Letter to the editor - Dec. 2, 2010

Turbine comment

The Whitman County Planner has asked for comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an industrial wind turbine development.

I have submitted to the county government the following response:

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Palouse Wind industrial wind turbine development ignores some very critical information.

The EIS should acknowledge the fact that industrial wind turbines produce great quantities of high-level, low frequency noise pollution.

The introduction of high levels of low frequency noise pollution into an environment containing the homes of families is an environmental impact and should be included in an environmental impact statement.

Ignoring the fact that the proposed Palouse Wind industrial wind turbine development will, if constructed, dump high levels of low frequency noise pollution onto nearby families is an act of malfeasance.

Due to its long wavelength, low frequency noise pollution travels far, easily penetrates walls, and can be amplified by the structure of a home.

Low frequency noise affects the inner ear, which, in turn, affects a number of brain functions.

One of these brain functions, which is triggered by the low frequency noise pollution of industrial wind turbines, prevents a person from sleeping. Lack of sleep leads to ill health.

Industrial wind turbines will produce an unhealthful environment for families that live near them.

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C.020) requires Whitman County “to use all practicable means to … assure for all people safe, healthful … surroundings.”

“To use all practicable means to … assure for all people safe, healthful … surroundings” is a duty imposed by law.

Can Whitman County assure for all people safe, healthful surroundings when it allows industrial wind turbines near homes?

NASA’s report Wind Turbine Acoustics by Harvey H. Hubbard and Kevin P. Shepherd is proof that homes near industrial wind turbines will receive high levels of low frequency noise pollution. See Exhibit A of my September 3, 2010 Comment on scope of EIS: Palouse Wind Project, Whitman County CUP 10-16.

Exhibit J of the above mentioned Comment on scope of EIS is Audiology Today’s cover story for July/August 2010 entitled Wind Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know. This peer reviewed report states that homes near industrial wind turbines receive “unweighted sound levels ranging from 60 to 70 dB Leq” (p. 24).

Exhibit F of the above mentioned Comment on scope of EIS is Wind Turbine Syndrome by Doctor Nina Pierpont. The Draft EIS dismisses Wind Turbine Syndrome on the grounds that Pierpont chose to commercially publish her findings rather than publish her work in a scientific journal (p. 3-192). The venue of publication is not a valid reason to ignore evidence.

Wind Turbine Syndrome is a scientific, peer reviewed report that cannot be flippantly brushed aside because Whitman County does not like its findings. A professional environmental impact statement would address the evidence given in the Wind Turbine Syndrome report.

Whitman County does not have the discretion to ignore evidence by falsely classifying it as not credible.

The large landowners of Whitman County have placed pressure on the county government to ignore the public health threat posed by industrial wind turbines. They know that a safe setback between industrial wind turbines and residential property will result in fewer turbines, which means fewer dollars.

James Madison in Federalist Paper Number 10 made it quite clear that it is of fundamental importance that the rights of the minority are not sacrificed to the financial interests of a powerful faction.

Will Whitman County produce an honest environmental impact statement that recognizes the public health threat that industrial wind turbines create for nearby residents?

Will Whitman County protect the rights of the individual?

Or, will Whitman County government promote the private interests of a few large landowners and force residents near industrial wind turbines to absorb the negative impacts of their neighbor’s land use decision?

Roger Whitten, Oakesdale