in small scale epidemiological studies comparing people living near or distant from wind turbines O sound levels are above predicted values approximately 50% of the time O sound level at predicted levels results in increase in blood pressure, respiration rate, and heart rate O sound levels at the predicted values do result in sleep disruption O sleep disruption leads to annoyance, cardio-vascular impacts, diabetes, and accidents O the response of the ear to sound has nothing to do with audibility O 1 in 5 are annoyed by sound, this does not decrease over time, and may well increase O sound level at sites approved by regulators is 20 dB higher at all frequencies up to 1000 Hz any time turbines are operating O turbines produce a sound level cyclical in amplitude and frequency modulation

20

Parting Thoughts
There are very real reasons for complaints To continue to ignore the concerns identified while siting wind turbines by the current Ontario regulations would seem to be imprudent, if not negligent. Thank you for your attention

! There are very real reasons for complaints. ! To continue to ignore the concerns identified while siting wind turbines by the current Ontario regulations would seem to be imprudent, if not negligent. * Thank you for your attention.

21