Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Saturday, August 09, 2014

Somerset County: Now Hear This!

Some Locations, Sources, and/or Reports
that have (are recommending, or are considering)
1± Mile (1500± m) Setbacks from Wind Turbines

1. 10,000 m (6.2 miles) exclusion zone recommended (page 90 of this Scottish report).
2. 10,000 m called for by a prominent physician (with many references: 2011).
3. 5,000 m (3.1 miles). This French study concluded “wind turbines must not be sited less than 5 km from all habitation, because of the risks produced by infrasound.”
4. 3,219 m (2 miles): to properly address infrasound. This is found in an outstanding study done by the town of Heath, Massachusetts (2013)
5. 3,219 m to a rural home – Umatilla County, Oregon (2011)
6. 3,219 m from a residential development - Riverside, California
7. 3,000 m for turbines taller than 150 m – Wiltshire, UK (2012)
8. 3,000 m proposed as national standard in Poland (2014)
9. 2,600 m (1.6 miles) going from 2000 m: examining increasing the recommended distance between wind farms and the nearest town or village: Scotland (2013)
10. 2,414 m (1.5 miles) from property lines – Catarunk, Maine (2011)
11. 2,414 m – Moscow, Maine (2011)
12. 2,414 m - recommendation of Dr. Amanda Harry (British physician) (2007)
13. 2,253 m (1.4 miles) Planning Minister: Wind turbines should not be less than 1.4 miles from people’s homes (Lincolnshire, UK: 2012)
14. 2,100 m for 3MW recommended in Denmark (2011)
15. 2,010 m (1.25 miles) recommended by this European Human Rights study
16. 2,010 m – Woodstock, Maine (2013). 
17. 2,000 m advised by Noise & Health Journal study: “setback distances need to be greater than 2 km in hilly terrain”.
18. 2,000 m – Retexo (a wind energy consultant) advisory (2014)
19. 2,000 m – by Director of Finland’s Ministry of Health (2014)
20. 2,000 m from the nearest residence – Haut-Richelieu, Quebec (2012)
21. 2,000 m from a home and 1 km of a road in the Haut-Saint-Laurent, in the Montérégie, Quebec (2013)
22. 2,000 m to habitations, and 5,000 m from 21 named agglomerations – Victorian Government, Australia
23. 2,000 m from existing homes proposed in New South Wales, Australia (2011)
24. 2,000 m – Queensland, Australia (2011)
25. 2,000 m restriction: Cambridgeshire, UK (2013)
26. 2,000 m away from housing in Scotland (2013)
27. 2,000 m turbine setback bill debated by British House of Lords (2011)
28. 2,000 m turbine setback advocated by Party of Wales/ Plaid Cymru (2010)
29. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Montville, Maine (2009)
30. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Buckfield, Maine (2010)
31. 1,900 m was the distance that this scientific study found that residents still “expressed annoyance.” (2003)
32. 1,770 m - Fayette County, Pennsylvania (2008)
33. 1,609 m (1 mile) from non-participating property lines - Sumner, Maine (2013)
34. 1,609 m from inhabited structures - Trempealeau County, Wisc. (2007)
35. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines - Frankfort, Maine (2011)
36. 1,609 m buffer zone to homes - Hillsdale County, Michigan (2011)
37. 1,609 m from the nearest existing residence, school, church, hospital, place of employment or public library - Madison County, Idaho (2011)
38. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines - Carteret County, NC (2014)
39. 1,609 m buffer recommended - Acoustical Society of America (2010)
40. 1,609 m (1 to 1.5 mile) - UK Noise Association (2006)
41. 1,524 m from non-participating property lines - Town of Newport, NC (2014) 
42. 1,500 m in an environment characterized by a 35 DB ambient noise level Germany
43. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x height) - The little Isle of Anglesey, UK (2012)
44. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x height) - Ellis County, Kansas (2009)
45. 1,500 m Acoustical Ecology Institute Special Report on Wind Energy Noise Impacts (pp 3-4) (2009)
46. 1,500 m recommended by French National Academy of Medicine (2006)
47. 1,500 m recommended by North Carolina State Health Director (2012)
48. 1,500 m larger buffer zones needed in Wales (2012)
49. 1,500 m sleep expert warns of effects of wind turbines (2012)

Thanks for the helpful information on this site.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, the same noise is broadcast through the water to Marine life. I wonder if this source has any info on that. Sounds to me like fisheries would be destroyed by offshore windmills.

Anonymous said...

It would be completely nuts to try to put a wind farm in a residential area.

Anonymous said...

There are no absolute decision makers anymore.How hard can just do it or don't do it be?

Anonymous said...

Sounds great. They will pick the smallest distance (most dangerous for humans) and build away.

Anonymous said...

Industrial development belongs in an industrial zone.
Wind turbines also require additional setbacks for wildlife kill zones and noise limits that allow people to sleep at night (35dba).
It appears a mile is too close when the turbines are more than 500' tall.

Anonymous said...

Save Somerset County -- Stop Them Before It's Blowin' In The Wind!

Anonymous said...

Put them in the Commissioners' yards. They have been paid well for supporting them.