Regardless of whether the sickness is real, it is amazing these things can be built next to people's houses without just compensation. Simply the non stop noise would be more than enough to ensure you could never sell your house for even half of what you paid for it.
I used to think it's all nonsense and people just complaining about nothing, but now I have a wind turbine about 500m away from my house and I can absolutely hear it at night, just constant low frequency droning combined with a whooshing sound of the blades.
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.
It's different - I used to live next to major road, and yeah it was louder in intensity, for sure, but at least it would die down quite a lot during the night, and you'd only ocassionally get a car/motorbike with a loud exhaust passing by. This really bothers me because it's just constant and completely unchanging, I keep lying in bed and hearing the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh, whoosh.....with cars I'm just like ok, there was a loud motorbike but it's gone now. With a wind turbine I know it won't change, and either I have to get used to it or....well, move out I guess, and that sucks.
YMMV but I for the past few years I have been sleeping with Bose QuietComfort earbuds with active noise cancelling and they've significantly improved my life. Loud noises that would have woken me in the past are dampened enough that I can sleep through them, and annoying hums or whatever while traveling are just completely gone.
Yeah so actually I use my Sony WF-1000XM3 headphones often when falling asleep, or I just put on some rain sounds on my phone next to me - that's usually enough.
Interestingly I can not keep headphones on (in ear, over ear does not matter) as after a while I begin to experience discomfort and after 1-1.5 I go mad.
I live about half a mile from an expressway, and I can hear loud vehicles all night. My neighbor has a small pool with an aboveground pool filter than also hums all day. I’ve lived in condo buildings where you can hear a general “hum” of the city from down below.
Genuinely, should I not be hearing these things? Are the turbines dramatically different?
But I guess the expressway would already have been there when you bought the property?
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.
With good windows, you probably shouldn't hear them.
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).
Agree. Maybe they can put a wind turbine at 1km vs. 500m from an occupied residence, there's certainly enough open space for that in many of the turbine-heavy areas.
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.
We live in Seattle, right under the flight path for our major airport. I hate it, its annoying enough to wake me up at times; one benefit of the early pandemic was much-reduced air traffic.
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 guess it could an issue of people living in an area that is too quiet. I live close to a highway. If you would put up a wind turbine at 700 meters (distance mentioned in the article) then it would be impossible to hear it.
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.
Climate change cause real sickness (heat waves kill, for one) and my appartment in Paris has become unlivable for days, almost every summer now. Coal, oil and gas won't compensate me, for the price of my flat and the impact on my health either. This impact many more people than wind, so where should we start?
You could try to sue the government. In Poland there has been some celebrities suing the government for "refusing to take action against climate change" and they won some compensation which they officially sent towards charity.
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.
And cold impacts many more people than heat. Has climate change altered this statistic? I have no idea but to date, have seen no evidence that cold-related deaths have diminished in recent years.
'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.'
Heat waves kill fewer than in the past, by far. In 1911 a heat wave apparently killed 41,000 people in Paris. That couldn't have been due to CO2. It was due to lack of cheap, plentiful electricity and air conditioning.
now I think they can't be built less than 350 m from any house, and if they are in the 350 m to 500 m range they must be an impact study before approving the construction.
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.
One wonders if there isn't any issues why aren't these build in parks and other places in cities? Surely we should be green and make savings from shortened transmission distances...
Having camped underneath one briefly, I can tell you there is no way I could live with one nearby my house. It's an extremely low frequency noise with a huge amplitude. I can tolerate it for a while, but it really wears on me quickly. Also, earplugs & hearing protection do nothing to actually stop the noise. It isn't loud enough to cause ear damage anyways. But I can still hear it even with the hearing protection on.
If heard from people (in France) that some were even built in their village without permits, usually with the mayor buying agricultural land and getting a fat bonus that way; of course the owner living on the other side of the village, far from any potential impact.
I’m reading this amazing magazine that tells investigation stories through comics[1] (in French) and there’s a story about a number of farmers who have issues with their cows dying or refusing to sleep in the barn at night. And when the wind turbines are down for maintenance they have no problem. Apparently they were able to track this data and somewhat prove the link, I’m not sure what’s the status on that.
I found this interesting, in another related article:
"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."
>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:
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.
If you read the cited study, light flickering, “a sense of injustice” and noise-induced annoyance are the health effects. So actually not really health effects in the sense a normal person would recognize.
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.
An Oregon community has had a similar long-running battle over a wind farm (Williams v. Invenergy). Very depressing to see people driven from their homes by noise and spending years fighting for relief or compensation.
That unfortunately does not mean it’s not a real disorder. Just that science hasn’t accepted it. But scientists are just as infallible and biased as everyone else. As are the media which may choose to cover some science rigid viewpoints while conveniently ignoring others. See also the Wuhan lab leak theory.
It is said that wind sounds can drive people crazy. Some folklore even reports that it was sometimes considered a mitigating factor when judging crimes.
Cool, now can I get 100k for all the noise and health problems caused by the roads and fossil fuel power plants that are built around me? If this case could serve as a precedent for the existing and future health impacts of the harmful infrastructure we're forced to live with it could be a useful tool for tackling climate change but somehow that seems unlikely...
I would imagine it's a matter of "who was there first". If you buy a house next to an airport and then try and complain to get the airport shut down, no, you shouldn't get any compensation.
If you buy a house and then they start to build an airport, yes you should get compensation
57 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadLike, 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.'
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/627630
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.
[1]: https://www.larevuedessinee.fr/
"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